1952-05-13

Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add a few words to the statement I made respecting the accident to the Burlington bridge.
A meeting was held in Ottawa today between the acting minister of highways for Ontario, the Hon. George Dunbar, and myself, and it was agreed that the first step in connection with the solution of the replacement of the Burlington canal bridge, which was wrecked by the steamer W. Fitzgerald on April 29, would be the replacement of the structure with a temporary non-movable bridge which would be started and carried to completion as early as possible.
Preceding this it will be necessary to remove the wrecked bridge, which work will be started immediately. It is expected that the removal of the wrecked bridge and the construction of the temporary bridge will be completed within the period of a month.
This is the first step in connection with what might be called the solution of the joint navigation and traffic problem.



QUESTION AS TO PRICE ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Major (Glengarry):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the Ontario cheese producers marketing board accepted the minister's offer of assistance in the sale of cheese under the agricultural co-operative marketing legislation of 1939? If the offer is not accepted by the Ontario cheese producers marketing board, is the minister ready to make recommendations that the government support cheese?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have bad no further communications from the cheese producers in Ontario, so I am not in a position to say whether or not they intend to accept
the suggestions which were made. I am discussing the question with council tomorrow, but I am not in a position to say what the results of that discussion will be.

The house resumed, from Monday, May 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fournier (Hull) for committee of supply.



FLOOR PRICES FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS

Mr. P. E. Wrighl (Melfori):: When the house rose last night at eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker, we were discussing the matter of floor prices under agricultural products, and dealing more particularly with the floor prices relating to animal products and their decline as a result of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. I was discussing also what measures the government was taking with regard to that. I had pointed out that when this floor price legislation was introduced in 1944 the minister had made certain promises to the house and to the agricultural industry, concerning the basis on which those floor prices were to be established. I had gone on to point out that in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of the agriculture industry, these floor prices are too low, and that even these inadequate floor prices are not being paid the farmers, owing to the failure of the purchasers of farm products to co-operate fully with the government in maintaining them.
I should like to place certain figures on the record with respect to the adequacy or otherwise of these floor prices and whether or not they really cover the cost of production of agricultural products. Anyone who understands agriculture will agree that there are three or four main cost items entering into it. First, there is the cost of living of the farm family; second, the wages paid; third, the cost of farm machinery, and finally, farm taxes. I think probably those are the four main costs in connection with agricultural products.
With regard to farm living costs, I have in my hand the Canadian Statistical Review for April, 1952. At page 22 It indicates that in April, 1951, the index of farm living costs stood at 197-1. In January of 1952 it stood at 215-8, so in just a few months it had risen by 18-7 points. The cost of living index for
2150	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Floor Prices Canadians as a whole has declined, but the index of farm living costs has not had a proportionate reduction.
With regard to farm wages, this morning I got in touch with the bureau of statistics, who were able to give me certain figures. These show that in 1940 the average wage paid on the farms of Canada was $41 per month, with board. By 1945 this had risen to $72, and by 1950 to $101. It has continued to rise, and I venture to say that at the present time it probably stands closer to $110. So in that period there has been a substantial rise in that item of cost to the farmer.
Then take farm taxes. Taxes on owned lands and buildings in Canada in 1939 amounted to $19,200,000. By 1945 these taxes had increased to $39,100,000 and by 1950 to $58,500,000. Again I am sure that if the figures were available for 1951 and 1952 they would show a further substantial increase.
As to operating costs on the farm, I asked the bureau what farmers spent in operating costs for tractors in that same period. I was astonished to find that in 1939 the operating cost of tractors was $22,800,000. By 1945 this had risen to $47,900,000, and by 1950 it had increased to $97 million. Of course more tractors are being used today than in 1939. But if we take farm machinery repairs, another large item of farm costs, we find that in 1939 the farmers of Canada paid $19,200,000 for farm machinery repairs. In 1945 they paid $31,100,000, and by 1950 these costs had risen to $58,500,000, or more than three times the cost in 1939.
Then take farm machinery itself. Using 1935-39 as a base of 100, we find that in 1939 the farm machinery index stood at 103-6. By 1945 it had risen to 115-1 and by 1950 to 186-8, and that increase is continuing. That is not the whole story, either. If you look over the prices of farm machinery you will find that the greater increases are in the prices of the newer types of machinery, the kind we are buying today. Those increases are greater than the increases in the prices of some of the older machines which enter into the cost index but are not being used as much today. For instance, in 1945 a ten or twelve-foot self-propelled combine cost about $2,800. Today the same combine costs just over $5,000, so it has almost doubled in cost in the last six years. That is why farmers are alarmed today. They see the prices of the things they have to sell going down while the cost of the things that enter into their cost of production continues to rise.


Just what has the drop amounted to in the prices of things the farmer has to sell? I am not going to give the figures on grain, though there has been a serious drop in price owing to the increase in the value of the Canadian dollar. There has been a drop of at least twenty cents in the price of wheat. Take animal products. In July of 1951 the index stood at 358-9. By February of this year it had dropped to 297-3, or a decline of 61-6 points in just a few months. And that was before or just at the time of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in western Canada. Since that time there has been a further serious decline in the prices of agricultural products. It is no wonder that members of this house protest when they see that situation beginning to appear in Canada, with a serious decline in the purchasing power of the agriculture industry and no decline in their costs of production. That must inevitably result in less purchasing power for the farmers, and that reduced purchasing power sooner or later must result in unemployment in the industries in eastern Canada and elsewhere which supply the machinery industry for agriculture.
I hope hon. members from eastern Canada will not think that we in the west are simply making a plea for ourselves. We are not. We believe the best way to stop a decline or a depression in this country is to maintain a reasonable basis of prices for agricultural products, which will bear a fair relationship to the cost of what the farmer has to buy. That is the only way we can maintain a prosperous Canada. So I say every member in this house, whether from eastern Canada or western Canada, should be vitally interested in maintaining a reasonable floor price under agricultural products that will represent something near the cost of production. I must say that in my opinion the floor prices that have been established today do not nearly represent that cost.
Unless something is done by the government to see that these floor prices do represent the cost of production, and that when they do set a floor price it is payable to the producer, not to the processor of those products alone; that he shall have all the guarantee and that the industry itself shall be guaranteed only through the competition which the minister says must result from the present floor price-unless this is done, the farmers will not be satisfied. I do not think that competition has been sufficient to guarantee to the farmers the result which the minister I am sure desires. It certainly has not been enough; there has not been enough competition to maintain a reasonable floor price under eggs or under some of the other

agricultural products. Figures produced in this house and sent to the minister by individual farmers, by farm organizations, have I am sure proved that to him.
I think the government should take immediate steps to see that these floor prices, even though they are inadequate, are paid to the producers and not to the processors.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: The question under discussion is the government's price support program and the failure of certain packing plants to pay the support price. With regard to the second point, I hope the minister will be in a position to assure us that conversations are now going on with the packing plants and that that difficulty will soon be eliminated.
It was on the other point I wanted to speak chiefly. Today is probably an opportune time to discuss the whole question of floor prices, because I think it is correct to say that this year is the first time that a real test has been made of the efficiency of operation of the government's floor price program.
I believe that to operate efficiently this program must have public opinion behind it. Moreover, I am satisfied that if the people of Canada realize the basis of the program they will be prepared to support it. Therefore I think it is unfortunate that at this time certain Canadian organizations should see fit to attack the government's support program. I have in mind the March news letter of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, printed in part in the Alberta wheat pool budget of March 28. I want to quote briefly from it, and from a short statement by the wheat pool in reply to it, and then make my own comments. It is under the heading: "Where do we stand?" and reads as follows:
Under the above heading, the March news letter of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce prints the following:
"Do we as Canadians believe in the principle of the free market, or do we not? Do we or do we not believe in a competitive economic system based on the law of supply and demand? These questions arise as the result of the action of the federal government in establishing a floor price for marketing of hogs-in fact pegging the price at the prevailing level.
"Here we have the rather anomalous situation of the Canadian people clamouring for a lower cost of living, and when the price of one of the primary factors entering into that cost of living-meat- starts to decline, the government steps in to make sure that prices won't go any lower. The completely astounding thing about this is the thunderous silence of Mr. and Mrs. Consumer.
No doubt the reason for that is that the general consumer and the public apparently have a far better understanding of the situation than the Canadian Chamber of Commerce have. I would just like to quote a
3, 1952
Agricultural Products-Floor Prices reply given in the wheat pool budget, which deals objectively with the question of free competitive enterprise:
It is easy to talk about free enterprise and the free market. But the same is more honoured in the breach than in the observance by Canadian business interests. In support of that statement we draw the attention of the chamber of commerce to the monopoly investigations into bakery establishments, flour milling, the making of dental and optical supplies, match manufacturing, etc., and those investigations, we believe, touched only the fringe. Those boys didn't practise free enterprise and abide by the free market!
Government assistance and government support of measures that have led to monopoly have been the rule ever since Canadian confederation.
I want to go on with the statement of the chamber of commerce:
The explanation which was given for the government's action, according to the press, was that if farmers took a heavy loss in hogs this year, they would not raise any next year. Then a shortage would develop and prices would again skyrocket. The other side of the situation of course was not mentioned at all. With a guaranteed price for hogs, producers will merrily continue to raise hogs beyond the desire or the capacity of the market.
The farmers of this country, Mr. Speaker, could, if they so decided, so adjust their operations as to increase prices under the law of supply and demand; that is to say, the farm organizations could organize and reduce agricultural production so that the prices would rise. Does the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, or anybody else, think for one minute that that would be to the advantage of the Canadian people? Would it be to the advantage of the other nations of the world? Would it be to the advantage of those nations which at the present time have many people on the verge of starvation? Surely a country like Canada, which is hoping to give a certain degree of leadership in the world, could not justify a reduction in production at this time. And yet the Canadian Chamber of Commerce criticize the government for supporting a program which helps to maintain production, and as a result they say it means higher prices. They apparently argue that it would be better to let the prices fall so that the production would be reduced.
I think we have an obligation to the world today to do everything possible that we can to maintain production at a high level, and I would suggest that one of the most logical ways to do that is to maintain a floor price under agricultural products. By that I do not mean an excessively high price; I mean a price that will bear a fair relationship to the prices of other commodities. I would say the program can be fully justified in many ways. First of all, let me give some background.
It will be recalled that in the depression years the prices of farm products fell very

Agricultural Products-Floor Prices much faster and very much farther than the prices of other commodities. While the prices of commodities of the secondary industries fell only 25 per cent, the prices of farm products fell over 65 per cent. And when time and again during the 1930's farmers and farm organizations would complain about the low level of agricultural prices they were told that nothing could be done about it because we were an exporting nation and therefore our prices internally had to be governed by the export prices. But it is interesting to note that that was not the policy of the secondary industries at that time. Many of those secondary industries maintained a two-price system. They sold at high prices in Canada, and then they sold at a lower price in the export market.
I recall that in the 1930's you could buy a Massey-Harris binder cheaper in Britain than you could buy it in Canada, so they were not maintaining their price on the export market; however, that was the policy at that time. True there were one or two minor exceptions, but generally speaking the prices of agricultural products were maintained at the prices that obtained in the export market. When the war came on and prices rose we adopted a price control policy in this country and price ceilings were placed upon agricultural products. The farmers then found themselves in this somewhat difficult position. During the ten years of the depression they had had to accept world market prices, prices that were far below cost of production, and many farmers went heavily into debt; many of them went bankrupt. Well, if an industry has to accept world prices when prices are low, surely it is justified in expecting to get world market prices when they rise, because that is the only way they can make up the losses they suffer during the time they are selling at prices which are far below the cost of production.
The government apparently realized that and said to the farmers: We are going to maintain a price ceiling on your products, but that is part of a general stabilization program. In return for that we are going to see to it that in the future the prices of your commodities are not allowed to fall below a fair level. And so the Agricultural Prices Support Act was put into operation. We commended the government when that legislation was brought down. I thought it good legislation then, and I think it is good legislation today. Certain changes need to be made, but the general principle behind the Agricultural Prices Support Act in my opinion is absolutely sound. When that act was put into operation, for the first few years it was not necessary to use it because prices were high. However

in 1950 the prices of certain commodities began to fall out of line. Agricultural organizations took a great deal of interest in the manner in which the act was to be used to ascertain what the support prices should be.
At the convention of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture held at Niagara the minister dealt in a general way with the basis of the formula, and stated that prices for farm produce would be maintained at a level which would afford the same relationship to the prices of other commodities as existed from 1943 to 1945 at the time the Agricultural Prices Support Act was put into operation.
The interesting point today is to compare the prices of farm products on the basis of that formula. With that in mind I wrote to the bureau of statistics asking them to give me what prices of farm products should be today on the basis of that formula, so that the prices of farm products today would bear its same relationship to the prices of other commodities as existed in 1943-45.
According to the figures they have given me, in some cases the floor is a little higher; but in most cases it is lower than it should have been. This table is prepared under four columns, and I should like to place it on Hansard. Before doing so however I shall read the items because, as I go along, I shall comment upon them.
The first item concerning which I asked information was wheat No. 1 northern, per bushel, delivered at Fort William, Port Arthur or Vancouver. I realize that wheat does not come under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, but I asked for those figures only to find out what the price of wheat would be if it had been under the act. It is interesting to note that the average price for 1943-45 for No. 1 northern wheat, basis Fort William, was $1,391. In column 2, which relates to the general wholesale index today, the price would be $2,306. On the other hand, if we compare that price with the price that farmers have to pay for other commodities today the price of wheat would then be $2,530. The actual price for wheat today is about $1.80, under the international wheat agreement. So actually the price the farmer is receiving today under the international wheat agreement is 70 cents less than the price he should receive under the formula of the Agricultural Prices Support Act.
The next item about which I asked was hogs, grade B-l, dressed, Winnipeg, per hundredweight. The actual average price in 1943-45 was $16,341. Column 2, in relation to the wholesale price index today, shows a price of $27,093. Under column 3, which

shows the relationship to prices that farmers have to pay for other commodities, the price would be $29,724. The actual price at the time of this report-January, 1952-was $25,390. So that the farmers were receiving around $4 less than the support price should be under the formula of the Agricultural Prices Support Act. I believe the floor price is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $25; therefore the price I have indicated here is about $3.50 per hundredweight under the formula.
The next item refers to good steers, up to 1,050 pounds, Winnipeg, per hundredweight. The average price in 1943-45 was $11,265. The price under the general wholesale index would be $18,677, and as related to the prices the farmers pay for other commodities it would be $20,491. The price at the time the report was issued in January was $30,670. The support price now is about $23.35, so that the support price is actually about $2.85 above the formula.
With regard to eggs, grade A large, at Winnipeg, the actual average price 1943-45 was $[DOT]404; the figure in column 2 is $-670, and in column 3 $-735. The price in January of this year was $-405. So the price of eggs at that time was about 33 cents a dozen less than it should have been under the Agricultural Prices Support Act formula. However I understand that the price of eggs today in many parts of western Canada is far below 40 cents. Indeed, I heard one member mention 10 cents a dozen. But even if 40 cents was being paid, that would be 30 cents less than it should be under the formula.
The next item is Cheddar cheese No. 1 white, per pound, f.o.b. Montreal warehouse. The actual average price in 1943-45 was $-205; the figure in column 2 is $ [DOT] 340 and in column 3 $-373, with the January price at $-440. So the price of cheese at that time was above the price to be paid under the formula-approximately 7 cents above that price.
Then we come to creamery butter, per pound at Winnipeg, and we find that the average price for 1943-45 was $-352. The figure in column 2 is $-587 and in column 3 $*640. The January price in this year was $[DOT]670. So that that price is slightly above the formula.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask a question? Do I understand that the hon. member asked the bureau of statistics for certain facts-the price of hogs at a certain date-and did his own reasoning?


Victor Quelch: No, it is all worked out in the table.


James Garfield Gardiner: Or did he ask them to work out the formula?
13, 1952	2153
Agricultural Products-Floor Prices


Victor Quelch: Yes. On the basis of 1943-45, as a base year, I asked them to show what the prices would be this year.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not going to say that the hon. member is wrong, but I am going to say that he asked the wrong authority for the information.


Victor Quelch: I first of all wrote to the-


James Garfield Gardiner: They are not the people who figure that out.


Victor Quelch: Well, perhaps I had better read the letter from the bureau of statistics. It says: Dear Mr. Quelch:
Your letter of April 7, addressed to Mr. W. G.
Morris of this bureau, has been relayed to this office for reply.
We are not sure exactly which commodity group you desire to compare with the commodities you have specified, and have prepared the enclosed table which provides the following information:
1.	The 1943-1945 actual average price of the items specified in your letter.
2.	These prices times the percentage increase between 1943-1945 and January, 1952, in the general wholesale index.
3.	These prices times the percentage increase between the same dates as shown by the index of commodities and services used by farmers.
4.	The January, 1952, actual prices.
I shall put the table on Hansard-and the letter too, if it is desired.


James Garfield Gardiner: The point is that they do suggest that they are not too sure what you are talking about-and I can imagine they would not be.


Victor Quelch: It is quite clear; and the letter shows that they understood, because they wanted to know whether it should be compared with the wholesale price index or the price the farmer pays for the commodity. And in order that there should be no disagreement on the point they put the information in two columns, one based upon the wholesale price index, and the other based upon the price index of the things the farmer buys today. I think of the two the second one is the one which should count.


James Garfield Gardiner: My only suggestion is that you should address your questions to the agricultural prices support board, because they are the people who can give you the information based upon any statement that I made.


Victor Quelch: I can quite understand that the agricultural prices support board could give me the basis it is working on, but I want statistics to show what the support prices would be on the basis of the formula the minister outlined to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and this house.
2154	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Floor Prices The minister will be able to tell us how that formula has worked out, and why as a result of the working out of that formula the price that should have been provided has not been provided.
I merely wanted statistics from the bureau. I wrote to the farm branch of the bureau of statistics and I think they are quite com-

petent to give me that information. I should like to place this statement on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to place the document on the record?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Victor Quelch: The statement is as follows:



DOMINION BUREAU OF STATISTICS


[Stage Direction]
Actual Wholesale Prices at Terminal Markets for 1943-45 and January, 1952, and Theoretical Prices
for January, 1952
Wheat No. 1 northern-bushel, delivered Fort
William, Port Arthur or Vancouver	
Hogs, grade B1 dressed, Winnipeg, cwt	
Good steers, up to 1,050 lbs. Winnipeg, cwt	
Eggs, grade A, large, Winnipeg, doz	
Cheddar cheese No. 1, white, lb., f.o.b. Montreal,
warehouse	
Butter, creamery. Winnipeg, lb	
(a) Prices of column 1 plus 65-8 per cent.
(b) Prices of column 1 plus 81-9 per cent.
(c)	Initial payment price to producers.
Column 1	Column	II Column	III Column IVActual Average Price 1943-45	(a)	(b)	January 1952 Actual Price$	$	$	$1-391	2-306	2-530	1-600 (c)16-341	27-093	29-724	25-39011-265	18-677	20-491	30-670[DOT]404	[DOT]670	[DOT]735	[DOT]405[DOT]205	[DOT]340	[DOT]373	[DOT]440[DOT]352	[DOT]587	[DOT]640	[DOT]670
There has been some criticism of the formula. Many organizations feel that 194345 is not an entirely satisfactory base period. I agree, but on the other hand I would say that the formula is a whole lot better than nothing at all. We wanted a formula and the minister has given us one. With the help of the bureau of statistics we have been able to work out what the support prices should be on the basis of that formula. It is shown quite clearly that in the majority of cases the prices of other commodities have risen faster than the prices of farm products.
In the past most farm organizations have advocated that the floor prices for agricultural products should provide a parity income so that the income of the farmer will bear the same relationship to the national income as farm population does to the national population. If that formula was adopted, the prices of farm products would be considerably higher than is provided for in this formula, because today the farm population is about 25 per cent of the total population, whereas the farmers' share of the national income-I have not the latest figures-I believe is somewhere around 10 or 12 per cent.
Mr. Fair:: It is 9-9 per cent.


Victor Quelch: I am informed by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair), who obtained the figure from the bureau of statistics, that it is 9-9 per cent. There you

have the farmers who represent 25 per cent of the population receiving only 9 [DOT] 9 per cent of the national income. That shows quite clearly that they are not receiving what could be called a parity price based on income. But I am glad, as I have said, that the government has brought in the Agricultural Prices Support Act, even though it is based upon a formula that seems to provide prices not sufficiently high. Again I say that that is far better than no support prices at all.
It seems to me that the important point is that the packing companies in Canada should be made to live up to the support prices. If they continue the practice of paying less than the support prices it will only destroy the efficiency of the operation of the whole program.
I have referred to the fact that the one way in which farmers can overcome a loss through the operations of the law of supply and demand would be to restrict production. On the other hand, even without the formula or without the Agricultural Prices Support Act the prices of agricultural products probably could be maintained fairly high if the government had an international policy which made it possible to move our surpluses to those nations that need them. I will not say that the Agricultural Prices Support Act would not be needed, but it would not be necessary to use it to anything like the extent it has

had to be used when there was no means of exporting our surplus production.
I was interested in the speech made by the Minister of Agriculture before the food and agriculture organization when he stated that unless some better method of marketing was found he could hardly expect the farmers of Canada to expand their production. There is no use in the farmers expanding their production unless there is a market. Unfortunately as yet the FAO has not been able to submit any proposals for moving farm surpluses that meet with agreement by the member nations. They brought down a proposal for a world food board, but that was rejected. They brought down a proposal for an international commodity clearing house, but that was rejected. At the present time each nation has to depend upon its own resources to market its farm products.
I want to commend the government upon the agreement they have made with Great Britain and New Zealand for the disposal of beef. While there is a loss involved, it is far better to suffer a loss than to have beef rotting on the market or to have the farmers doing everything they can to reduce the production of cattle. It is a temporary expedient, but it is one which I think is justified. I hope if the government has any difficulty in disposing of surpluses in the future they will not hesitate to tread new paths. I do not believe that the use of the old orthodox channels of trade will provide the means for moving our surpluses of food products to the nations which need them. Ways and means of moving our surpluses to the nations facing widespread starvation must be found. If the practice of reducing the production of food, whilst millions of people are on the verge of starvation, becomes prevalent it will create fertile ground for the spread of communism throughout the world.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to enter this discussion on price spreads. Throughout the war years and some of the years following, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) repeatedly asked the producers of this nation to keep up and expand their production of foodstuffs. They were told that ceilings would be placed on their products and that floors would be provided for in later years when markets might be declining. I think the institution of support prices was just and proper.
A number of the floor prices now prevailing are not satisfactory to the producers. As has been indicated, their cost of production is still rising. The bureau of statistics point out that the prices of farm machinery of the 55704-136J
Agricultural Products-Floor Prices newer type will be advanced during the current year over the previous year. Farm wages and other costs are still increasing, despite the fact that they are already at an all-time high.
A question was asked today about placing a floor under cheese. This is a matter which affects the farmers of eastern Canada more than those of western Canada. I have talked to a number of dairy people during the past days and weeks and I found them in a rather sorry plight, I think through no fault of their own. They deserve some assistance by way of floor prices.
What I want to refer to chiefly at the moment is the floor prices under beef and hogs. The floor price under hogs was announced some time ago at a figure somewhat lower than that which had been asked for by organized agriculture. Taking into account the cost of feed, labour and all that, I do not think the price is sufficiently high.
With respect to the beef price, it is true that the government is working under rather vexing circumstances. These floor prices were announced early in the month of April, and throughout much of the country they are certainly not working satisfactorily. In the Winnipeg Tribune of May 8, the following report appeared:
With no dominion price supports Alberta processors are getting cattle at bargain counter prices and hardly making an impression on available supplies.
Alberta beef, laid down in Winnipeg at 39 cents a pound, carcass weight, is being sold for the same basic 92 cents a pound retail as Manitoba beef sides from city processors at 46 cents a pound.
The article goes on to point out the difficulty of contending with that sort of thing, and also that the consumers are not getting any benefit at this time. I asked a question of the Minister of Agriculture about these prices and what guarantee there was that they would go through to the producer. I understand that because of provincial embargoes great difficulty is being encountered. I am amazed that the Department of Justice has not given some ruling as to whether these provincial embargoes are justified. It shows lack of decision on the part of the Department of Justice, and certainly it is very bad for the country that the various provinces should balkanize the nation as they have been doing for many weeks.
Like the previous speaker (Mr. Quelch) I want to commend the minister and his staff for the efforts they have made in arranging the * agreement between New Zealand, Great Britain and Canada with respect to beef. However, the agreement will far from take care of the surplus beef in Canada. I have

Agricultural Products-Floor Prices not the exact figures before me, but I think I am safe in saying it will not take care of twenty per cent of the beef that we exported last year to the splendid United States market. Therefore hon. members will readily realize what a tremendous surplus of beef we shall have on our hands after the fulfilment of the contract for the current year between Canada, New Zealand and Great Britain. As time goes on I hope we shall be able to increase the amount of beef handled under this arrangement.
Then again, the price floors are on a monthly basis. I believe that they are to run until the first of July, and that there will then be a new adjustment. It is almost impossible for cattle breeders or producers to plan their operations on such a basis. I am fearful also as to what may happen to many producers this fall. As far back as I can remember, we have always had a great run of cattle during the fall months. People put cattle on grass and then cannot take care of them through the winter. I assume that many producers will try to carry more cattle through the winter, but many of them will be unable to do so. Some plan will have to be worked out to take care of the marketing of surplus beef during the fall months.
I have never yet heard a statement in the house as to the details of the working out of the floor price on beef and how it is carried through the various grades so as to ensure that the producer will be guaranteed the floor price. I should like to see such a statement put on Hansard. When the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease was announced in the third week of February the prices for cattle prevailing in the Winnipeg stockyards on February 22 were as follows: Steers, 30 cents; heifers, 28 cents; cows 21 cents; bulls, 23 cents; stock and feeder steers, 27 cents; stock and feeder heifers, 25 cents; cows, 20 cents, and veal calves 30 cents. Some months previously the market had been considerably higher. Therefore when one compares these figures with the present floor prices or the prices prevailing, one will see there is a very great difference.
While a great many producers are trying to help in this difficult time by holding back their livestock, some large producers of both hogs and cattle have stated that they are now going to get rid of their breeding stock and take their loss as at this time. It is a very confusing situation. I hope that the government will reconsider the question of floor prices and do more than they have done to stabilize production and assist producers. It means a great deal to the entire economy of

Canada, apart from the producers themselves, and at the present time it is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs.


Mr. Picard:: Mr. Speaker-


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker-


Louis-Philippe Picard: I hope the minister is not closing the debate.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I did not start it. The debate is on an amendment moved from the other side of the house.


Some hon. Members:: There is no amendment.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is an amendment to the motion to go into supply.


Some hon. Members:: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: It does not matter. It is not my motion and I have not spoken so far.


Mr. Graydon:: Are you going to move an amendment?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I am not going to move an amendment.
The discussion last night and this afternoon has been on the question of floor prices. I am quite aware of the fact that one can take any set of prices, discuss them back and forth and arrive at all kinds of conclusions, but there are a few facts that I think are selfevident and that have a bearing upon the question. The first one is that in 1943 and 1944 we had the highest production that we have ever had. Those two years were the highest production years in agriculture. Production is not nearly so high now in some lines. It is just as high in wheat, but it is not as high in livestock products as it was in 1943 and 1944. Nevertheless, in spite of all that has been said this afternoon and last night, and whether or not floor prices had anything to do with it, we got twice as much in money for our farm products last year as we did in those years. I know that the first argument that is put forward after that statement is made is: Oh yes, but the costs of everything are higher now than they were then. However, before we would be in nearly as bad a position as has been outlined by some hon. members everything would have to cost at least twice as much in order that there might even be an argument about it at all.
Obviously, from statistics prepared by the same bureau that prepared these other statistics, we got $2,800 million for our farm products last year and $1,400 million in the years to which reference has been made. That is just double, and if anyone is trying to reason that the farmer is worse off because he has got double I would not agree with him.


Mr. Rowe:: That would be in dollars.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is in dollars. I say you can take all the considerations and argue yourself into any kind of decision you like if you want to start to argue from that point of view. It is like a person saying that because you load meat on the boat in Australia at 12 cents and it costs you 48 cents in Canada to do the same, you can start from there and say that Australia is four times as badly off. As a matter of fact there are so many factors entering into an argument of that kind that one would get lost before he could get half way through it. You certainly could not finish it in a forty minute speech. The obvious fact is that last year we got twice as much for what we sold as we did in the years that are taken as the basis for the relationship between our prices then and prices now.
In addition, we did not produce as much last year as we did in those years. That has some bearing upon the argument that our friends of the chamber of commerce are using, to the effect that you can affect your prices by producing less or more. If you produce too much then you will probably reduce your prices.	If you produce
too little you will probably raise your prices.	I do not	think that the
farmers have been unwise in what they have done. I have heard members get up and criticize the government because farmers have reduced their production of certain products. As a matter of fact in most of these matters the farmers do not pay any attention to the government at all. They run their own show; they run their own business, and they know more about it than most members of the House of Commons. They realized that if they produced fifty per cent more hogs this year than they did previously, they would not get as much money for the greater number as they did for what they produced before. They realized that, and they carried on their activities accordingly. The farmers are producing those things which they think will help them to get along best, and the very fact that they got twice as much money last year producing less of the product than in the years referred to is an indication that they know what they are doing.
On the question of floor prices, it has been suggested time after time that we have a fund of $200 million and have not used very much of it. That carries me back to the debates of eight years ago, in 1944, when we introduced the bill under which we have the fund of $200 million to use in encouraging farmers to do one thing or another and to
Agricultural Products-Floor Prices give them a better return for their products. The fact is, as I said the other day, that is a revolving fund. There is $200 million set up, and when we were discussing it eight years ago some members proposed that we ought to put a limit of four years on the operation of the Agricultural Prices Support Act. I took the position in the house at that time that it was eighteen years after the end of the first war before we came to the end of the period during which the difficulties had been experienced which we might find it necessary to look after now. It is now eight years after the passing of that act, and I think it can be truly said that the reasons we were anticipating eight years ago that would necessitate the passing of this legislation have never yet happened.
The reasons that were in our minds at that time were that we were going to have a great slump in prices in this country, particularly a great slump in agricultural prices. We had good reason for fearing that. The argument read a few moments ago by the member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) is the old argument that we have heard from those who are representing a group who passed that resolution. It is the same argument that has prevailed for centuries, if you like-certainly before the beginning of the lifetime of any member of this house- when it was argued that the way to stop inflation is to force down the farmer's prices first. You can force his prices down by denying him credits; denying him this and that; denying him money to spend on things. You can force down prices there, and by forcing down prices there you can control inflation.
The one undertaking the government gave, if they gave any at all, was to try to prevent that kind of thing happening at the end of this war. It has happened at the end of every other war, but it has not yet happened at the end of this one. I am not going to claim that is only because of the floor price legislation of this government. It has not happened at the end of this war because the people in other countries, as well as this, have been following a policy which has not resulted in that coming about in the manner in which it did before. Nevertheless, the remarks made by the member for Souris (Mr. Ross) and the member for Acadia are correct in this, that they have commended the government for having set a floor price policy and for having put it into effect. We have not used up the $200 million. I have said on a number of occasions, and I repeat it now, that if we had used up the $200 million the first year or the second year doing things that it was not necessary for us

Agricultural Products-Floor Prices an animal that had foot-and-mouth disease. So no one wants to eat any of those animals coming from Saskatchewan.
Fortunately we have had experiences of this kind before. In 1937 we went out to Saskatchewan and Alberta and bought 93,000 head of cattle, which we put in pastures. The government built the fences; we had no community pastures then, as we have now. These cattle were pastured down at Carberry, Manitoba, for the summer, and then we auctioned them off to feeders all over Canada. We sold them for higher prices than they could have been sold for by any other method, but for very low prices as we consider prices today. That cost the government $300,000. In those days it was questioned whether a government should spend $300,000 to help the livestock producers in western Canada; but the job was done.
In doing that job we acquired experience which stands us in good stead now. We can go back to Saskatchewan today and take care of the situation existing there. As I said last night, my assistant is going out again tomorrow, and Mr. Shaw is going with him. We have already made contacts with the wheat pool and others, and we think we can set up an organization that can deal with the situation. But they cannot handle it by putting the meat under the contracts we have been able to make, nor can they handle it by getting a decision on the question of whether the provinces were acting illegally when they imposed the restrictions they have imposed. In my own heart I have a feeling that the provinces are within their rights when they try to stop disease from spreading from one area to another. And I have a feeling that whether they are right or wrong they are going to do it anyway. If they cannot do it by law, they will do it in some other way. No people anywhere are going to allow you to deliberately ship cattle with foot-and-mouth disease, or hogs that may be subject to it, out of one area into another and particularly from one province to another. If that is what we are dealing with, then I have some doubts as to whether the provinces are within their rights or not. It has been said that the Department of Justice should have given a decision long ago. Well, the Department of Justice has given the same kind of decision on this as it gives on anything else. The Department of Justice naturally says: "Well, the courts are there; try it out." We might get some fellow up in Saskatoon to ship a carload of cattle down to Winnipeg and run them across the boundary line. Whether the railways would take them across or not I do not know. Probably they would not take them, but even

if we could get a drover to load them on a truck and then down to Winnipeg, and the shipper got himself arrested-well, if he did that, it would take him about four months to find out whether he was right or not, and in the meantime probably he would be in jail. You could settle it that way, and Justice will tell you and anyone else will tell you that. You can have a test, because you can take it to the courts, and it will take anywhere from two or three months to six months to get it settled.
That is not good enough for this job. We have to settle this thing in a few days, in a few weeks at the outside. Therefore, when Manitoba says: "We will not kill any Saskatchewan cattle", I do not think they have any legal right to say that. But when this house put through the legislation a year ago to provide for emergencies, it gave authority to declare an emergency only if it had something to do with defence. So far as I have been able to search out, this has nothing to do with defence. Perhaps if you took a long enough view of it it has; I do not know. But in any case there is no way that we can prove at the present time that this is an emergency and say to Manitoba: "You have got to kill the beef." If I could declare an emergency it would take six months to find out as to whether we are right or wrong. In the meantime we could go on killing beef. We are not able to do that because there is no defence emergency. We know that from the Department of Justice, and there is only one other thing to do, and that is for us to try to persuade Manitoba to remove their embargo. We finally arrived at an agreement with British Columbia. We have an agreement with Alberta. I do not think our discussion was ever out in the open. Our discussions were always with them where they should be on a thing like this, more or less behind closed doors. We had plenty of trouble in our discussions in arriving at conclusions as to what we were going to do, but we eventually got there and without any hangover, and now the stock is moving out of Alberta. But there has never been a change in Manitoba since the day that it was determined that they would let sheep and pigs in but they would not let cattle in.
I cannot understand the reasoning in connection with it, but nevertheless the reasoning is there. Now, with the possibilities of moving beef out of Alberta and pork out of Alberta under the British arrangement and moving beef out of Ontario and hogs out of Ontario, there is not much to worry about anywhere else for the time being, excepting Saskatchewan. Most people do not realize

that there are more cattle marketed out of Saskatchewan than out of Alberta in normal times. There are more cattle there to be marketed now than can be marketed. But they have no big packing houses to take them as they have in Alberta. They have large packing houses in Edmonton; they have large packing houses in Calgary and smaller ones in Lethbridge and so on. But we have just some dinky little packing houses in Prince Albert, Saskatoon and Regina, and then one with a little larger capacity in Moose Jaw. But they could not begin to handle the livestock that are produced in Saskatchewan, and they have never had to. We have depended on Winnipeg, and we still depend on Winnipeg. Until they let our cattle into Winnipeg, they cannot be slaughtered to be shipped anywhere else in great quantity. That is our great problem yet. It is there.
I am not sure what Manitoba is going to do-I think I know what they are going to do. I think I know what they will do inside a very short time, but I think they will do it much quicker if they are left alone until they are good and ready than if we take court action against them and try to force them and wait until the court decides. I think we can do it the other way more quickly. I say that for this reason. With all these difficulties going on I would like to ask hon. members just how they think we could have enforced floor prices. Were we going to tell this fellow that he has got to pay for animals when he has no slaughter house to kill them in? Are we going to tell the other fellow that he has got to take the farmer's cattle, whether he has grass or not, and pay the price? We had to create a situation under which this surplus could be moved, and it could only be moved by reaching an agreement similar to the one we have reached, or doing something else about it because we could not reach an agreement. But fortunately we did reach it and things are moving now, and I think the floor prices are being established.
The organization, as I said a moment ago, that we will probably put in will be an organization similar to that of 1937. With the wheat pool organized as it is now to deal in livestock as well as in wheat, we may be able to make some arrangement under which they can do for us what we had to do for ourselves before. But whether they do it or not, an organization will be put in there to do something similar to what was done in Alberta by the Alberta government. They have auctions that are held here and there all over the province. They have had them organized for years, and those auctions have been held this year. The farmers have brought 55704-137
Agricultural Products-Floor Prices in the cattle they have and have sold them to other farmers, and the farmers have taken them home and are feeding them.
In Saskatchewan, on the other hand, we have a million and a half acres of land in government pastures, and we have room on those pastures for something like 10,000 to
20,000	head of cattle. We have not the slaughter houses to kill them. We could not get the meat on the market in the next two or three weeks, or maybe a month, even if we did have slaughter houses to kill them. If farmers need cash and must have it we will say to them: "All right, bring your cattle in to some particular point and we shall have somebody there to auction them for you. We shall have somebody there to pay you if we buy them", and those that are fit for slaughter we will send for slaughter. Those that can go in to the pastures we can send to our pastures.
We believe we will get through on an arrangement of that kind without any loss to the government, and that we will be of some service to those who are there and who are dependent on the sale of livestock in the next few weeks or months in order to get along until harvest time when they can get some money out of their grain. But we will be saying to others: Keep all the cattle home on your farms that you can. Sell all those, which you must sell, to your neighbours if possible. Don't come near us at all unless you have to. But if you must come to us in order to get rid of some of them, well, then, take them to this point and that point, which will be indicated, and there will be a proper set-up there, handled either by the wheat pool or by ourselves, in order to take care of the situation.
Under that method I think we will be able to maintain the floor price; but it will not be because we have a law which says to the packers or anybody else: "You must pay it". It will be because we are prepared to pay ourselves, and handle the situation. And simply because we are prepared to pay, if anyone else wishes to stay in business he will have to pay. That is the only basis on which we can operate.
I would say to the members of the C.C.F. party that if they want to do it in any other way, the only other government body in the province of Saskatchewan that has anything to do with Saskatchewan, other than this one, is the C.C.F. government. They have the authority to do it if they want to do it. They could do it-even a good Ontario Conservative government has proven that during the last year. They took over cheese at a price. They set the price for cheese; they enforced the price for cheese. It was not

Agricultural Products-Floor Prices this government that did it, and any provincial government can do it but no federal government can.
There is only one thing that might bother them, namely: what are they going to do with the surplus? Ontario had no trouble with cheese last year because Britain took it. But this year, when Britain was not ready to take it, they had some difficulty. But there is no other province in Canada that produces a surplus of cheese. And why they have any difficulty, I do not know. They can set their price; they can set the whole method of handling, if they wish to. They can say what the price will be, and they can enforce it. But this government cannot do that. And so all this talk which shouts "when you put a floor price on, why do you not enforce it?" is answered by the fact that we have not the authority. It rests with the province. We can only offer to buy and unless we wish to drive all others out of business the price must not be an incentive price. In other words, if it were a price to induce greater production we would drive all others out of business.
We put on a floor price which says to the people who produce the product, "If you cannot sell it to anyone else for more, we will take it at this price. We do not want it, but we will take it at this price, and we will carry it along." Then, occasionally we add this: "If we do make money we will pay it to you in the form of a participation payment, an interim payment or a final payment." We usually like to say that. Because, after all, we do not want to make money on the handling of farmers' products. We want the money to go back to them.
Then, on this question, "Why do you not see that when we set a floor price the packer pays the price to the farmer?", I say that the floor prices that we set, and the only floor prices we can set, are for buying direct from the farmer. If we go out to Saskatchewan and buy live cattle and put them in a pasture, we will have men sitting at a table right alongside the auction lot handing the man his cheque as he walks away. In other words, he will know he gets the money. When we buy butter from farmers, or from factories belonging to farmers, at so much a pound-58 cents a pound-well, they are paid for it. And, on the other hand, if a packing house buys it at 58J cents and prevents our getting it, then they pay for it, and we do not pay for it. The farmer gets the money direct from the packing house.


Percy Ellis Wright: Are you not buying eggs and butter and other products from the packers?


James Garfield Gardiner: We do not buy from the packers.


Percy Ellis Wright: You have to take it from the packers at a certain price.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, when we buy any farm product, whether it is cheese or butter or meat or anything else, we use the packing house as a facility through which to pass the product. And we may use the staff of some of the packers in order to handle the product through their plants, on to the boats, to be shipped to Great Britain. But they are only the facility which we authorize to do our job for us. We to all intents and purposes buy the product right from the producer or from his agent.


Percy Ellis Wright: Is that the case with eggs? Is that so when you take delivery of eggs at a set price in September?


James Garfield Gardiner: With eggs it would be the case, if we had ever bought any. But the plan with eggs is different from all the other plans; and the house understood it was different at the time. We said to the dealers in eggs, right across Canada, "If you have any eggs left in storage on the first of October, from the first of October to the end of the year, we are prepared to take those eggs off your hands at 38 cents, plus carrying charges." Someone said last night that carrying charges were five cents. Well, I think in most cases carrying charges amount to four cents. With eggs at 38 cents, we undertake to take them at 42 cents, adding on the four cents. We say we are prepared to take them at 42 cents from anyone who will turn them over to us. We have been operating for three years, and have not bought an egg.


Percy Ellis Wright: Is it not the same in connection with pork, that you offered to purchase so many millions of pounds of canned pork from the packers at a fixed price?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, that is not so. And it
is not exactly the same as we first intended it to be.


Percy Ellis Wright: But you have offered that for it?


James Garfield Gardiner: But we have taken over some pork at different times. Under the egg proposal, however, we have not taken over any eggs.
A while ago I was satisfied, from the information I was getting, that there were people who were not paying the floor price. As soon as we were satisfied of that we notified all those people that they need not come to us after the first of October asking us to take over the surplus of eggs. I understand that kind of thing stopped right there. I may say that some hon. members are to

be congratulated upon having been among the first to bring the matter to my attention. But I do think that if it is stopped it ought to be admitted that the system is functioning. It seems to me that we set up a set of principles, and every time any little thing goes wrong in connection with them, you become the chief grousers. And that is the quickest way to kill it.
If people have a system, if people try to establish fair prices and try to stand up against what has been criticized in the handling of products in an extreme form of private dealings, and that set-up runs into a little trouble, the only way you are going to perpetuate that kind of thing is to stop shouting about the little mistakes made here and there along the line.
I do not know whether we have got the right way of handling eggs or not. But I do know we tried it as an experiment in the first year. I do know that in the second year everybody interested came back and said, "Do it that way over again"-because there was not a single thing to complain about. When we handled it the second year everyone said the same thing. The only criticism that was made in the second year was, "You ought to put the price a little higher."
Then we went back into it on the same basis, in the third year. Now we are in the midst of the third year, and some people tell us they have found that some things have slipped. Well, all I wish to say about it is that you cannot get out of it so easily just by saying that it is the packers. After all, there are a lot of eggs that never go near the packing houses. There has been talk about this 10 cents and 15 cents; but to my knowledge a packing house has never had any dealings in those areas. Where the packing house has been the price has been 28 cents or 29 cents.
I might agree that it is still a little low. I think when they get down to 32 cents that is about as low as they ought to get. When they have been down to 29, and in other places to 28, there has been the heavy freight rate to consider, for shipping long distances.
But, after all, I think I am correct in saying that, with very few exceptions, the floor price has been maintained. I am willing to admit that one of the places where the price has been low has been down in the constituency of the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue). That is one of the places. And I think he will agree that that is just about as far away from a packing house as one could get. And it was not really the packing house that caused most of the trouble there; and the same applies to other areas.
55704-137J
Agricultural Products-Floor Prices


Mr. Argue:: The information I have is with respect to the prices paid to farm women on eggs shipped to creameries. That is their ordinary place of marketing.


James Garfield Gardiner: All the creameries I know of in that part of Saskatchewan are owned by farmers.


Hazen Robert Argue: Not all.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, they all are down in that section of the country.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, no.


James Garfield Gardiner: And as a matter of fact those situations should be dealt with on their merits. As a matter of fact, I find that people who are organized into companies, no matter how they are organized, are human beings. Sometimes they go in one direction a little too long, and have to be turned back, even when they are co-operatives. So that if that was true in that section of the country it could only be true in one way, and that is through the co-operative creameries in not handling them as they should have-because that is what they all are. That is what they are.


An hon. Member:: Not all of them.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is all they would pay. If they paid more there would be that much competition for anyone else who wanted to buy. If the co-operatives which are there paid twenty cents nobody would get them for ten. That is the situation that exists there.
I think that is all I wish to say. Under the circumstances I think this is going along fairly well. No one anticipated the troubles we have had because of disease coming into the country. It is being handled as best it can. I think it is pretty well agreed that the job is being fairly well done. If we do not get it moving smoothly quite as quickly as some people would like, it is not because we have no wish or desire to do so, it is simply because we could not get things moving fast enough in some things over which we did not have absolute control.


Hazen Robert Argue: Just a question in relation to the minister's announcement of the government's program for the buying of live cattle. Is it the intention of the government to buy only good or choice steers, or is it the intention to buy various grades of cattle?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is our intention to try to persuade the farmer to keep at home anything which he will probably be able to market if and when the United States market opens. In the first place, we are going to try to persuade him to keep everything home that he can keep home, everything that he feels he can feed for a number of months

Agricultural Products-Floor Prices ahead. Whether those are good steers or whether they are canners, we are not going to send anyone who must sell home with his stock.
If they bring them into market we will try to persuade some other farmer to buy them and take them home. We will hold an auction and allow him to bid against us and everybody else. If a farmer is prepared to pay a little more than the floor price, we will welcome that fact because we would not need to have anything more to do with those particular cattle. If some packing house is prepared to pay more than the floor price we will say to them, "take them away." But if we are not able to get rid of some we will have them taken to our pastures. That is stating in a few words the plan as it is in my mind, but I do not know that it is in anybody else's up to now.


Hazen Robert Argue: Not passed by the government?


James Garfield Gardiner: The order in council authorizes us to buy cattle or beef at the floor price.


Louis-Philippe Picard: Mr. Speaker, anyone who is in the predicament which I now face will agree that the life of a member of parliament is far from being rosy. During the last three week ends I have visited my constituency when many representations have been made to me. I was rash enough to promise that on the first occasion that presented itself I would speak on floor prices on agricultural products. I made that promise as late as yesterday at noon and it happens that the day I came back the house was discussing that very question. Without having sufficient time at my disposal to get all the information I would have liked to get, I feel I must keep my promise and rise to speak at this moment.
Anyone who speaks on agricultural matters following the minister is at a disadvantage. My own experience being what it is, I feel that my position is worse than that of others who have taken part or who might take part in this debate. Before proceeding I should like to congratulate the minister upon the deal that has been arranged between Great Britain, the United States and New Zealand. I wish also to congratulate him upon the masterful speech he made this afternoon to which considerable publicity should be given. I am sure it will answer many of the questions people have in their minds on this matter.
Everybody knows that I am no expert on agriculture, that I have no practical experience in agriculture. I do not even pretend to have any theoretical experience or knowledge. My remarks are based on the

representations which have been made to me by agricultural societies and private individuals in my constituency.
The main question facing those in Quebec who go in for mixed farming on a small scale is the cost of raising hogs and the small margin of profit that is left to them under the present floor. The majority of these farmers contend that there is not even a margin of profit, that they cannot produce at the floor price of 26 cents f.o.b. Toronto which has been fixed by the government. I admit that a few of them who seem to be better organized and have had more experience say that they can produce at 24 cents, but they admit that they are in the minority.
Their main obstacle is the cost of feed. When the feed is moved to Quebec or the eastern parts of Canada the margin of profit to the farmer is considerably reduced. These people contend that if the price of hogs is to remain at the present level for any period of time further relief should be given by way of a larger subsidy than the 30 cents per hundredweight now provided by the government on the transportation of feed to Quebec or eastern Canada.
As I say, I have no personal experience in this matter but bona fide farmers tell me that they have no objection to the price being fixed at 26 cents as long as they are able to make a reasonable margin of profit. Most of them feel that the present system is better than the one that prevailed after the first war when there was no floor at all. They admit that the government has adopted a wise policy by coming to an agreement with the packers, but this does not have the same effect in eastern Canada as it has in other parts of the country. However, whatever difficulty we had for a short time in Quebec has been eliminated through the activities of the minister's department.
It is hoped that the present agreement with Great Britain will facilitate matters as far as we are concerned. As far as the agreement with the packers is concerned, our farmers find the basis is sound but at the moment all cold storage space has been taken up and since there are no canning facilities available in Quebec the situation there became acute. The government agreed to accept all canned pork under the agreement but since the Quebec slaughtering houses are not equipped for canning it became impossible for them to support the market at the agreed prices.
There was one co-operative in Montreal and one in Quebec but neither has any facilities for canning. Then there was a private enterprise built by an individual who was a great

help to the farmers for some time. He made money during the period when we were shipping to Great Britain. He continued to supply the British market long after other packing houses had gone back to the domestic trade. The farmers at that time were, I am told, well satisfied with the treatment they received from him.
Afterward he made arrangements to supply the United States market and our people were able to ship their hogs to him at lower costs of transport and yet be paid on the basis of Montreal as far as general prices were concerned. But when this agreement was made with the packers it was found that all cold storage facilities were filled and no canning facilities were available in Quebec. The companies manufacturing canning equipment told these people that it would take from eight months to a full year before they could supply any of this equipment. This company therefore stopped maintaining the prices but now has corrected the situation. Therefore the only reproach made by the farmers at that time was because they were not notified on the day that company stopped supporting the market. At one period our farmers were a bit worried because they were getting substantially lower prices, a top of 20 cents instead of 26 cents, but due to the interference of the minister this company has now sent cheques to all those who had sold to it at lower prices, and the situation is now remedied as far as that is concerned. However, this same packing house, which formerly slaughtered about
8,000	a week, is now taking about 1,200 at the most, and the people of our district have to ship to the Montreal market. The 26 cents applies to Montreal so there is only 23J or 24 cents available to them for grade A. They are not on the basis they hoped to be when they first considered the statement of the minister, but the statement said f.o.b. Toronto or Montreal so there was no misrepresentation.
The fact that the local slaughtering house supported the market for a short period until the cold storage was full led them to believe the price applied to all of Quebec, but their price after shipping charges to Montreal are deducted is only 23J or 24 cents. In producing at 24 cents, which is supposed to be the optimum or the best they can do, those who know the situation and their societies argue that they are losing money. Of course they understand that it is a temporary measure of support. They hope, possibly more than I could, that the situation will be short-lived, but we never know when the embargo will be lifted. They say that in the meantime the price should be raised to 28 cents at least. They
Agricultural Products-Floor Prices want 30 cents, but as good traders- and farmers are good traders-they will accept 28.
In fact they accept 26 cents and say that it is much better than the way they were treated after the first war when there was no floor. Some of them argue that floors were inevitable because at one time a ceiling was also imposed. That is quite so, but most of them understand that the ceiling was imposed generally throughout the country on all commodities during the war, and if they would compare how they fared during the war and what they had as the result of their dealings under the ceiling system they understood they were a lot better at the end of last war than at the end of the first war when there were no ceilings on any commodities.
As I said, I felt a little awkward in getting up to speak on this subject, but the main object of my representation is to ask the minister to consider the special situation facing eastern farmers and particularly those of Quebec. You cannot it is true treat one part of the country differently from another but nevertheless there are differences in support prices between the various parts of the country because of shipping and other factors that are taken into account. However, because of the local facilities I think special consideration should be given to the Quebec farmers.
There is another point on which they want representations to be made. They fear that the floor on butter, which is 58 cents at the present time, may not be kept at that level. Some of them maintain that it should be raised to 62 cents. Some of them say that in a speech of the minister or some official of the department a price of 62 cents was promised at one time. It has not been shown to me and I do not know about it, but at any rate they fear that the floor price might go below 58 cents. The importation of buiter last winter from outside countries can be explained to them. It has not been properly explained to them by some of their own associations, and I will come to that point in a moment. There had been a shortage in the previous winter. In order that this situation would not arise a second time the government thought it wise to import a certain quantity of butter from the Scandinavian countries.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I might be permitted to interrupt, it might be well for me to raise this matter at this point in my hon. friend's speech. The floor price is set for another year at 58 cents. There is no question about that. It is 58 cents for another year.

Agricultural Products-Floor Prices


Louis-Philippe Picard: I thank the minister, and if I ever send out reprints of my speech he can be sure of having justice accorded to him. I thank him for the correction. It is human nature not only with farmers hut with everyone else to try to have a better life, and these people have asked for a floor of 62 cents. I am quite sure if I go back to them and say that the minister has stated that the floor has been extended for another year it will give them great relief.


James Garfield Gardiner: Maybe I should put the statement correctly. A year ago the floor was set at 58 cents for two years, and it runs for another year.


Mr. Fraser:: And ends when?


James Garfield Gardiner: About a year from now, the first of May, 1953.


Louis-Philippe Picard: Then they are not only misinformed but they have misinformed me because I know nothing of the matter. The fact is that their own associations circularize them with respect to such things. The people concerned are requesting a subsidy on the [DOT]transport of feedstuffs to reduce their costs [DOT]of raising hogs or a higher ceiling on bogs f.o.b. Quebec for the eastern part of Quebec.
I should like to touch on a circular letter sent out by a Quebec farm organization and entitled, "An open letter to federal members". If I voice the desires of these people, who after all constitute 95 per cent of my constituents, if I take a great interest in their fate, try to understand their problems and be their voice and true representative in parliament, I must also point out that there are certain inaccuracies which their own associations have tried to instil into their minds.
When some people want to ask for something they start out by insulting or threatening, by using strong words of abuse or reproach in the hope that it will make their position stronger. I have discussed this open letter to federal members at the last four gatherings I have had in my constituency. These people are all interested in mixed farming. Some are small farmers, some are larger than others, and most of them are members of these associations. This paper is called La Terre de Chez Nous, and it is published by the Union of Catholic Farmers. I think that most farmers should belong to an association so that their interests can be looked after. I know that this association has sided most of the time with the opposite party provincially and federally, or rather it has been against everybody in authority but nevertheless I would advocate that the
tMr. Gardiner.]

farmers join the association because it is their only means of putting forward their views. I do not disapprove of their belonging to it or making it stronger. They might choose their officers and the editors of their paper a little more carefully, but in any event this paper, which has quite a large circulation throughout the province, has published this open letter to federal members which I feel I must take to task.
I am not going to take very long to comment on it. I read all the numbers of this paper because even if I am not an expert on the problems they deal with I feel it is my duty to do so, and I read each number when it arrives. The first statement I do not like begins with these words:
You who are in parliament where crises are made and who do not realize they are made . . .
Crises are not made in parliament. The crisis of the moment in a certain field of agriculture was not made in parliament. If Great Britain does not have enough funds to carry on purchasing in the dollar area and has to revert to the sterling zone, is that a crisis made in parliament? I think it is utterly false to say a thing like that. If the United States government felt that it was their duty to their own cattle raisers and to their population generally to impose an embargo because Canada had foot-and-mouth disease in the west, I think that nobody can say frankly, fairly and honestly that it is a crisis made in parliament. On the contrary, from the first moment the government tried to deal with it so that remedies may be brought about and help given where it was needed and members of parliament knew what was going on. Because the epidemic occurred in western Canada, most of the western members spoke on the subject. I did not think it was the proper time for eastern members, since no cases had been found in that part of the country, to enter the debate. Until the consequences of this outbreak were felt in the eastern part of Canada, it was quite proper to give the floor to those members who, for many days, talked about the matter.
Then this paper goes on and says that during the war the government-and in this they try to bank on the feelings of a small part of the community; they try to bank on some sentiments that they still hoped to find here and there in some districts of Quebec-they say that during the war the government in order to feed Britain made the people bear the full brunt of controls, even to the point of depriving Canadians of their needed food. That is a false statement, and as I told this meeting last Sunday, "I do not know of any of you in this room who got any thinner or whose health got

any worse during the war." This country's controls were applied fairly to the largest number of people. If the people fared so well during the war it was because, as the minister mentioned a moment ago, we were buying much larger quantities of farm products, building new industries and giving more salary to the men in industry. This was done by taking from people, corporations and so on who could afford to pay, the amounts needed for these purchases. Most people understand that such appeals no longer are effective in Quebec, yet here you see them and they are circulated to 50,000 people. I believe, therefore, it is worth while to talk about this matter.
A little farther on this paper oblivious of what happened during the war says that it is the poor farmer who has been the victim. In succession they say he has experienced the invasion of margarine, the fall in the price of hogs, the epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease, the United States embargo, the importation of butter from other countries and the fall to the lowest level of the prices of butter and cheese. First of all, the invasion of margarine was not a crisis which was made in the federal parliament. There was a law on our statute books preventing the manufacture of that product. The government felt it was their duty, rather than see one group of people in the country taking the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada and trying to secure something which the other group felt should not be given, that is a declaration of the federal law as being ultra vires, to refer this matter to the supreme court. I believe the government acted quite properly. The decision of that court was in favour of the provinces, so in some provinces margarine was manufactured. Quebec imposed a ban on it but the ban was ineffective in a way because it was called a spread or went under another name, so it was kept on the market. However, that condition is not something which was fabricated in the federal parliament.
I turn now to the fall in the price of hogs. As I said, this was caused by the closing of the British market, the epidemic and the United States embargo. Those are the three reasons for the decline in price and the farmers know it. Yet in order to make the case against the government even worse this paper goes on itemizing the causes and effects as being all the causes of the unrest that might be felt in certain quarters.
They go on and say that they ask us to speak louder and with more courage in the House of Commons. 1 do not believe anyone in this house can say that the members from Quebec who represent these people have not
Agricultural Products-Floor Prices made representations to the proper authorities when the circumstances warranted. I believe the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will say that as soon as the outbreak of this disease occurred a number of members from Quebec districts went to see him and bothered his secretaries and his experts in order to obtain the proper data and to be in a position to understand the situation. As hon. members know in order to correct a situation members do not have to get up and speak during a debate as often as some groups may believe they have to do. I do not disapprove of their doing so, but a case can be built quite strongly without ten people getting up and expounding the same theory. It is not the number of representatives from certain parts of Canada who take part in a debate that brings about remedies. One or two representatives making some suggestions would have the same effect upon the minister. When one or two members bring these questions to the attention of the government the effect is the same as if twenty members occupied the already crowded time of this house when some members are desirous of dealing with other matters.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this paper goes on and asks what their members are doing and what they are saying. This is why I am speaking now. What I am doing and saying now may not be the work of an expert in agriculture, but I thought I should make these representations to the minister. I had also to tell these people who are publishing this paper that they are prejudicing the case of the farmers in Quebec and that they cannot justify most of their accusations against the government or the officials of the department. If these people had come forward and said to the government, "Owing to special circumstances in our district, Mr. Minister, we would like more help, higher prices or higher subsidies; we thank you for what you have done but you might do a little more," they might have received a better hearing. Such an approach would have been more sincere and fairer to everybody concerned. But no, there are some people-these people have been doing it for years-who try to arouse feeling between the workers and the farmers, and between the latter and other classes of society, who try to destroy the confidence the farmers have in the government and the federal Department of Agriculture. This has been done by stating that all the federal government does is for the western members because the western members are always speaking on behalf of their provinces.
1 believe that our farmers have more sense than that, Mr. Speaker. However, when you consider that these statements are spread to

Agricultural Products-Floor Prices
50,000	people I feel it is time for me to get up and voice my disapproval of those tactics.
These people end the article by stating that the farmers of Quebec "hope you will take them out of this crisis created by your government." They try to pin on the government the blame for the foot-and-mouth disease, the United States embargo, the curtailment of British purchases, but frankly, Mr. Speaker, I know, from the courtesy shown by farmers in general, that they appreciate the situation better than this paper does. With his knowledge of the situation and the representations made by members the minister I know will consider any remedy that should be tried. These farmers may feel that, whatever the situation is, they have in Ottawa a department which will give their interests the consideration to which they are entitled.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). While I do not often agree with him, I enjoy his speeches. I do not think anyone can make a black picture look rosier than he can. In fact he would put John Fisher to shame if it came to giving a commentary on something that was black and which he wanted to paint white. He is an asset to the Liberal party. They ought to be proud of him, because he gets them out of many holes.


Mr. Sinnoli:: And to the Dominion of Canada.


William Scottie Bryce: Look; I want to know who is making this speech. My friends here tell me I do not need your help, though you come from Manitoba; I am quite able to stand on my own two feet.
The minister had something to say about the packers and what a co-operative bunch they were, that they had come to the assistance of the government at this time. That is very good, but it will not keep me from criticizing the packers in future. I have always criticized the packers, and I feel quite justified in doing so. I am going to keep on doing that, because some of the greatest gains the packers ever made came through the misfortunes of the farmers. I need not go into details to tell the farmer members of this house what I refer to. We are in an emergency now, and just wait; you will see how the packers will take advantage of it. It does not matter to a packer whether he is paying one cent or 30 cents a pound; he has the same toll for every animal that goes through his plant.
Then the minister said that Manitoba could help by taking the cattle in there. I think the drawback in that connection is that the stockyards at St. Boniface are quarantined. Is that not the trouble?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, they are not quarantined in the ordinary sense of the word.


William Scottie Bryce: They are quarantined in the sense that if tomorrow they took Saskatchewan animals to kill, which they would be quite willing to do, they could not get rid of the beef.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, yes, they could. There is nothing to prevent the meat passing beyond Winnipeg, except the regulation in Montreal under which they do not accept meat from Saskatchewan, but I think that will be cleared out of the way in due course.


William Scottie Bryce: I thought it was a federal quarantine on the yards there.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, there is no quarantine on meat going through.


William Scottie Bryce: But there is a quarantine on the yards?


James Garfield Gardiner: Saskatchewan cattle have always been killed at Winnipeg, but now Manitoba says they cannot be killed there. That is the obstruction.


Mr. Coldwell:: What is the effect of the federal quarantine on the situation in Winnipeg?


James Garfield Gardiner: The federal quarantine says that live animals cannot go past Winnipeg. Under our quarantine live animals can go into Winnipeg and be killed, but the Manitoba government says they cannot.


William Scottie Bryce: This problem has pointed up what I have advocated in the house on other occasions, the need for a board of livestock commissioners. If we had such -a board today I believe it could handle this situation. It would be able to regulate the traffic, and do it on a federal basis, because it would have that power. Of course when I brought up the matter in 1944 the minister pointed out that it would not be legal. He said it would be similar to the board of grain commissioners, which at that time he said we just tolerated, that if it went to a legal battle we would lose out. But if we had that board of livestock commissioners today we would have an organization to deal with this emergency. The next time I made the suggestion the objection was that the farmers did not want it. At that time I was able to show that every farm organization has asked for such a board for the last forty years.
Coming back to the floor prices, I have here a copy of the Western Producer of May 8, 1952, and I am going to quote from page 4:
Pool livestock men pointed out that the federal government had not made any arrangements to

take beef from Manitoba and Saskatchewan packing plants at the floor price. Government statements cited the continuance of the Manitoba embargo on cattle shipments from Saskatchewan, together with the absence of sufficient cold storage space in Saskatchewan, as reasons for the government's refusal to buy at the floor price in these provinces.
Pool officials concluded, therefore, that maintenance of the floor price depended entirely upon the success of the government's request that farmers voluntarily hold back deliveries, especially of feeder cattle which could stand further finishing on pasture.
But, the pool men declared, the hold-back request could not be expected to work, for two reasons: One, pressure to deliver cattle would increase following seeding, especially since more farmers than usual had fed cattle over the winter; and two, because failure of the federal government to require all cattle marketings be made through public stockyards simply meant that there would be greater direct-to-plant deliveries by farmers.
They go on and deal with prices, but I need not read that because it has been read here two or three times. We have these floor prices which the minister has said cannot be enforced. I do not know why. What is the good of putting in floors if you cannot enforce them? The prices have been set too low anyway, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) and the other three hon. members who spoke. Even so the packers will not pay those prices, and it seems absurd to set prices which the packers need not pay. There should be some way of overcoming that. There are enough lawyers in the house to find some means of making the packers pay the prices they should pay.
These prices are $25 at Toronto, $23.25 at Saskatoon, $22.80 at Calgary, $22.55 at Edmonton and $23.40 at Vancouver. I am quite sure the minister has always erred on the low side in setting prices. He has admitted that himself; I need not debate that with him. Yet here the packers are chiselling another dollar or two beyond that. I think that is bad, and something should be done about it.
Another point is this business of setting the price for a month or two months ahead. I have spoken here in the house on forward prices, but I never took that to mean a month, six weeks or two months ahead. I figured that when we set forward prices we meant for three or four years ahead so that farmers would have some stability and security and would know where they were going.
Coming back to the floor prices, if ever there was an emergency, this is one. The government should give us the benefit of that legislation and enforce it. If they do not, I just hate to think what is going to happen to the farmer.
Agricultural Products-Floor Prices


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend will permit me, it has been mentioned two or three times that the price is fixed for only a month. It is longer than that. The present price is set until July 1, and that would be about three months from the time it was first announced. Well, on June 1 the price is determined for the month of July and from *then on it is determined from month to month; but it is always for two months ahead. I should like to suggest that it is not only possible that it will go down; it is possible that it will go up. It is an adjustment of the prices. There is no doubt that if we had not been able to make the British agreement it would have gone down, but with the British agreement made I do not know which way it will go.


William Scottie Bryce: That is no guide to the man who is going to breed a cow for the future.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is more of a guide than he ever had before, and he has been breeding cows a long time.


William Scottie Bryce: You keep coming back all the time telling us that this is the best government; and that you have done more for agriculture than any other body. You have not even brought in any forward prices yet. What benefit or what stability has the farmer? The farmer has no more stability today under the Liberal government than he had under the Tory government. The sooner you wake up-


James Garfield Gardiner: He is in a bad way, then.


William Scottie Bryce: I might tell you this in all sincerity. The farmer will never go back to the mere pittance that he got for his work before the war. He will fight as he never fought before for something better than he had before.
Agricultural prices were the last to go up, and were the first to drop. They are going back now, and the government is doing very little about it, in order to keep them up. Take the position of the farmer today. In approximate figures he is taking $80 to $100 less for a steer than he was in February. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will agree with me that there is that drop. Take a hog; he is taking about $35 for a hog that he was getting $54 and $55 for. How much has the consumer benefited by that?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Plenty.


William Scottie Bryce: The consumer is getting no benefit from that.


James Arthur Ross: Who said "plenty"?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I did.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.
2170	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Floor Prices Mr. Sinnoii: Compare meat prices today with six weeks ago.


Hazen Robert Argue: If you said it, we can forget about it.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Compare meat prices today with twelve months ago.


William Scottie Bryce: Mr. Speaker, may I have a word? The consumer is getting practically no benefit from the loss that the farmer is taking in his produce. I can speak for cheese. Look at what you pay for cheese, and yet the farmer who produces that cheese can get only 23 cents for it. There should be an inquiry into this. Steers drop 10 cents on the Winnipeg market. If they dressed only 50 per cent, that would mean a drop of 20 cents in the price of beef. If you go into a store you will see that the price of beef is down perhaps 5 cents or 6 cents. The difference of 15 cents went somewhere. It went begging somewhere. Either the packer got it or the retailer got it. There has never been an inquiry to find out where it was going. It just happens that the consumers have to pay through the nose for it and the farmers have to take less.
I do not think the minister answered the question at all this afternoon. When I read his speech tomorrow I will find that it is just another good Saskatchewan political speech. I am sure it will be that.


James Garfield Gardiner: It will be good for Manitoba, too.


William Scottie Bryce: I do not know that it will. Manitoba is getting a little tired of it.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: They are getting tired of the C.C.F. too.


William Scottie Bryce: If my hon. friend had had his way he would have been here as a C.C.F. member.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Mr. Speaker-


William Scottie Bryce: Sit down and take it.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I am not taking anything at all from the hon. member for Selkirk or from anybody else over there. I want to say that my Liberal majority was more than it ever was before.


William Scottie Bryce: Even the Social Crediters wasted their time educating him.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I am pretty secure where I am.


Mr. J. A. Charlton (Branl-Wenlworlh):: want to take only a very few minutes in this debate on floor prices. I agree with practically everything that has been said so far except that which the Minister of Agriculture himself said. What the minister said this afternoon was that in fact the farmers 

of this country are supposed to take what the government is offering them and say nothing.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, no.


John Alpheus Charlton: They should be satisfied with what this government is handing to them, and it is a pretty bare bone.


James Garfield Gardiner: You can't be a farmer, then, you say plenty.


John Alpheus Charlton: I have been a farmer as much of my life as the minister has.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: A poor farmer you are!


John Alpheus Charlton: And I think that is going quite a way.


Mr. Murphy:: And most successful.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not have any difficulty over their talking to me. They talk to me all the time.


John Alpheus Charlton: I did not interrupt the minister when he was speaking; I ask him not to interrupt when I am speaking.


James Garfield Gardiner: It all depends on what you say.


John Alpheus Charlton: I can assure you it will not be something that you will like very well.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: It never is.


John Alpheus Charlton: No, not from that side of the house, strangely enough.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: It never is from you.


John Alpheus Charlton: The previous speaker mentioned the price to the producer in relation to the price to the consumer. I want to say that the price of hogs has dropped one-third to the producer since last August. Has the price to the consumer dropped equally? No.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: You should know.


John Alpheus Charlton: Nobody can stand up in the house and say it has, not even the hon. member for Springfield.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I can say that the prices have dropped in comparison in the stores today. Be realistic.


Mr. Fleming:: You must have been eating horse meat.


John Alpheus Charlton: The hon. member for Springfield thinks the price has dropped sufficiently to the consumers, anyway. We will let him go on thinking that and see how many consumers agree with him. They will be the judge of who is right and who is wrong.


James Garfield Gardiner: What is the price of lard?


John Alpheus Charlton: Yes, and what did the minister do to increase the price of lard?


James Garfield Gardiner: What is the price of
spareribs?


John Alpheus Charlton: What did the minister do? By increasing the weight of hogs to be taken in, he simply increased the production of something which could not be sold, namely, fat.


James Garfield Gardiner: You are saying that the price has not come down to the consumer. I am asking you, what is the price of lard; what is the price of spareribs?


Mr. Knowles:: What is the price of boloney?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Ask the minister.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would hope that those who object to interruptions by some hon. members would not find themselves guilty of the same offence. The hon. member for Brant-Wentworth has the floor.


John Alpheus Charlton: I do not think the price of boloney is something that we need to worry about, but there is a lot of boloney coming from the other side of the house.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: You are spreading it in chunks.


Hazen Robert Argue: There are 200 pounds of it talking.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Alpheus Charlton: There are some interruptions I appreciate and some I do not, but the last one I really do.
Some mention has been made of the price of eggs and of the floor price of eggs. So far as the floor price is concerned, the minister himself answered the question as to why they could not administer the floor price legislation when he said that in the case of eggs anyone who was not paying to the producer what he thought was a fair floor price would simply be told that the government would not buy their eggs from them in the fall. If that will work, why could not the same practice be put into effect with the packers?


James Garfield Gardiner: It has been. When we made the announcement the other day regarding meat sales to Great Britain we said we were not taking any meat for which they had not paid floor prices.


John Alpheus Charlton: I am sure the government have had plenty of opportunity to find that their floor price has not been paid in many cases. If they have not done it, they have had access to the books of the companies, one way or another, and could have found out what was paid. I think the packers can look after themselves pretty well. They have done so in the past and I think they can do it today without the minister trying to help them out.


James Garfield Gardiner: What would you do now?
Agricultural Products-Floor Prices


John Alpheus Charlton: It is not a case of what I would do. It is the Minister of Agriculture who is doing it. I may have an opportunity later on to say what I would do.


James Garfield Gardiner: You might be minister of agriculture in Ontario, if you would apply for the job, and that is the way it would be done.


John Alpheus Charlton: Of course the reason the minister has not placed a floor price under cheese is pretty obvious. Two years ago he coaxed the cheese producers in Ontario to go into the cheese marketing business, on the assumption that he would assist them in any way he could. They did that.


James Garfield Gardiner: They would not agree with you on that. Do not make statements which are absolutely false. That is false.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This, of course, is a deliberative assembly. Interruptions are sometimes in order if the hon. member who has the floor does not mind being interrupted. However, it would appear that the hon. member who has the floor does not wish to be interrupted, and therefore interruptions should not take place.


James Garfield Gardiner: On a point of order; if the hon. member will not talk straight across the house to me, and will address himself to you, he will not have any interruptions from me. But when he asks me a question, direct, I will answer him.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You do not wait for the question.


John Alpheus Charlton: In all the experience I have had in the House of Commons I have not seen the Minister of Agriculture address Mr. Speaker very often.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then you are not a very good listener.


John Alpheus Charlton: As I was about to say, I think the reason the Minister of Agriculture is now avoiding putting a floor price under cheese is that it hurt just a little bit to have the cheese producers of Ontario get more money for their cheese last year than the minister could get for them.


An hon. Member:: Why do they not do it this year?


John Alpheus Charlton: Is the situation this year comparable with last year? I think no one will agree that it is.


An hon. Member:: You have the same board.


John Alpheus Charlton: The hon. member opposite will have plenty of opportunity to make his speech. I am sure the people back home will be interested to hear what he has to say.
2172	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Floor Prices


Mr. Ferrie:: You called it socialism not long ago.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John Alpheus Charlton: I shall continue to vote the way I wish, not the way some people to my right vote.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Yes, you told me that.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister in January of this year actually promised the cheese producers that he would set a floor price under cheese. How long is it going to take the minister to fulfil that promise? The situation has worsened since that time; still nothing has been done.


James Garfield Gardiner: I never make any promises.


John Alpheus Charlton: The cheese producers of this country were waiting patiently until the last two or three weeks, but they are rather impatient today. The minister made the suggestion that there was going to be a meeting tomorrow. I would hope that some good would come out of it, and that the minister would set a reasonable floor price for cheese. He made the statement today that Ontario was the only province that produced a surplus of cheese. We hope that that is not going to be used against us in the setting of the floor price.
The minister made some comments regarding the amount of talking done, and its effect on the price of beef today. I think it has been made plain enough and obvious enough to all people across Canada that, no matter if beef is slightly infected with foot-and-mouth disease, it does no harm so long as it is cooked properly. So I do not think there has been much reduction in the consumption of beef in this country, as a result of any talking done here from either side of the house.
I say that the floor price legislation has been nothing but a farce and a hoax to the agricultural producers of this country. It has won for the Liberal party two elections; and, apart from that, I can see very little that has come from it.
Butter producers are the only group who have received anything near the actual floor set by the government for their product. In other cases the floor price is set to the wholesaler, and the producer in some cases gets a small proportion of it. It has no relationship whatever to the cost of production. The floor price is a guarantee only to the wholesaler, not to the producer.
There never has been a formula written into the act. Although the minister claims he has a formula, and that he works upon it, that formula does not always bear out what has been said. That is particularly true


when we keep in mind the figures that were given this afternoon by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch). I will admit the minister made a very good try today to paint a rosy picture-and that is something he does very well. But the floor price now set on beef, for a period of two months, is of very little use to any producer. It does not give him any security. He has no idea what the floor price will be after the two months are up.
I will say now that it is not only the farmer who will lose by this fact. Eventually the consumer will pay a higher price for his product because the floor price is not set high enough to hold production. In that way production will be lowered, with the result that the consumer will pay more for the product than otherwise he would have done if the floor price had been kept at a reasonable level so as to keep production where it should be.
I say again that the price to the producer has gone down considerably more than the price to the consumer. The fact that the floor prices are not high enough to keep production at a proper level will mean that the consumer will be the one who eventually will have to pay for the government's delinquency.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: May I ask a question?


John Alpheus Charlton: Yes.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: What was the top price paid to hogs-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Just hold yourself, now. What was the top price paid for hogs in any of the five years between 1930 and 1935 when the Conservative government was in power.


John Alpheus Charlton: I think the hon. member will agree that the top price paid for anything between 1930 and 1935 was not anywhere near the top price paid today.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Answer the question. What was the top price paid?


John Alpheus Charlton: I do not have to answer it.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: It would embarass you and your opposition.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I shall not be long in what I have to say. I would bring before the house one point which I believe has not been touched upon, or has not been emphasized sufficiently in relation to this matter of meat prices, floor prices and the marketing of stock. I am very pleased indeed to know that some arrangement has been made for the sale of some of our meat to the United Kingdom,

through the co-operation of New Zealand. That is something we should appreciate within the commonwealth organization. The amount that we are likely to sell at the moment is relatively small and the basis upon which the trade is made is temporary and emergent from our point of view.
As the minister knows, I have always felt and I have always said that our main market for farm products throughout the years has been and will have to continue to be the United Kingdom. I criticized the government at the close of the war in 1946, 1947 and 1948 because we had entered into effective arrangements with the United Kingdom to take certain quantities of our meat products, and in not one of those years had we fulfilled the understanding-I will not call it a contract or agreement-that we had with Great Britain. Consequently to some extent -I shall deal with what I think is the other side in a moment-the loss of that market was due to our inability to fulfil the obligations we had undertaken at least tentatively. I have the figures before me for those years but I shall not repeat them because I think I placed them on the record some time ago.
The other reason was that in our undue haste to put into effect the Geneva agreements that were made in 1947 we to some extent prevented the United Kingdom from obtaining Canadian dollars by the sale of British products in the Canadian market. I think we can all recollect that we agreed to wipe out certain wartime tariff concessions to the United Kingdom as at July 1, 1948. The result was that to some extent the ability to earn Canadian dollars with which to buy our farm products was denied to the United Kingdom.
I believe that the only sure and stable market we can have in the future is the United Kingdom. I have been in this country now for 43 years during which time I have been in the prairie provinces. From time to time we have had a good market in the United States for our livestock but whenever livestock and other farm production in that country reached the point where they could supply their own market as we have recently found again we always had difficulty in marketing our livestock and farm products there. That has been the history in this country. We have had embargoes and restrictions placed against our cattle, as well as against other farm products. We have been faced with duties against our wheat, grain and other products.
I believe that if we are going to have longterm and assured markets for our farm products we shall have to look again across
Agricultural Products-Floor Prices the seas. This may be an opportunity to re-enter the overseas market and, perhaps, to stabilize that market. If we are to do that we shall have to enable the customers of Canada to earn enough dollars to pay for our products or enable them to settle their obligations to us in some other way.
I am quite certain that the policy of marketing in North America, that of Canada and the United States, is wrong. The United States and Canada are willing to sell to the rest of the world, but we raise tariff and other barriers against goods that might come into the country and thus enable those overseas countries to earn the necessary dollars to pay for our goods. In other words, you cannot have one-way traffic, you have to have reciprocity as between your customer and yourself if you are going to stabilize the market.
I rose mainly to say to the minister that now that we have started once again the flow of meat by this arrangement I hope that it will be possible to expand the United Kingdom market. Mexico is again entering the United States market. The population of cattle and hogs in the United States has increased in the last two or three years. Of course it will be said that their human population has increased also and therefore they need more of these things, but whenever pressure has been exerted by the farm bloc of the western states we have found it difficult to market our dairy, meat, grain and other products in the United States.
After all the reliable consuming countries are those countries which can produce only sufficient food to feed themselves for three or four months out of the year. It seems to me that this house, this government and this country should be giving some study to the fiscal and tariff policies of our country in an effort to encourage those trade relationships which I think offer the final answer to some of our problems.
Our own domestic consumption should be increased to the greatest extent possible. I am not saying that the minister and others are not of the opinion I have just expressed, but I did think that when we were dealing with floor prices we should be considering ways of putting this trade on a long-term basis. Our farmers have always asked for stability rather than high prices. I have heard the minister say that in this house on numerous occasions. This afternoon the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) spoke of forward pricing.
Forward pricing is no longer an experiment in the realm of agricultural production. We have seen it undertaken successfully in

Agricultural Products-Floor Prices many countries. It has been undertaken in the United Kingdom. As the minister knows, my relatives in the old land are and have been engaged for generations in the raising of cattle. My father fed cattle. When I was over there three years ago I found farmers to be more prosperous than they had ever been. The reason they gave me was that they knew what they were going to get for their livestock for three or four years in advance. They knew what they were going to get for their poultry products and for other things for months in advance. They had something of a guarantee of production and price stability.
The minister pointed out today that the butter producers of this country know that there is a floor under butter until May 1, 1953, and that of course is a kind of forward pricing. I think that type of forward pricing could be greatly extended if we had stable markets for our products. We have a stable market for butter because we consume all the butter we produce, even having to import some. The situation is different with regard to some of the other products we have been discussing this afternoon. The point I am making is that we need a stable market in order to deal with this problem. We should exercise reciprocity in getting that market. If we are going to sell, we must buy. We cannot operate on a one-way street.
Just one other point before I sit down. There was some discussion this afternoon about the floor prices under hogs. I have in my hand-it was handed to me just now- P.C. 1411, made at government house on the 8th March of this year. It reads as follows:
Whereas by order in council P.C. 944 of February 13, 1952, all pork products were designated as an agricultural product for the purposes of the Agricultural Prices Support Act. 1944, and the agricultural prices support board was authorized to prescribe prices to be offered for pork cuts placed in storage up to and including September 30, 1952, for the purpose of providing a price of not less than $26 per hundred pounds for grade A hogs basis Toronto and Montreal with appropriate price differentials at principal public stockyards throughout Canada;
And whereas to maintain the price of $26 per hundred pounds as then approved the agricultural prices support board proposes, under the authority of paragraph (b) of subsection 1 of section 9 of the Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944, to offer to purchase pork in canned form in accordance with its specifications and under the authority of paragraph (a) of subsection 1 of section 9 to prescribe a price equivalent to 26 cents per pound for warm dressed carcasses basis Toronto and Montreal-[DOT]
Then it goes on to say that this action is approved by the government. The price of 26 cents a pound is for grade A hogs basis Toronto and Montreal. The point that was being discussed this afternoon was that heavy hogs were taken in and that this provision

had been made so that the packers could take heavy hogs and can pork products. That was not Wiltshire sides or frozen sides but heavy pork. The point that was being made this afternoon was that these heavy hogs were not being bought by the packers at the floor price of $26 per hundred pounds but for considerably less.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I may interrupt, I know my hon. friend-


Major James William Coldwell: I will just make my point and then I will be glad if the minister will answer because I understand that was the point discussed this afternoon. The packers were buying heavy hogs at prices lower than 26 cents a pound and were protected for the lower grade at the higher price level. If I am wrong I shall be very glad to have the minister put me right.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think my hon. friend is wrong. The packers are paid for the different grades of pork on the basis of the price for the pork. The outcome is that if you buy hogs at $26 a hundred warm dressed weight you then take the fat off, which is the lard and was worth 5 or 6 cents a pound a few days ago. There is so much of it that it comes down to that value in price. Then you take out the bone which you must take out in order to be able to can the meat, and by the time you have done those two things you have taken out half the weight with the result that what you bought for 26 cents a pound goes into the can at 52 cents a pound. On top of that it costs 12 cents to can it, so by the time you get through with it it is 64 cents a pound. Fifty-two cents out of that goes to the producer. If it is a hog of another price that is taken from the books, as it was suggested it could be, they are only paid for what we get.


Major James William Coldwell: I am very glad the minister has made that explanation because the wording of the order in council, to prescribe a price equivalent to 26 cents per pound for warm dressed carcasses basis Toronto and Montreal, would include some bone and fat.


James Garfield Gardiner: It says "equivalent to".


Major James William Coldwell: Then allowances would be made for what you might term some waste or lower priced products.


James Garfield Gardiner: That may mean $19 for some others.


Major James William Coldwell: That is substantially all I wanted to say on this point. There was another point I wished to deal with very briefly but I think I will defer it until another occasion because it does not fit in with what I have just said.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a word or two on this same subject. I believe the discussion up to the present time has been highly profitable and quite indicative of the serious condition which exists throughout the country. What we need now is a government financial measure to cushion the livestock industry against a disastrous loss due to an unpredictable mishap. I have a letter from an authority in Raymond, Alberta, in my constituency, a man who knows the whole situation regarding livestock inside and out. The letter is dated May 6, 1952, and reads in part as follows:
The livestock situation is very bad and going to cost an awful lot of money to the livestock industry. A differential of 6 to 10 cents between Canadian prices and United States prices is quite an item when spread over the entire cattle production in Canada.
That is the situation we must face. We must make up our minds whether we are going to allow the livestock producing industry to be seriously injured, if not in large measure destroyed, or whether we are going to adopt measures which can save it from this dangerous situation. What we must have is in essence a guaranteed incentive floor price. The minister said that it has never been the policy of the department to guarantee an incentive price as a floor, but under the conditions which now obtain resulting from the peculiar set of circumstances confronting us I believe we must keep our eyes on an incentive floor price. All surpluses could be drawn off by government purchases of all finished livestock at the prices prevailing at the time of the United States embargo.
The question will be raised as to how that can be done. Under the orthodox financial methods of the minister and the government it probably cannot be done but under a sane realistic financial system it could be done. It could be done by the wise use of the social credit of Canada. We are facing what is more than a serious passing situation in this nation. If orthodox finance cannot solve the problem then let us adopt some measure that will solve the problem.


An hon. Member:: Why didn't Alberta solve it?


John Horne Blackmore: If the young man would only stop talking nonsense while someone is trying to speak the truth he would get somewhere, and we all would. Let my young friend get this straight. In world war I the dominion government through its finance department created money, bought $50 million worth of wheat and loaned that wheat to Great Britain. It could just as well have given it. There was no cost to the people
Boundary Pipeline Corporation and no debt incurred for Canada. That same device could be used today through the Bank of Canada or the finance department and the result would be that we would save all our livestock producers from loss, not only those for whom the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard) was speaking, but producers from coast to coast in this nation.
All we have to do is to do a little realistic financial thinking. As I have pointed out several times, what was done in world war I certainly could be done today. It could have no greater inflationary effect than would have been produced if we had sold this livestock to the United States at the prices at which we might have sold it. It could not produce any more inflationary effect than if we had sold this livestock to Great Britain in return for her guarantee that she would pay at a later date, or for gold if she had it. Why then should the device not be considered seriously and adopted, when even now we could save our livestock producers from coast to coast in Canada a loss which is going to injure that industry for a long time to come?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, May 9, 1952, consideration in committee of Bill No. 62, to incorporate Boundary Pipeline Corporation.-Mr. Larson-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
Mr. Noseworihy:: Mr. Chairman, I have opposed other pipe line bills similar to this in other years, just as I have opposed this one in the committee of which I was a member. The members of this group opposed these bills on the ground that we believe pipe lines such as these, which are destined to become public utilities and are to be used for the distribution of natural resources, should be built and operated by a public body.
The gas which this company proposes to transport is, to begin with, a natural resource, and it is the opinion of this group that our natural resources should not be turned over to private enterprise for the making of profit, but that they should be used in the best economic interest of the public. The transportation of gas is in a class with hydro; it becomes extremely important in the economic development of the country. Eventually, if this pipe line is built, industry will come to

Boundary Pipeline Corporation depend upon the gas transported by this company; private home owners will come to depend upon it; and the industrial development of those sections of the country through which the line passes, and where gas is available, will be determined to a large extent by the price and availability of this natural resource. We feel that such an enterprise is of far too great importance in the economic life of our country to be exploited primarily in the interests of dividends on invested capital. We feel that the aim of such a service should be to assure the best economic interests of industry and consumers. We feel that the distribution of this natural resource should be geared to the public need, and that providing for that need should be a first consideration.
For years past we have been handing over the natural resources of this country to capitalist enterprise for exploitation without a great deal of regard for the future needs of this country, and without too much regard for the extent to which those natural resources are used to meet the needs of the community. We feel that these resources belong to all the people. We feel that only a government responsible to those people can exploit those resources in the best interests of the people. Had Sir Adam Beck, for instance, and his supporters followed, in the matter of the hydro development in Ontario, the policy which we are following here in the matter of these pipe lines, Ontario would have been deprived of the great publicly-owned hydro system. Ontario industry and Ontario development would undoubtedly have been handicapped since our hydro developments would have been used primarily in [DOT]the interests of investors rather than in the interests of the development of the economic life of the province.
The transportation of natural gas is, in many respects, on a par with railway transportation. I think it is high time that we ceased handing over natural resources to capitalist enterprise in the first place, and leaving it in the hands of capitalist enterprise until such time as they become unprofitable for such interests to operate, then unloading them on the taxpayers of the country. We have done that in several instances, and in our opinion it is a much better policy for those resources, in the first instance, to be developed and controlled by public ownership. It is only good business sense, I suppose, that the first interest of a company such as the one proposing to build this pipe line should be the investors in that company, and the payment of dividends that accrue to those investors.

Granted, of course, that this enterprise becomes a public utility; granted that the dividends here are limited as they are in all public utilities; nevertheless, no company such as this can place public interest first. I know that in the committee the promoters of this company tried to assure us that their sole concern was to supply the people of Manitoba with natural gas; they said that their chief interest in building this pipe line was to make gas available to the people of Manitoba and particularly those of Winnipeg.
I do not think that any of us here are so naive as to believe for a moment that such a company is primarily interested in serving the province of Manitoba with natural gas. As I have said, it is only good business that this company's first interest should be the protection of the investors in the company and the payment of dividends on that investment. It seems to us that here, in the building of pipe lines, is one instance which, probably more than most enterprises that come before us, should be under public ownership.
It may be, of course, that that which serves the best interests of the investors in this country will at the same time serve the best interests of the communities that are to be served by those resources. I think however that history has shown us in numerous cases that the interests of dividend seekers and the interests of the community that is to be served by public utilities do not always coincide. That which is in the best interests of the investors in such an enterprise as this is not necessarily in the best interests of the community. What may in many instances be most profitable in the interests of the community is not of necessity most profitable for the investors in such a public utility enterprise.
There are few people today living in Ontario who would agree to handing over the Ontario hydro system to any private enterprise. Nevertheless when that enterprise was first initiated there were those supporters of free enterprise who fought to retain hydro, just as the supporters of free enterprise are fighting today to secure and retain control of these pipe lines.
There is another question that arises in my mind out of the scramble of companies to secure charters for the building of pipe lines, and I have raised that question on a number of occasions in committee. Just why are so many of these companies joining in the scramble for charters to build pipe lines? When I asked that question of the promoters of this company, I was told that a charter would be valueless to them, would be nothing but a liability to them, unless they eventually

secured from the Alberta government and from the board of transport commissioners the right to build and the right to export gas from Alberta to Manitoba.
I just cannot see astute businessmen going to the expense that is involved in securing one of these charters, in surveying routes, and all the other preliminary expenses, when it is an accepted fact by all these promoters that the very nature of this industry is such that not more than one pipe line will be built to serve any one section of the country. The investment is of such a nature that it would not be economically feasible to build two or more parallel pipe lines through any section of the country. It was generally agreed that one or the other of those applying for charters would eventually secure from the board of transport commissioners the right to proceed with their pipe line, but not two or three of them.
I have no way of proving that my suspicion is based on fact, but I have a suspicion that each one of these companies expects to be in a position to make some use of that charter and to regain with profit every dollar that they have invested in securing that charter, in surveying the route and in any other preliminary expenses connected with it. If that is the case, it will be the consumers of this product who will, in the long run, pay that cost. For every one of those charters that are granted and are not used, the consuming public will eventually pay. On that ground I still fail to see why there is any necessity for granting charters to so many of these companies.
There is another point which causes grave concern as far as this particular company is concerned. This company proposes to build a comparatively short pipe line-that is, short in comparison with the line proposed to be built by other companies-and one with pipes of relatively small dimensions, to carry Alberta gas as far east as Winnipeg. We were given statistics to show that in the opinion of the promoters there was a sufficient market to make that particular pipe line a paying proposition. We were given statistics to show just how much gas would be purchased by industrial firms in the area through which the pipe line passed, by home owners and so forth. But there is reason to believe-and in my opinion good reason-that the estimates provided to us were somewhat exaggerated. There appears to be good reason to believe that the market which will be available for that comparatively short pipe line will not be nearly as large as we were told it would be. Out of that fact arises this situation. In the event of that particular pipe line not proving to be economically feasible, or in the
Boundary Pipeline Corporation event of development showing that that market is not sufficient to make this pipe line a paying proposition, it would then be only good business for that company, in order to make their enterprise a paying proposition, to run from that trunk line spur lines into the United States.
I fail to see where we have any assurance that, once this undertaking is initiated, gas will be made available in Canada or to purchasers in Canada. It seems quite reasonable to assume that once having built the pipe line to Winnipeg and finding that that pipe line is a paying proposition, the most businesslike course to follow would be to build short lines from their main line into the United States, in which case the United States would be getting a supply of Canadian gas before Ontario and Quebec would have access to it.
Many of us on the committee felt that that was a real danger. It is said of course that, in such an event, arrangements could be made with the United States whereby Ontario and Quebec would get an equivalent supply of natural gas to make up for the Canadian gas that was going into the southwestern states. There is no assurance whatever that we can make any such arrangement. As a matter of fact, the opposite is more likely to be true. I hold in my hand a report from the Canadian information agency of Ottawa, dated April 26, 1951, in which it is pointed out that the natural gas industry is finding in the United States that new discoveries are not keeping pace with production. The report goes on to say:
The ratio of reserves to production, according to the American gas association, has dropped from 32-49 in 1946 to 2617 in 1950. The figures show also that the increase in reserves in the continental United States was almost negligible for the year 1950.
In the southwest producing areas, the feeling is growing, according to the federal power commission, that their principal energy resource is being sold out from under them. The commission made this observation in considering applications by natural gas suppliers to serve the New England market.
There is other evidence to show that we cannot proceed on the assumption that if Canadian gas is exported to the United States before Canada's needs are supplied we can be assured of an equivalent supply of natural gas from the United States for eastern Canada.
We are told of course that by opposing this bill, and the incorporation of this company, we will probably be depriving Manitoba and the city of Winnipeg of natural gas for a long time. The argument is used that there is now or will be shortly a sufficient supply of Alberta gas to provide Manitoba with what it needs, but there will not be for some time

Boundary Pipeline Corporation to come sufficient quantities to warrant the building of a larger pipe line through to Ontario and Quebec. Therefore those of us who oppose the granting of this charter are charged with depriving the Manitoba people of access to that gas until more is available for eastern Canada.
In the first place, there is no assurance of course that the province of Alberta will permit the export of gas to Manitoba until there is a sufficient quantity available to warrant the building of larger and longer pipe lines. In the circumstances, I think we in this house must be concerned with the economy of Canada as a country rather than the economy of any one province. I think we in this house must take the long view of this matter and act in the best interests of Canada.
Then we are told of course that this matter can be left to the board of transport commissioners; that in the final analysis they will judge whether this company should get permission to build that pipe line or not. It is the duty of the House of Commons, and not that of the board of transport commissioners, to decide what policy is in the best interests of Canada. The promoters who came before the committee assured us that, as far as the board of transport commissioners were concerned, the one thing they would have to be assured of was that the company was financially capable of building that pipe line, and that there was a market available for the gas they were to supply.
There is no question about the board of transport commissioners' responsibility in determining policy. That is not their responsibility. If we in this house grant a charter to this company, then the concern of the board of transport commissioners is to see that the company is financially capable of doing the job for which the charter was granted. It is our responsibility here to decide whether we want one or a dozen charters granted. It is our business here to decide whether we want one province served at the expense of other provinces, because it is quite evident that the building of this pipe line and the supplying of natural gas to Manitoba will delay the building of the larger pipe line which would service Ontario and Quebec.
We here are to make the decision as to whether that particular procedure is in the best interests of Canada, or whether it will be better to withhold the transportation of Alberta gas to the province of Manitoba until such time as there is a quantity available to service eastern Canada.


Mr. Johnston:: Alberta will decide that.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Alberta will decide when and in what quantities natural gas shall be


exported. I doubt whether we in this House of Commons should throw upon the government of Alberta the responsibility of deciding which of those companies granted charters by the parliament of Canada should be chosen. It may well be that the province of Alberta, is ready to accept this responsibility, and would want to be free to make the choice. It may well be that Alberta would like to see a dozen of those companies chartered, and then the government of Alberta left to decide which of the companies should be given the right to build pipe lines to transport gas.
Nevertheless it seems to me that, if we are going to hand this over to private enterprise, it does become the responsibility of this parliament to decide whether we should continue to grant charters to every company coming before us asking for them. So far I know that every company that has appeared before parliament requesting a charter for the building of a pipe line has been granted that charter. I fail to see the point of granting many of these charters and, in this particular instance, I can see good reasons for refraining from granting the charter.


Mr. McXvor:: It has not been my custom to take it upon myself to correct the mistakes of another. But when it is denied that I moved a motion in committee, and that motion was carried, that fact stands denied. I did move an amendment to section 6 where that section states that the pipe line would go through Saskatchewan, Manitoba or outside of Canada. This was my amendment, as it is found at page 111 of the proceedings of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines:
Mr. Mclvor moves that paragraph (a) of clause 6 be amended by inserting after the word "lines" in line 23 thereof the words: "provided that the main pipe line or lines for the transmission and transportation of gas and oil shall be located entirely within Canada."
And then the report continues:
All those in favour? Those against?
I declare Mr. Mclvor's amendment carried.
I admit that after my amendment was recorded, another similar one was placed on the record and that I voted against it. Why should I not? My amendment was the first offered. And, Mr. Chairman, I am not very particular whether this pipe line goes to Winnipeg or whether it does not. But I want to stick to the facts, and I want to have credit only for what I did. I thank the hon. member for giving me this opportunity to speak.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is obviously referring to what I said the

other night. I have before me the proceedings of the committee, and at page 74 I find this:
Consideration was resumed from April 8, of Mr. Mclvor's motion that paragraph (a) of clause 6 be amended by Inserting after the word "lines" in line 23 thereof the words: "provided that the main pipe line or lines for the transmission and transportation of gas and oil shall be located entirely within Canada."
It was clearly set out in committee that the company could get around any amendment like that simply by turning its gas over to an American subsidiary at the boundary. And then we find this in the record of proceedings:


Mr. Nickle moved: in amendment that the following words be added thereto: "and that the words 'or outside Canada' in line 15, and the words 'and/or international' in line 19 thereof, be deleted."
And then the report goes on to state that after division and the question having been put on the said amendment-that is, the amendment by the hon. member for Calgary West to the amendment of the hon. member for Fort William-it was negatived. Then we find that the hon. member for Fort William voted against that amendment, which would have struck out power to do anything outside of Canada.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I do not pretend to be an authority on pipe lines or oil production, but I have heard a good many speaking in the house with respect to this bill who I do not consider are great authorities, either.
The hon. member for Fort William made reference to an amendment which referred to an all-Canadian route. As I said at the opening of my remarks, I am not an authority on the subject, but from the standpoint of principle I have no hesitation in saying that I think a line should be built on an allCanadian route provided it is economically possible, feasible and desirable.
There may be times, particularly when passing through mountainous country, when it is not economically sound to build a pipe line by an all-Canadian route. This depends upon the location of the main line of the route. I think there has been a good deal of confusion on the part of some of our socialist friends in advocating a publicly owned pipe line, and the public ownership and control of gas and oil. It was not long ago when the minister of natural resources in Saskatchewan came to the conclusion that any government-and I suppose he included both provincial and federal-would be foolish to risk the money of a province in the development of oil. He came to the conclusion that a province might easily and readily go bankrupt if it spent the people's money in
Boundary Pipeline Corporation the development of oil properties, or if it proceeded in drilling operations and struck one or two dry holes.
I hear a C.C.F. member behind me saying that he was a sensible man. I think he was, when he came to that conclusion.


Mr. Gibson:: But it took him a long time.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, a long time and a rather expensive experience. But people do learn after a period of time.
You know, I am amused when I hear members from Ontario pleading for Alberta gas, and saying that all Canadians should have a prior right to that gas. Let me state again a general principle: I think that, in principle, Canadians should come first. I think that, in principle, Canadians-even those from Ontario-should have access to Alberta gas, first. But I think, too, that it is a mighty poor rule that does not work both ways; make no mistake about that. I never knew Ontario to go out of its way to help Alberta, Saskatchewan or British Columbia, but I have known them to do the very opposite. As a matter of principle I think Canadian rights should come first.


John Alpheus Charlton: What about the $65 million?


Charles Edward Johnston: Why, you stole over $148 million from us. What is the matter? Ontario has been getting the advantage of cheap freight rates from the west ever since confederation and the west has been paying for them. When the Turgeon commission was investigating freight rates I did not hear of any Ontario members who came before it and said, "all Canadians should be treated equally." I have not heard any Ontario member get up in this house and say the same thing. But I have heard them get up and say, "We want some of this cheap Alberta gas to develop our industries in Ontario so we can run industry out of the prairie provinces." They did not say that last part; I just put that in as a parenthesis.
Personally I have no objection to the granting of this charter. I have every confidence in the Social Credit government of Alberta because they have shown in the past that they can handle this problem. Their first concern is that Alberta shall have a sufficient supply to last for fifty years.


An hon. Member:: Thirty years.


Charles Edward Johnston: They changed that.


An hon. Member:: The Liberals say fifty years.


Charles Edward Johnston: The Liberals have not made up their minds whether they want public or private ownership of gas in Alberta. The

Boundary Pipeline Corporation province of Alberta has made it quite clear that they do not intend to export gas, except in case of emergency, before Alberta's supplies are assured. They did permit the export of gas to Montana, I think at the request of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe).


An hon. Member:: He said no.


Charles Edward Johnston: I understand he wrote a letter requesting them to make an early decision as this gas was needed for defence purposes. Whether that is literally true or not-I think it is in effect-they have allowed the export of gas to Montana to assist our war effort. That was a proper thing to do. If a great emergency should arise I think it should be given first consideration, and so it will be given first consideration by the people of Alberta.
So far as I can see, the more companies that get charters the better bargaining position Alberta will be in. It has been stated that these companies are applying for charters so that they can bargain them off later at high prices. That is the way business works; that is the way the oil companies are working; that is the way private industry works. That may not be a good practice-I am not arguing that point at all-but actually it does not concern us provincially.
Only one or two companies at the most will get charters, but it will be Alberta that will state how much gas will be exported and when. I understand the provincial government has taken steps to see that the collecting of gas within the province is done by a provincially chartered company. In that way every individual, every group of individuals and every company will be treated alike. The gas will be collected and brought to a central point and then the companies holding charters for export can carry the gas to whatever destination they have in mind.
British Columbia is also anxious to get Alberta gas. I make no bones about saying that I think British Columbia industry should be served before Ontario industry as far as Alberta gas is concerned. That province is a neighbouring province and it will be only a matter of a few weeks before they have a Social Credit government.


Joseph William Noseworthy: You are an optimist.


Charles Edward Johnston: I always look on the better side of things. The next province that should benefit from our oil and gas resources is Saskatchewan.


Hazen Robert Argue: We have gas.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is true, but you are
not making very much progress in develop-

ing that resource. I am convinced that Saskatchewan has as much oil and gas as Alberta, but under the present administration private industry has not been encouraged to go ahead and make the necessary development as has been the case in Alberta. That will probably occur in time.
Then I think Manitoba has the next right, and after that Ontario and Quebec. I do not think we need worry about the development of gas or oil in Alberta and their export. That province will be able to take care of those matters very efficiently. I would be loath to see any export of gas from Alberta until our own requirements are taken care of. Then my view is that British Columbia and Saskatchewan should have the next right of access, and then Manitoba. If we have enough left I would even go so far as saying that Ontario should have some, although they have never done very much for western Canada. I think I shall vote for the bill.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to have this opportunity to follow the last three speakers, with whom I entirely disagree. Being an Irishman I can safely take that stand and back it up. I was amazed to hear the last speaker say that Ontario should not receive Alberta gas-


Charles Edward Johnston: I did not say they should not.


Joseph Warner Murphy: -until-


Charles Edward Johnston: That is better.


Joseph Warner Murphy: -someone in Alberta sees fit to decide that the pipe line company which is incorporated is permitted to take Alberta gas. Let me tell the hon. member who just resumed his seat that I come from Ontario.


John Lambert Gibson: Don't apologize.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I hear the hon. member for Comox-Alberni say something. I still wish he would get a constituency which a white man can pronounce. When I hear a statement like that made by a member from Alberta I wonder if he realizes where the money came from that created the oil potential they have in that province.


Charles Edward Johnston: It did not come from Ontario, do not make any mistake about that.


Joseph Warner Murphy: As I recall what happened in the last few years in Ontario, in Canada and in this house, I remember that Imperial Oil Limited spent about $30 million in Alberta before they struck oil and gas.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is not Ontario.


Joseph Warner Murphy: It happens that that company has its head office in Ontario and its refinery

in my city. I do not want to hear this chirping from my left that Ontario has made no contribution to Alberta. The hon. member should go back and find out just who it was that developed Ontario with respect to oil and gas.


Charles Edward Johnston: Not Ontario.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Alberta. I hope I did not make any mistake in that. There are different aspects to this matter but I have not sufficient time tonight to develop them all. I think as Canadians we all share in the natural resources of this country whether they are found in Newfoundland, Alberta, Ontario or any other place. As administrators for the people of the Dominion of Canada I think it is up to us to see that those resources are developed for the benefit of Canadians generally. Since I came to this house I have never taken a provincial attitude with respect to the development of natural resources, nor can I recall that many other members have. Unfortunately there are a few occasions when we find provincialism.


An hon. Member:: In this house you have got to stand up for yourself.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I am one who rather resents such provincialism in a country like Canada which is now coming into its own in no small way. With respect to the natural resources of any province, we must concede that the particular province concerned possibly has rights over and above those of the neighbouring provinces. I appreciate the attitude of the government of Alberta in endeavouring to keep within its control and at its disposal sufficient gas to last them over a period of years. However, I do not believe, and I do not think there are many people in the province of Alberta who share the opinion, that they can have their cake and eat it too. I think I share the opinion of most members of this house that it is to the advantage of the province of Alberta to export gas and oil.
I think that the people of this country must make it known to our friends to the south that so far as traffic and trade in these two most vital of our recently discovered natural resources is concerned there must be some mutual understanding which heretofore has not appeared on the surface. I think that in a diplomatic manner it must be made quite plain to the authorities on the other side of the line that we would like to do business in oil and gas with the United States but that we resent the tariff imposed against our oil entering the United States. Up until the discovery of oil in Canada we had to import practically all our
Boundary Pipeline Corporation oil requirements, and I regret to say there are people on the other side of the line who seem to think that they should still be supplying us with all our oil, and who also certainly hold the opinion that no Canadian oil should go into the United States in spite of the fact that for years we have been buying practically 100 per cent of our oil requirements from that country.
I think it is time for our government and the government of the United States to discuss these very important questions. We now find ourselves supplying the state of Montana with some 10 billion cubic feet of Alberta gas per year under a five year contract. I do not think any member of the house has any doubt in his mind as to the extension of the contract when the first five year term expires. It is true that the gas is being exported for defence purposes, and as a member of the team we are justified in endeavouring to see that any defence requirements of our allies that we can fill are supplied without hesitation. At the same time I cannot help but think that we are entitled to a little more consideration so far as two-way trade is concerned with respect to a product so vital to the economy of both countries.
I come from western Ontario where a small amount of Texas gas is obtained. I know we have great difficulty in securing our requirements. We were supposed to get some 5 billion cubic feet per year, and at the present time I think we are only getting 2i billion cubic feet per year. After all is said and done, I am one of those-and I hope that many share the same opinion-who believe that if we are prepared to export 10 million, 15 million or 20 million cubic feet we in turn should be placed in the position where we can obtain a like amount from the United States to be used in areas where the use of that gas would be cheaper to consumers than to bring it from the province of Alberta.
Section stands.
Progress reported.

The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fournier (Hull) for committee of supply.



DECLINE IN HOUSING CONSTRUCTION

Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to object most vigorously to the way in which the government is handling, or perhaps it would be truer to say mishandling, the present housing situation.
The number of houses started in the years 1948 to 1950 inclusive remained constant at about 94,000 units per year. In 1951 the

Housing
number of new houses started was 72,000. That is a reduction of 24 per cent during the past year.
No less a person than Mr. Mansur, president of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, has estimated that the number of new houses which will be built during the present year will be between 55,000 and 60,000 units. That means that today we are building 42 per cent fewer houses per year than we were building two years ago.
Why has there been such a sharp reduction in the number of houses built last year, and which are being built this year? I believe it is due largely to the abolition of the one-sixth mortgage loan provision of the National Housing Act.
According to the minister's own statement, as recorded on page 70 of Hansard for February 5, 1951, the abolition of the one-sixth mortgage loan made it necessary, a year ago, for a prospective purchaser to increase his down payment on a five-room minimum house by about $1,000, and a purchaser of a six-room minimum house by about $1,500. Because of the increase in housing costs during the past year, these increases in down payments are at least $1,250 and $1,800 today.
According to the latest report of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, an income of at least $3,300 is required to meet the debt services on a minimum house today. I should like to quote from that report as follows:
On the assumption that an average family cannot afford more than about 23 per cent of its income for shelter, the average prospective homeowner in 1950 required a gross income of about $2,700 to purchase a new minimum house. By the end of 1951, family income of about $3,300 was required to meet the debt service on a similar house.
An income of considerably more than $3,300 is required before the money now required for down payment can be set aside. Because of the abolition of the one-sixth mortgage loan, it is generally agreed that a man must earn at least $5,000 a year, for at least five years, in order to set aside the $2,500 or more which is now required as down payment on a minimum house. This means that people whose incomes are less than $5,000 a year are virtually excluded from buying a new house. This defeats the very purpose of the government's existing housing legislation.
If shortages of materials, caused by our defence program, made necessary a reduction in the number of houses built, then the sacrifices should have been shared as evenly as possible by all social groups. To impose restrictions which made it impossible for those with incomes below $5,000 to buy new
[Mr. Hees.l
houses, and to impose no restrictions whatsoever on those with larger incomes, was completely unfair and unjust. It is a clear case of rationing by the purse.
What has made the situation even worse is that the 200,000 immigrants, whom the government is bringing into the country each year, largely come within the low income group. These people must be housed, and they have simply increased the housing pressure on those who have had new housing denied to them.
And now, what is the situation today? When the government abolished the one-sixth mortgage loan on February 5 of last year, the Minister of Resources and Development said that the government was taking this step to conserve building materials needed for the defence program. The situation today was described by Mr. Mansur's statement that, although there were some limitations upon new residential starts because of shortages of certain types of building materials, this difficulty no longer exists, and he did not believe that, except in very isolated instances, the lack of building materials would play any part in limiting the amount of new residential construction in 1952.
In other words, the reasons which the Minister of Resources and Development cited to justify the removal of the one-sixth mortgage loan, have now disappeared. However, the government persists in denying new housing to those with incomes of less than $5,000. This unjust and unfair discrimination against those who need housing most must be removed immediately.
In the interest of those for whom housing accommodation is most needed, I would ask the government to reconsider its position with regard to its one-sixth mortgage loan arrangements, which it discarded to meet conditions not now existent. In this way, the housing legislation of this country can be made more immediately effective, and brought back in line with its original intent and purpose.
In addition to the large number of people who want to buy a new house, there are many whose greatest need is good rental housing at a reasonable rent. The answer to this problem is the low rental housing project, in which the three levels of government participate in the cost.
In Toronto we have a very excellent example of this kind of housing, in the Regent Park project. Toronto needs at least six of these projects, and I hope that, now that the province of Ontario has taken over the 7J per cent of the cost formerly borne by the

municipalities, Toronto and many other centres will undertake these projects on a large scale.
I hope that other provinces will follow the example of Ontario in assuming the full 25 per cent of the cost, formerly shared by the province and municipality. This relieving of the municipalities of their share of the cost should make it easy for many centres to undertake these low rental housing projects. I believe that they are the only answer to the housing problems of a very large number of Canadians.


Mr. John Hunter (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, the subject of housing is one in which I have always had considerable interest. It was actually not my intention to speak on it at this time, but after listening to some of the speeches which I have heard on housing, and, I say with some generosity, to the superficiality of what has been said on the subject, I think it is time for a little plain speaking on this subject. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) has stated that the abolition of the one-sixth additional loan by Central Mortgage and Housing last year was a great error. Who knows, perhaps it was an error. But we all know why it was done. It was done because it was considered at that time there was a shortage of building materials, and that those that were available were necessary for the war effort. If that was wrong, it was an honest mistake and it was quickly remedied.
Now, at the time we had this one-sixth additional loan, the lending value which was used was highly fictitious and very conservative. When we returned into the larger mortgage field after the abolition of the one-sixth mortgage loan, we adopted a more realistic attitude. From October last when the new method was introduced it was an 80 per cent loan based on the selling price and not on the lending value, and 90 per cent for war workers based on the selling price and not on that fictitiously low lending value. Since that time, we have had much greater loans than we ever had before. As a result, the down payments have been decreased on these small houses that come within the category covered by this loan.
I think it should be pointed out also-few people seem to realize it today-that when the dominion government came into this field they came into it gratuitously and to help the Canadian people, not because it was a field they were constitutionally obligated to enter. It was a field that involved property and civil rights-a field which every provincial government, if they are honest, must acknowledge as their sole responsibility. But
Housing
in view of the fact that they were not carrying out that responsibility, the federal government entered into it in 1935 and has continued to this date. And when they are in it all they can do is to provide financial assistance, because we have not the legislative jurisdiction over property and civil rights. We have made that money available, in large quantities, and with the co-operation of the provincial government, under section 35 of the National Housing Act, almost anything can be done under that section.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that at this moment if there is one government in this country that has almost completely failed to take any part under section 35, it is the one Conservative government in Canada today in the province of Ontario.
I would point out that last year the attorney general of the province of Ontario made a large announcement that they were going to enter into a scheme with the federal government under section 35 of that act. At that time it was pointed out that they were going to build, I think it was, 10,000 housing units through the province of Ontario which would be given on a population basis throughout the province. At that time, I believe, on the population of the city of Toronto we were entitled to 500 units. It was pointed out that they would be erected on what have been for many years-and still are -the rifle ranges at Long Branch, Ontario.
At the time that announcement was made, anybody who knows anything about the rifle ranges at Long Branch knows that that was an unfortunate statement and, I may say, a misleading one. It has been well known that the Long Branch rifle ranges which are in the township of Toronto are not being given up by the Department of National Defence until the township of Toronto finds some other place which is equally suitable and hands it over to the Department of National Defence. It was known at that time that no such lands had been found, that no such deal had been made; that, if such a deal were made, it could not be made within a year or two; and that the 500 houses which were so glibly published as being on our doorstep had no possibility of being built there for at least a year or two years. I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that we shall probably never see them on that site.
In every other way the province of Ontario has been very co-operative verbally. Their co-operation has consisted in appointing a housing administrator. I believe that he has an assistant and two stenographers. They have gone into this business in a large way. They have insisted that they are interested

Housing
in housing, and that they are doing everything possible to help us in housing. To date their interest has been extremely volatile and extremely verbal.
Aside from this provincial responsibility which everybody knows exists, and which the provincial government of Ontario has completely and utterly failed to meet, I should like to go into some of the real problems of this housing question. Many of us know what these problems are and they are not just glib talk about the abolition of the one-sixth. There are three main problems, and everyone knows them who knows anything about the building game. The first is the availability of mortgage money. The second is the relationship of lending value and sale price; and the third is the availability of serviced land. Those are the three problems that face anybody who knows something about the matter; I am not professing at all to know everything about it, Mr. Speaker, but I have some slight knowledge of the subject, and I say, with the greatest of deference, that such knowledge does not appear to have been demonstrated in some speeches that I have heard.
These problems must be faced honestly and clearly; they must be faced not with confusion, not with prejudice, but clearly and honestly. The first problem is the availability of mortgage money. The availability of mortgage money is something which depends largely on the lending institutions. The lending institutions are the institutions which have money available, in the same way as has any company depending on the money which comes into their hands through the payments largely of insurance premiums and through the availability of funds from the other securities which are not deemed as suitable at that time as the mortgage loans appear to be for their investment portfolio.
We all know that the insurance companies and various lending institutions have large holdings of government bonds. We all know that the government bonds have gone down in value, and that if the insurance companies are to have large amounts of money to invest in mortgage loans they have to liquidate these bonds at a very considerable loss.
I hold insurance policies as, I presume, does every other member in the house. I am sure that the policyholders of these insurance companies are not anxious to have these companies liquidate their bonds at a loss in order to get into the mortgage field when other fields are equally or more profitable and attractive.
Today on mortgages the lending institutions can get 5J per cent. On many of the

investments in municipal bonds and debentures and commercial bonds and debentures today they can get 4J per cent. Today it is a well-known fact that these National Housing Act loans are expensive to service. There is a great deal of servicing in connection with them. In most lending institutions the cost of that servicing is something over one per cent. Accordingly it is simpler for them to buy these bonds yielding 4J per cent, and it is slightly more profitable for them to do so.
It may be that, as a matter of public duty, the lending institutions of Canada should get into the mortgage field, perhaps in a larger way. Maybe they owe that duty to the people of Canada, but it is not a public service that they owe to their policyholders. In fairness to the lending institutions-and I hold no brief for them-I think it must be stated that most of them are in that field and are making as much mortgage money available for this purpose as is consistent with their financial position.
It must be remembered that during the days of 1949, 1950 and 1951 when they were putting out mortgage money in a large way, they were not putting it out from current revenues alone but were putting it out from current revenues and the conversion of government bonds and other securities into cash in order to make it available for mortgage money. To date they are limited, by reason of the fall of many of their investments in value, to the current revenue coming in from their insurance premiums and other earnings.
I think that is a fair statement of the situation and I think we must face it. I do not think it is fair to ask the lending institutions to place money out at a rate of interest and in a manner which is less profitable to them than is some other manner. If we are going to face the problem honestly, we must acknowledge the fact that if we want them to get into it in a larger way we must be prepared to give them a larger guarantee.
I think we should also cover the relationship of the lending value and the sale price. I shall have something to say on that subject later but I would point out at this moment that we have, under the present regulations under the housing act a more realistic approach. Formerly 80 per cent of the value was calculated on what was called the lending value and that lending value was a fictitious lending value based not on a sale price but on a lower figure which was based on perhaps the sale price some years earlier. To date it is based on actual sale price; and a builder who builds, under this act, certain types of housing with certain sizes of loans, depending on the types of housing

involved-they are all 80 per cent loans except those for war workers which are 90 per cent-knows that when he sells that property at a price which is controlled under the National Housing Act by Central Mortage and Housing Corporation, he is going to get an 80 per cent advance on that actual sale price. It is a much more realistic approach and, I think, a much better one. As I say, I shall a little later have something to suggest in that behalf.
I think one of the most difficult and one of the main problems today-I think it is probably the most important problem today-is the availability of serviced land. In all of the larger urban localities the serviced land has been used. There is practically no serviced land available for housing. By serviced land I mean land that has been serviced with water, sewers, schools and that type of thing. There is just nowhere for people to build on serviced land.
It is a fact well known by builders and others who are acquainted with the subject, that housing subdivisions are not self-supporting in so far as the cost of schooling is concerned. Simply by placing the normal rates of taxes on this housing, the municipality immediately incurs much greater debts and much greater obligations by reason of the costs of schools which will have to be erected in order to meet the needs of the families which come into that housing division.
No municipality today which has had any experience in this field is very anxious to allow large housing subdivisions to be placed within its confines unless at the same time it is getting a fairly large proportion of industry to cover the additional taxation for schooling. So that today, before you can file a plan and get the serviced land in most of the municipalities-I am talking about urban municipalities at this point, Mr. Speaker- you must go to elaborate lengths before getting approval from the planning boards in Ontario, or if there is no planning board in the municipality, from the department of planning and development. You must put in the roads yourself; you must put in the water yourself; you must put in the sewage yourself; you must put in sewage disposal plants yourself; in some cases you must underwrite the cost, or part of the cost of the school building. You have to donate the land for the public and separate school; you have to donate so much land for park land, and it goes on and on; and the restrictions become greater all the time, and the cost greater. It has reached the point today that a small builder has practically no chance of getting serviced land, unless he is fortunate enough
Housing
to be able to get some from some land servicing group. Therefore we are entering into the period when it is the large builder, the large scale builder, who is able to service sufficient land and therefore build enough houses to get enough profit out of them to make it worth his while.
House building today is a very large scale business. It is not the small builder who is doing the work today. If one looks at the number of builders operating in any municipality today he sees that the number has been cut at least in half, and sometimes down to one-third, simply because there is not enough available serviced land to build houses. And the big builder, when he finally goes through all this, complies with all the restrictions, all the regulations, all the necessities, the enormous expenses of filing a registered plan and getting permission to go ahead to build, is not too anxious to sell this land to the smaller builders, because his profit is going to be made not just by servicing the land and selling his serviced land, but by building on it and getting his profit out of the houses to be erected on it. That is one of the great problems today. I may say that that problem has not been met, very definitely has not been met, and it cannot be met until the provinces carry out their duties.
The duty of the province is definitely to assist municipalities to a much larger extent on the question of schooling. The question of schooling is something that today is not being faced, I know, in my own province- I am not so sure how it is being faced in other provinces. I know that in Ontario the provincial government has resolutely refused to face the question of the cost of schooling in the municipality, and until they are willing to face it, they are going to have this continued problem of the lack of serviced land, because the municipalities are definitely not going to permit land to be serviced within their municipalities for housing to any large extent until they get some additional help from the province in meeting the cost of schooling. I put that out because everyone who is in this building business, and anyone who has anything to do with it, is well acquainted with these problems, and realizes that while the dominion government can make money available, they are not in a position to service land themselves without the co-operation of the provinces and of the municipalities. We all know that under section 35 of the National Housing Act the dominion government has made available for servicing land and for building on that serviced land 75 per cent of the cost thereof, and all that the province has to put up is 25 per cent, and with the


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) who laid the blame for our housing shortage at the door of the federal government, and with equal interest to the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Hunter) who shifted the blame to the provincial government in Ontario.
The fact remains of course that whether it is the fault of the provincial government or that of the federal government, we need houses and we are not getting them. The fact remains that the housing policy of the federal government needs reviewing in the light of present-day needs and present-day circumstances. It seems to me that, regardless of what Ontario has or has not done in the matter of housing-and I hold no special brief for the government of Ontario-the situation has developed today to a point where the federal government should revise the policy which directs Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
In an earlier speech I pointed out that particularly during the last year the two most serious obstacles in connection with housing were lack of serviced land and lack of mortgage funds. I realize of course that the provision of serviced land is a matter for the province and the municipalities. I realize, too, that the three-way agreement between the federal government, the provincial government and the municipalities for the acquisition and servicing of land is just not working. It just is not getting the land. It is not making it possible for municipalities to proceed with building on a large scale. I pointed out that the provision of water, the provision of sewers, streets, sidewalks, fire 55704-138J
Housing
protection, parks, playgrounds and especially education, which the building of a large number of houses in a comparatively short space of time places upon a municipality, is a burden that most municipalities cannot bear.
A housing authority is reported in the press only this week as saying that three ol the townships in the Toronto suburban areai would go bankrupt within a few years if they continued to build homes without at the samp time securing industrial development. His: advice was that, to save themselves from bankruptcy, those townships must call a halt to the building of homes until such times as more industries have moved into those townships so as to assist in carrying part of the municipal tax burden the citizens of the townships must bear.
Some assistance must be given to the municipalities by the federal or provincial governments. Either some way must be found of relieving the municipalities of some of the burden they are now called upon to bear in the matter of education and social services, or those municipalities must be provided with a larger share of the tax income. I realize that this comes within the jurisdiction of the province. I feel nevertheless that because housing is of such national importance it becomes the duty of the federal government to show some leadership and to take some initiative in getting together with the provincial and municipal governments to see if some way cannot be found out of this difficulty.
It is said by authorities that the housing situation today is hampering our defence effort. It is certainly retarding production within the provinces and affecting the whole social structure of our society. The housing situation is of such importance that in my opinion the federal government, if it is to carry out its duty to the Canadian people, should assume the responsibility of getting together the governments at the three levels with a view to working out some solution to this problem whereby houses can be provided for those who need them.
This government has persisted in refusing to contribute anything to the ordinary public and secondary school systems within the province. It insists upon leaving that burden for the province and the municipalities. But it also leaves with the municipalities another responsibility that, in my opinion, is the direct responsibility of the federal government; I refer to the matter of taking care of the unemployed employables.
During the last winter we had in Toronto and its suburbs large numbers of unemployed

Housing
employables. The federal government refuses to accept any responsibility for these people, beyond the payment of unemployment insurance. When unemployment insurance ceases, and in those cases where it is not sufficient to enable a man with a family to get by, this government washes its hands of the matter. The provincial government says that it is not its responsibility, but that it is the responsibility of the federal authorities. The result is that the municipality is left with the burden. It has no choice but to accept the responsibility. The provincial and federal governments are far enough removed from those who are in need that they can afford to remain callous to the demands made. The local municipal council is on the spot. It must either provide assistance for those people, or see them hungry or in debt. In the latter instance, where they are obliged to go into debt, local businessmen have to assume the burden.
If this government still refuses to assist in the matter of education, then I say it could assist in the housing situation, so far as suburban municipalities are concerned, if it would assume responsibility for the unemployed employables who occupy these new houses but who, in many cases, become unemployed and do not have unemployment insurance. I say again that in this matter of providing serviced land and the further matter of getting the municipalities to work with the provincial and federal governments, it becomes the responsibility of this government to show some leadership and to arrive at some arrangement whereby the municipalities will be able to bear the load thrown upon them by reason of the building of these houses.
The second serious obstacle to the building of houses during the past year has been the shortage of mortgage funds. Granted that the houses which are built under the National Housing Act are built for the upper third income group, granted that seventy per cent of our people are not receiving sufficient income to warrant the purchase and the carrying of the cheapest houses built under the National Housing Act, nevertheless if builders could satisfy the present market for houses that can be built at today's prices there would be some relief in the housing situation. As I say, the bottleneck has been the lack of mortgage funds. Mr. Mansur in his report for 1951 says:
Experience in 1951 and the prospects for 1952 suggest that sources of mortgage funds in Canada may not be great enough to sustain a long term annual rate of housing starts at the level of 1949 and 1950.
Then he goes on to say:
If for social reasons an annual housing program equal to or greater than those accomplished in

these years is a requirement then it may prove necessary to find additional sources of credit to be made available for mortgages on new residential construction.
I do not think anyone doubts for one moment that for social reasons we need an annual housing program in this country at least as great as that which was carried out in 1949-1950. As a matter of fact most housing authorities are agreed that if we are to meet the actual needs of the people we should have an annual building program greater than the program which was carried out in 1949. There just is no question on that point, that for social reasons we need such a building program.
Since mortgage funds are not available from the insurance companies or the lending institutions there is only one other source. While Mr. Mansur does not mention that additional source there is no doubt that it is either the federal or the provincial government, or both. The fact that there is a shortage is borne out by the statistics contained in the report which indicates that the number of national housing loans in 1951 were 14,918 as compared with 33,934 in 1950. Those 33,934 loans in 1950 were for 42,280 units; in 1951 the loans were for 19,903 units only. In 1950 the mortgage loans amounted to $284,500,000; in 1951 they amounted to $123,700,000. I think those figures indicate that Mr. Mansur is right in insisting that some additional sources of credit must be made available in order to maintain the annual building program required to meet our needs.
I think there is ample evidence that there is still a market for houses that can be built with the assistance of National Housing Act loans. There is still a market for houses costing $8,000,	$10,000 or more. There
appears to be no great shortage of labour or materials and it would appear that there is still a considerable amount of serviced land available for building. I know personally of one builder who has serviced land available on which to build 400 houses. He has been held up for two years because the lending institutions are no longer interested in lending money under the National Housing Act. There are other builders across the country who have serviced land available for building, but that building is being held up chiefly because no mortgage funds are available from the lending institutions.
Whether or not that shortage of mortgage funds is genuine, whether or not it is a shortage artificially created by the lending institutions in order that they may squeeze more profit out of the present housing emergency, I am in no position to say. But certain it is that the lending institutions today

are no longer interested in lending money in sufficient quantities to meet the housing needs of our people under the terms of the National Housing Act. Certain it is that they are not particularly interested in lending money under the National Housing Act to an extent that will maintain a building program of 100,000 houses a year.
It should be borne in mind that when the government set up its housing authority and undertook to guarantee or to secure the lending institutions against loss on money lent for purposes of building, the government provided an outlet for money which the lending institutions did not know what to do with. In the first place the government gave the lending institutions every opportunity to provide that money and build the houses that were needed on their own initiative. Back in 1944 I think the lending institutions set up their own company known as Housing Enterprises Limited. When the finance companies ran into difficulty with their own venture, when they ran into debt, when they found they were unable to build houses at a profit, Central Mortgage and Housing came to their rescue. The government took over that enterprise at a cost of many millions of dollars and rescued the financial institutions from the difficulty into which they had got and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is carrying on that enterprise.
Today when those same financial companies find that there are other investment fields more profitable than the building of houses they are just no longer interested. The fact that the nation needs houses means very little to those lending institutions. The government has increased their interest. The government has stepped up the amount of security provided, and I think has made every reasonable opportunity to induce the finance companies to make money available for houses. I think the government has gone much further than it should in seeking to placate the finance companies and to induce them to provide the necessary funds. We have reached a stage now where, as was said by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), the lending institutions have vacated that field. To all intents and purposes they have either refused or have been unable to provide the necessary funds to meet the necessary housing program. I think it is high time that the government itself undertook to lend money directly, certainly in communities with over 5,000 population.
As a matter of fact the former president of the national housebuilders association, Mr. Mager, is reported to have said that the insurance companies are attempting to regu-
Housing
late the amount of housing to be built in any one area of Canada. According to a report in the Ottawa Journal of April 8, 1952, he said that the insurance companies even tell them what materials they can use despite what is laid down in the national building code. Then he went on to say that the attitude of the lending institutions amounted to contempt for the government and the building industry generally.
I think if you take that in conjunction with the lobby that the insurance companies carried on last fall when amendments to the Government Annuities Act were before a committee, and the subsequent withdrawal of the measure in compliance with the insurance companies' lobby, one is justified in asking to what extent the insurance companies of Canada control not only Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation but government policy itself. Certainly as far as housing is concerned the hands of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are tied by government policy, and government policy is working in the interests of the insurance companies rather than in the interests of the hundreds of thousands of people who need houses.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what good reason is there why hundreds of thousands of home builders or buyers should be forced to pay insurance companies 5 per cent interest when the government advances the taxpayers' money to these same insurance companies at 3J per cent? What good reason is there except the benefits that accrue to the insurance companies? Why should Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Canadian taxpayers have to rely on these companies for mortgage funds? Cannot a government, which can raise $2 billion for national defence, also raise the few millions that will be required to institute and maintain an adequate housing program? Where is the need for the taxpayers of Canada to continue to pay tribute to the Caesars of the insurance world when their own government can provide money for everything else needed by way of services except housing? I submit there is a great need for radical revision of the government's policy both in the matter of direct loans for the building of houses and in the matter of co-operation with provincial and municipal governments with respect to the building of low-cost rental housing.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE PRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
79. Departmental administration and payments to Canadian Commercial Corporation and other corporate agencies for services provided in connection with defence purchasing and production, $7,332,492.
Item stands.
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Forces Act
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION 57. Departmental administration, $244,046.
Item stands.
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES 141. Departmental administration, $294,900.
Item stands.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 173. Departmental administration, $338,505.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, May 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Claxton that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend the National Defence Act to effect certain changes respecting the discipline and administration of the forces and to provide that persons who commit grave breaches of the Geneva conventions of 1949 may be tried out of Canada by court martial; to amend the Defence Services Pension Act to provide that the total emolument, by way of salary and pension, payable to a pensioner who is employed as a civil servant may be adjusted in accordance with current rates of pay and allowances of the forces and to provide that members of the forces who are otherwise eligible for pension may be permitted to count periods of full-time reserve service of a continuous duration of six months or more for the purpose of determining the amount of pension; to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act to enable a person who served overseas with the Royal Canadian Navy during the second world war otherwise than at sea to count such service for the purposes of the Civil Service Superannuation Act notwithstanding that the time for election to count such service has expired; and to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act to make the provision respecting the eligibility of servicemen to sit as members of the House of Commons consistent with the provisions of the Canada Elections Act.
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, this resolution introduces a bill to amend four different acts, the National Defence Act, the Defence Services Pension Act, the Civil Service Superannuation Act and the Senate and House of Commons Act. I stated when the debate was last adjourned that it seemed to me to be an unreasonable and unsatisfactory method to introduce amendments to four different acts all under the title of one bill, the Canadian Forces Act, 1952, as the minister intimated it is to be called. My objection to that method is that with amendments to four different measures it might be that exception would be taken to one while the other three would be perfectly satisfactory. One would be in the predicament of having to oppose the bill when introduced 
although one might agree in principle with three of the amendments. The fourth one might not be considered sound and satisfactory. However, that is a procedural matter and I presume that the government has decided to go ahead with that method. I hope it will not become a practice in the future.
Now, regarding the National Defence Act amendment, I understand that will be to provide for the punishment of those who may commit offences against the Geneva conventions, particularly against prisoners of war and injured who have been captured by the enemy. From the minister's remarks I was not quite clear as to who was going to be responsible for the punishment of the offender, because in his remarks he said "regardless of nationality". I do not know whether the punishment will be awarded by some international court or whether it will be awarded by the nation whose servicemen have been captured, and against whom any atrocities may have been carried out. The minister will explain that when speaking, either on the bill or in closing this debate.
I should like to say a few words concerning the amendments to the Civil Service Superannuation Act. I have no comment to make about the amendments to the other acts. Regarding the Civil Service Superannuation Act, it has always been a problem for the retired serviceman to find employment when he has completed his service. Quite frequently his previous training has made his services very valuable to various other departments of the government. Having been in the government service for years, he not unnaturally likes to continue in the public service. Of course, if he has gone into industry, companies have offered to pay for his services according to the value that they may have placed upon them, exactly the same way as provincial and municipal governments do when employing a pensioner.
But for many years the federal government has said that the service pension, plus the remuneration that the pensioner will receive from whatever department he is working in, could not exceed the amount of the pay and allowances that the man received on retirement without affecting his service pension. In the past that applied not only to warrant officers but also to non-commissioned officers and men. This limitation was removed a few years ago so far as non-commissioned officers and men were concerned, but it has remained applicable to officers and warrant officers. I think the amendment that is being introduced is certainly a step forward in the right direction. In view of the fact that service pay has been raised because of the increased cost

of living, the pay of the pensioner will not now be considered as that of the day of his retirement but the pay of the present day. At least, that is my interpretation of the resolution.
I want to point out that I consider that is a step in the right direction, because in the past hardship has existed for pensioners. I should like to put on the record extracts from a letter which I received from a man who served for many years in the old permanent force as a non-commissioned officer, and who subsequently received his commission. I believe this is a typical case. He says:
The most I can draw as a civil servant is $1,550 per annum which, at present, is all taxable to the extent of approximately $280 per annum leaving a net of $1,270. My pension was taxed another $90 making a total tax for 1949 of $370.
I have had to refuse two or three raises from the civil service-statutory increases-even on as low a grading as clerk 2A, as well as the first cost-of-living increase, which might have been granted, including the proposed present increase still pending. If I had accepted them the equivalent amount would have been deducted from my pension.
That letter was dated in February, 1951. The situation in respect to that pensioner will have improved if this amendment is adopted. But I am going to offer the suggestion that we may now remove all the limitations. As it is now, the amendment will work in favour of the higher ranks, whereas the warrant officers, lieutenants and captains who retire will not have the same advantage as those in the more senior ranks. Take the position, for instance, of a captain who retires. His pension, according to whatever length of service he may have, would be based on $389 a month, which is now the pay and allowances of a captain. On the other hand, if a brigadier retires his pension would be based on $930 per month. It is quite obvious, therefore, that the increases would react far more favourably upon the officer in the senior ranks.
You may say that possibly there would not be many junior officers retiring. The class of man who retires as a lieutenant or as a captain would be one who had spent most of his service in the ranks and who had been promoted at the end of his service. He would not have had the opportunity of rising to the more senior ranks. Anyone who retired as a colonel or brigadier or a corresponding rank would have gone in as an officer and throughout his whole service would have been drawing a higher rate of pay. The man in the junior rank would not have had the opportunity of saving as much as the man in the more senior rank. While this amendment will better the conditions of retirement as compared with those which have existed heretofore, I wonder whether
Canadian Forces Act
the time has not come when we can recognize the fact that we have removed the limitation so far as the non-commissioned officers and men are concerned; we are practically removing the limitation so far as the senior ranks are concerned, and in so far as the warrant officers and junior commissioned ranks are concerned, it seems to me we still have a limitation.
If the services of the individual are of value to the civil service, surely the time has come when the civil service can well afford to pay the price for the services which are rendered. I merely ask the minister to give that suggestion consideration before he introduces the bill; and possibly he might see his way clear to remove all restrictions and allow the individual-be he soldier, non-commissioned officer, captain or whether he be in a more senior rank- to receive the pay which the civil service would grant any other individual, without affecting his pension.
May I put it this way. Bear in mind the fact that if he went into civilian life, or if he found employment with a municipal or provincial government, his pension then would not be affected. This provision is placing the junior commissioned ranks and the warrant officer rank at a disadvantage, although I admit quite frankly-and I am pleased to see it introduced-that it is an improvement on the existing system.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I just say a few words? I am sure we have all listened with interest to the points that have been raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), particularly the matter which he was discussing in the closing part of his remarks. I hope that attention will be paid by the minister to the case that the hon. member has made.
I wish also to support the position taken by the hon. member for Nanaimo wnen he suggests that the government might give further consideration to its method of amending legislation affecting the Canadian forces. Despite an excellent overhaul of the National Defence Act only a few sessions ago, it appears that each session as we meet there are further amendments to be made to the various statutes that affect the Canadian forces.
In addition to the difficulty cited by the hon. member for Nanaimo in connection with this method of having one bill to amend several pieces of legislation, it seems to me that there is also the difficulty that arises in the future as to the problem that will confront those who will look for the complete statute

Canadian Forces Act
in respect of any one of these matters. It seems to me that those who are wanting, for example, to know what is the up-to-date version of the Senate and House of Commons Act or the Civil Service Superannuation Act will be a bit puzzled to discover that, amongst other places, they have to look in amending statutes known from time to time as the Canadian Forces Act. I feel that there is posed by this situation a problem which is [DOT]not solved by this method.
The hon. member for Nanaimo expressed the hope that this pattern would not be followed in the future. This is at least the second time when it has been done. Last year we had a similar bill-I believe it was called by the same name, the Canadian Forces Act-which amended not four or five pieces of legislation but quite a number- seventeen or nineteen-of the statutes of Canada. That was the bill with regard to which we got into a bit of a quarrel with the other house concerning the form of those amendments. The bill as introduced into this house was drafted in rather brief form. The hon. members of the other place thought it should be in much more extended language and they amended the bill accordingly.
I will not pursue the matter further at this time, Mr. Speaker. It is one which involves as well the whole question of what happens to bills like this when the revised statutes are prepared. I simply suggest that further thought might be given to what is the best way to amend a number of statutes in which one department is interested, both from the standpoint of being fair with the house and from the standpoint of being able to find this legislation after it gets on the statute books.


Mr. Ray Thomas (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make any detailed statement with regard to the bill at this time. I will save that until the bill is before the house. However, I should like to add my voice to those of the two hon. members who have just taken their seats, and who have made an argument for not including in the one bill the amendments to four separate acts. It seems to me that to do so will cause confusion not only at the present time but in the future. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said just a few moments ago, in the revised statutes it is going to cause a certain amount of trouble and any further amendment to this act is certainly going to be a bit complicated.
Possibly the minister has a reason for this procedure; I do not know. It would appear to me, however, that if it is followed it is going to make it rather awkward for the members of the house, when the bill is

before us, to vote either for or against it, if there is anything in there that we do not like. Half of the amendments might be acceptable to us, or possibly all but one of the amendments might be acceptable to all of us; but we would have to vote against the bill and against what we might consider to be desirable amendments in order to attempt to defeat one clause or article in it.
It seems to me that it would have been much better all round if the minister had brought down these amendments in four separate pieces of legislation.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Hon. Brooke Claxlon (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Chairman, I do not think hon. members of the committee would want me at this stage to reply at length to the observations that have been made by the hon. members who have taken part in the discussion. However, I should like to say a word or two with regard to points that have been raised. First of all, with regard to the form of the bill, this is the third year in which a bill of this kind has been introduced. The National Defence Act was adopted in 1950 as an omnibus statute, for the first time since 1868 incorporating in one act all legislation with regard to defence, bringing it up to date and providing a uniform disciplinary code applicable to all three services. Naturally that legislation involved a good many consequential amendments to other statutes. By the time that act was put into effect I think there were some-the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggested a number, nineteen or something like that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Seventeen or nineteen.


Brooke Claxton: Seventeen or nineteen; I
think that is at least so. We in the Department of National Defence considered, with the Department of Justice, how this should be done. Nineteen or more different bills- each having six stages, as they have through this house, changing the word "thus" to "so" and the words "non permanent active militia" to "reserve forces" would take some time if put in separate bills. We also had in mind the fact that now we have considerable forces in Canada and it is desirable that the amendments be put in a form which can be incorporated into their books of military law promptly and effectively. So I took the advice of the Department of Justice and of the judge advocate general and thought that the best way to proceed was to have one bill as far as possible each year relating to defence matters right across the board, just as we did in the enactment of the National Defence Act itself. We had bills and statutes in 1950

and 1951. So far it has caused no inconvenience to anyone that has been brought to my attention, and has caused a great deal of convenience to the armed forces, which now have one statute each year to which they can look if there is any amendment that year. I think that is a pretty important point.
With regard to the observation of the hon. member for Nanaimo about the Geneva convention, we propose to adopt a law which will enable us to impose the sanctions to carry out our part of the conventions, irrespective of where an offence may occur, and to take action in the courts of Canada.


George Randolph Pearkes: On our nationals.


Brooke Claxton: Yes, that is right.


George Randolph Pearkes: No other power will have the right to carry out punishment on our nationals.


Brooke Claxton: I think that is right.
With regard to the final point relating to limitations on the salaries that may be obtained in the civil service by retired officers and men of the armed forces, as I said the last time that this resolution came before the house, this restriction does not apply to men; it applies only to officers. As it stands today the provisions of section 4, subsection 12 and section 52 of the Defence Services Pension Act, restrict an officer or warrant officer pensioner, appointed to the civil service, to that part of his pension which, when totalled with his salary, will not exceed the pay which he was in receipt of at the date of his retirement. The proposal here is to increase the ceiling so that he will get a salary and pension which combined will total his pay and allowances at the time of that date, not the date of his retirement.
The hon. member for Nanaimo has suggested that we should remove all limitations. That might be desirable from many points of view. Here I should like to pay a tribute to people like Rear Admiral Stephens who, after a long life of service in the navy, has worked for several years in a very senior and responsible position in the department, advising on labour relations. He himself rose from the lower decks and has done a most useful job for what must, after the deduction of income tax, amount to something like $2,500 a year over and above what he would have got from pension. That kind of case demands our full sympathy and consideration. But on the other hand Admiral Stephens, or someone in his capacity who retires at his seniority, if carried on in the department in a civilian capacity, would be entitled to something like the pay, position 55704-139
Canadian Forces Act
and responsibilities of an assistant deputy minister, let us say $10,000, $11,000, $12,000. His pension after 35 years' service and more was something like $6,000. With his pay and the pension of such an officer he would be getting $16,000 or more than the deputy minister or chiefs of staff. In other words, he would be profiting very substantially from his retirement, though continuing in the service of the same government department. That would not be a desirable thing. On that account it has not been the general policy of the government to treat civil service salaries and salaries received from private employers in the same way for the reason I have stated, and I do not see how else you could deal with it.
On the other hand, we think it is quite unfair that, in view of the increases in the pay and allowances of officers of the armed forces, he should not at least be entitled to draw from his combined pension and salary in the civil service up to what he would have been entitled to draw had he continued in the service and had advantage of the pay increase. So that, as the hon. member for Nanaimo said, this marks a step in the right direction, and I must say that the advisers of the government do not see how we can go any further in this direction without making it profitable for some officers to retire and take up positions in the civil service, if we are to enjoy their service.
What we want to do is to have officers serve as long as they can usefully serve in their service capacity. Then if they have qualities and capacities which are useful to the service of Canada in a civilian capacity, enable them to have a fair recompense for work which, while it may be inadequately paid for, is something they want to do.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am not quite certain
whether I made my point clear or whether the minister did not quite get the essence of what I was trying to explain. I feel that while these amendments are good'-and I approve entirely of the assistance which is being given to the rear admiral, who is still employed'-I do not quite see the necessity of keeping a stricter limitation on the man who retires with a junior rank. The warrant officer has a stricter limitation placed upon his earnings, because at the date of his retirement, or at the present time, the pay of the rank of a warrant officer, of course, is not as high as the pay of the rank of an admiral. The pay of a captain is not as high as the pay of the rank of a colonel or a brigadier, and the limitation on the earnings in the civil service are based upon the pay of the rank at the present time. It is an improvement when it is based on the pay of the

Canadian Forces Act
rank on the date of retirement; but why should not the retiring warrant officer or the retiring captain, or whatever the junior rank may be, have the same opportunities of earning the same amount of money in the civil service without affecting his pension, as the more senior ranks? I was asking for an equitable limitation, not one which was based entirely upon rank. I do suggest that it could be overcome by perhaps putting on a ceiling, or something in the nature of a fixed amount, or perhaps by removing the limitation altogether. But under the present system we are perpetuating a disadvantage which has been in existence for years in respect of the more junior ranks. As I said, it affects the more junior ranks particularly, because the man who retires from those ranks has probably served' as a non-commissioned officer for most of his time, and only been recently promoted to, shall we say, a warrant officer or a captain, and has not had the opportunity of building up a reserve, which the officer retiring from the senior ranks would have.
I would ask the minister to give consideration to seeing whether it is not possible to find a way in which the limitation which will be imposed will be equitable on both the junior and the senior ranks.


Mr. Low:: I had not intended to speak on the resolution at all. If I were to do so it would be only with superficial knowledge. However I am struck with the form of the resolution, and I am seeking more information as to why it was presented in this form. Here we have lumped together half a dozen resolutions in what could be described as one omnibus piece of legislation. It is such a radical change from the usual form of resolution preceding a bill that I think we should be satisfied that it is a good form to follow before we proceed with it.
I listened to the brief explanation given by the minister, and I am not sure that I understood all of it. If I remember correctly the minister said that, after they are passed by the house, the amendments will be inserted in service books or records by the servicemen, and he thought that if they were in this form the servicemen could interpret the amendments readily. If I were a serviceman I would hesitate to try to untangle a bill with as many facets as this one appears to have.
I am wondering if there is not some other reason behind the form this has taken. The reason might be to avoid the necessity of bringing before the house five or six, or perhaps more, different resolutions preceding bills. That may be; and perhaps it would be a proper way to save time. But I want

to be sure that when we attempt to save time we do not get ourselves so confused that we will be like the centipede who, when he was asked how he knew what foot to put down first when he attempted to move, began thinking about it; and the more he thought about it the more he got tangled up, with the result that he could not move without falling down.
We may be reaching that point. I wish the minister would go a little deeper into his explanation of the form of the resolution. Thus far I am not satisfied.


Brooke Claxton: I have little to add to what I said before. There have been many demands from various quarters to organize the business of the house. That is not my responsibility. But I think it is easy for members to see that if all the technical amendments relating to national defence can be brought forward at one time, then they can be dealt with at one time by the hon. members who are especially interested in defence. Also when we reach the committee stage the technical officers of the department-the judge advocate general, and other officers-can be here to give assistance. All of them would not have to wait to go through five or more different bills, either at the same or at different times.
It seems to me this procedure makes sense, from the point of view of the proper conduct of the business of the house; and it also makes sense from the point of view of the armed forces, because we have then each year one bill relative to the armed forces. It is tied into the loose leaf copy of the National Defence Act, without any difficulty at all.
Our experience in having this done this way in the previous two years, has not created the slightest difficulty.


Solon Earl Low: In what form will these amendments to the bills be inserted in the loose leaf book?


Brooke Claxton: They will be loose leaf
amendments cut off and tagged in.


Solon Earl Low: Each portion will be tagged into its own particular act?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Solon Earl Low: But the acts in the loose leaf book are of course separate?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask a question which may be technical, but perhaps the minister can answer it. In the case of the rear admiral whose pension would have been $6,000, but who on going to work in the

minister's department ends up with a total emolument of $10,000, on what funds are those amounts drawn? Does he get the entire $10,000 from the funds of the department as civil service pay, or does he get $6,000 pension and $4,000 civil service pay?


Brooke Claxton: I am subject to correction in the answer I make, because I have never had the question raised before. My view is however that he gets his pension from the defence services pension fund to which he has contributed. Then he would receive the balance of his pay from the department. However I should like to check on that before giving a final answer.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I should like to ask a question arising out of what was said a moment ago. Do I understand that when this bill passes it has the effect of amending the Defence Services Pension Act, the Civil Service Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Navy Act, and so on? When someone looks up one of these other acts, how does he have notice, unless he has an annotated copy? Are those amendments carried into the other acts, or do they rest solely in the measure we are now going to pass? In other words will amendments be made to the Defence Services Pension Act by this measure? How does one who picks up the Defence Services Pension Act know that this amendment has been made?


Brooke Claxton: In the same way, and only in the same way, as he would know that an amendment has been made to any statute- either through reading the statutes passed each year, from the first chapter to the end, and making the necessary corrections, or by looking at an index. The index carries references to separate statutes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is not a complete answer because, as a matter of fact, in the case of most statutes, an office copy can be brought up to date, showing what has happened in each year.


Brooke Claxton: Where there are consolidations bringing the acts up to date they carry the amendments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us take the case of the Canadian Forces Act, 1951. I believe there was one in 1951. Let us assume, and I think this is the case, that the Revised Statutes of Canada now in the process of being printed will include the Canadian Forces Act, 1951. Will the Canadian Forces Act, 1951, appear in the Revised Statutes of 1952 as a statute by itself or will it be distributed among the dozen, fifteen or seventeen different statutes which it amended?


Brooke Claxton: Distributed.
55704-139J
Canadian Forces Act


Mr. Adamson:: Will this bill affect our relations with United States forces stationed in Canada?


Brooke Claxton: No.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I wondered whether it was the intention to amend any of those regulations.


Brooke Claxton: No. We have an act relating to visiting forces which is applicable to the United States and which was enacted in 1947, if I recall correctly. At the last session we enacted legislation applicable to the forces of the North Atlantic treaty nations. That second act permits the government to change the effect of existing statutes applicable to visiting forces. No other legislation is proposed.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Those statutes have been before the house several times and amended?


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


George Randolph Pearkes: The minister stated that the amendments to the National Defence Act will provide for penal sanctions and the bringing of offenders, regardless of their nationalities, before our courts. Supposing an American did commit one of the offences contemplated against the Geneva convention, if that were possible, would he be tried before a Canadian court or a United States court?


Brooke Claxton: That is a matter having to do with the provisions of the bill. I have several pages of notes here, but I would prefer to answer that when the bill is brought down. I think it would make it more intelligent.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.	.
Mr. Claxton thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 224, respecting the Canadian forces.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
1952 and 1953
Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to extend the application of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act to the years 1952 and 1953 and to clarify the provisions of subsection five of section three so as to provide for the assistance intended- when this subsection was enacted in 1951.
He said: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to make a very short statement. I say a brief statement, because

Gold Mining
the matter of assistance to the gold mining industry was thoroughly discussed in this house less than a year ago, and I believe all hon. members are quite conversant with the subject.
On December 24 last my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), announced that legislation would be sought at this session of parliament to continue the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act for a further period of two years, that is, for the calendar years 1952 and 1953.
It is well known that the gold mining industry has faced and is facing real difficulties as a result of rising costs and a fixed price for the industry's product. The government has been aware of this and for the past four years has met this situation by a cost-aid system under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
In October 1951 gold producers were given access to premium markets for industrial gold. A number of mines took advantage of these arrangements and are continuing to do so. But this new outlet did not solve the problem of the higher cost mines. With costs continuing to rise, very serious consequences would face the industry should the cost-aid terminate at the end of 1951.
As I stated last year before this house, I hold that much of Canada's future growth is bound up in the development and colonization of our northern country, and gold mining is still the pioneer industry in opening northern Canada for development. It is therefore important that the life of these northern and western communities, the forerunners of our Canadian northward development, be safeguarded.
The bill which it is now proposed to introduce in this house is to provide for the extension of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act to the calendar years 1952 and 1953 on the same basis as the 1951 formula. The bill will also clarify the application of
the formula for cost-aid in respect of the last quarter of 1950 and of the years 1951, 1952 and 1953.
The hope is hereby expressed that this extension of the act for two more years will encourage and assist the gold mines in meeting the continued high costs of production, and will be of benefit to those communities partly or wholly dependent upon them.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of hon. members besides myself who wish to speak in a somewhat extended manner on this resolution. As the time still remaining would not permit me to complete my remarks this evening, I should like to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: I move the adjournment of the house. Tomorrow, if the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) is in the house, we will continue with this resolution.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will he be?


Alphonse Fournier: The second item would be the resolution to ratify the convention on the prevention and punishment of genocide; then Bill No. 210, to provide for carrying into effect the treaty of peace between Canada and Japan; then Bill No. 93, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act; then Bill No. 195, to amend the Government Employees Compensation Act, 1947; Bill No. 193, respecting the New Westminster harbour commissioners; and Bill No. 196, to amend the Supreme Court Act. As I mentioned last night, none of these measures are controversial and they should not take very much time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not so far, anyway.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m.

Wednesday, May 14, 1952