1953-04-27

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
BEING THE 95™ SESSION FOR THE PERIOD 1867-1953

[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 27, 1953


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, it has been suggested to me, in view of the fact that the Royal Canadian Regiment is returning from Korea and is to be on parliament hill at half past eleven so that their honorary colonel may return their colours to them, that we might recess for half an hour. It is unusual, but I am sure we are all very appreciative of what the young men of Canada have done to carry out our part of the United Nations undertaking, and it might be regarded as a fitting tribute from the House of Commons to congratulate them on their return and to express our sympathy for those they have left behind them in Korean graves.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Before we suspend
the sittings, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that after the recess we will proceed with item No. 5 on the order paper, Bill No. 338, an act respecting co-operative credit associations. I understand that the provincial associations who wish to come under this measure would have to apply to the House af Commons for a private charter, and any ielay in presenting this legislation would lelay their application for a private charter.
* not announce this on Friday evening aecause I was not acquainted with the facts intil Saturday. If there are any serious abjections, we shall have to put if off until omorrow. Perhaps we could proceed today vith this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a copy of a message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand, which is as follows: Windsor Castle
Members of the Senate and of the House of Commons of Canada:
I have received with heartfelt appreciation the address which you have presented to me.
I am sincerely grateful for your sympathy in the loss that I have sustained through the death of Her Majesty Queen Mary, my grandmother, and I greatly value the loyal assurances which have accompanied your message.
14th April. 1953.
Elizabeth R



REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE OF REPORT OF BOARD OF GRAIN COMMISSIONERS

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to lay on the table a copy of the annual report of the board of grain commissioners for the year 1952. I regret that there are not sufficient copies available for general distribution but a number of copies are being placed on the table.
The queen's printer has co-operated with us in making this report available in unfinished form. It is being tabled subject to final proofreading at a later date.
I would move that this report be referred for study to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 362, to amend the Canada Grain Act (right of producer to sell or store grain subject to sample grade).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.

Questions


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to assure producers the right to sell or store grain subject to official grade by the chief grain inspector wherever the operator of an elevator and the person offering the grain for sale are in disagreement as to the grade of the grain.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 361, for the relief of Mildred Hannah Earle.-Mr. Winkler.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: 1.	How many ships other than pleasure boats have used the docks at Kagawong, Ontario, during each of the four years 1949, 1950, 1951 and 1952,
(a)	to discharge cargo; (b) to take on cargo?
2.	What was the total tonnage in each of the above-mentioned years (a) of cargo discharged;
(b)	of cargo shipped?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	(a) and (b). The following number of ships, other than pleasure boats, have used the docks at Kagawong, Ontario, in providing a regular freight service during the season of navigation: 1949-3; 1950-2; 1951-2; 1952 -2.
2.	(a) and (b). Wharfage is collected by the case, article or package, or by the pound weight, according to the type of commodity shipped, and accordingly the total tonnage discharged or shipped cannot be determined.


ZYGMUND ZIEMSKI
Mr. Starr:: 1.	Is Zygmund Ziemski presently employed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
2.	If so, in what capacity is he employed and what is his salary and/or other remuneration?
3.	What was the occupation of this man during the two years previous to his employment by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	No. He has not been employed in a fulltime salaried position. He prepared a few scripts on a free lance basis for which he was paid on a per script basis.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	No information.



PORT STANLEY AND PORT BURWELL


Mr. Coyle:: 1.	Is any dredging work being done at the harbours at Port Stanley and Port Burwell?
2.	If so, is the work being done by contract.
3.	What firm has the contract and at what price?
4.	Will dredge 116 be used in the work on these
harbours?	.	...
5.	If so, will the men from dredge 117 be employed on this work?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	(a) Port Stanley

not at present; (b) Pori Burwell-work on last year's contract ha: been resumed.
2.	(a) Port Stanley-tenders will be re quested immediately, for the most urgen dredging required; (b) Port Burwell-yes.
3.	(b) Port Burwell-Russell Constructioi Company-dredging-class "B" material a $1.28i per cu. yd. scow measurement.
4.	Dredge No. 116 will be moved to Por Stanley as soon as possible.
5.	The crew from dredge No. 117 will b offered their positions.
RADIO PROGRAM "STUMP THE EXPERTS" Mr. Cardiff:
1.	Does the Canadian Broadcasting Corporatio
presently put on a program called, "Stump tl) Experts"?	. .
2.	If so, where does the program originate?
3.	What is the total cost of its production?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Montreal.
3.	Approximately $575 per occasion.
TELEVISION PROGRAM "THIS IS YOUR LIFE" Mr. Cardiff:
1.	Has the management of the Canadian Broai casting Corporation rejected a T.V. commercial pr gram which was known as, "This is your Life ?
2.	If so, for what reason?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Program content not judged suitable.



TOLSTOI, MANITOBA  CUSTOMS BUILDING

Mr. Jutras:: 1.	Have tenders been called for the constructi of a customs and excise building at Tolst Manitoba?
2.	If so, on what date?
3.	What are the names of those who tender and the amount of each tender?
4.	Have tenders been opened? If so, on wl date?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Yes.
2.	March 17, 1953.
3.	Lavergne & Sons, St. Pierre, Manitol $20,817.20; A. G. Weninger, Dominion Ci

Manitoba, $24,500; G. T. Loewen & Sons, Limited, Steinbach, Manitoba, $24,575; Brook-land Construction Company, Winnipeg, Manitoba, $27,471; Claydon Company Limited' Winnipeg, Manitoba, $32,943; John Smaizys & Company, Winnipeg, Manitoba, $35,760.
4.	Tenders were opened on Friday April 17, 1953.



ROBERVAL, QUEBEC  POST OFFICE

Mr. Spence:: 1.	Are the plans and specifications of the new post office at Roberval, Quebec, completed?
2.	If not, when will they be completed?
3.	What will be the type of construction for such building?
4.	Have tenders for such work been called?
5.	If not, on what date is it expected that this will be done?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	No.
2.	Early in August, 1953.
3.	Fire-proof construction.
4.	No.
5.	On completion of plans and specifications, probably in September, 1953.



DOLBEAU, QUEBEC  POST OFFICE

Mr. Spence:: 1.	Are the plans and specifications of the new post office at Dolbeau Quebec, completed?
2.	If not, when will they be completed?
3.	What will be the type of construction for such building?
4.	Have tenders for such work been called?
5.	If not, on what date is it expected that this will be done?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	No.
2.	Late in 1953.
3.	Similar construction to existing building.
4.	No.
5.	When plans and specifications are completed.



GLOVERTOWN, NFLD.  INSPECTOR OF VESSELS

Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: 1.	Who is the inspector of vessels at Glovertown. Bonavista bay?
2.	What are his duties?
3.	What is his salary?
4.	Is he paid other expenses?
5.	If so, how much did he receive during 1952-53?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	There is no steamship inspector stationed at Glovertown. The steamship inspector at St. John's, Newfoundland, carries out any inspection work required at Glovertown.
2.	Carrying out inspection of ships in accordance with the requirements of the
68108-278J
Motions for Papers
Canada Shipping Act and regulations made thereunder.
3.	$4,920.
4.	No. He is reimbursed for actual travelling and subsistence expenses incurred while absent from St. John's.
5.	Answered by No. 4.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams or other correspondence, since the first day of February, 1952 and to date, which have passed between the Department of Public Works and representatives of any department of the federal government in the city of Regina or elsewhere in the province of Saskatchewan and the replies thereto, in connection with efforts to locate Mr. Harvey Lunam of the Lunam Construction Company Limited.


Alphonse Fournier: I have no objection to this motion passing but I am informed by my officials that there are no letters, telegrams or correspondence covering the subject matter of the resolution.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that the motion pass?


Mr. Green:: Perhaps it had better stand until the hon. member returns.
Motion stands.



THE KREUTZWEISER CASE

Mr. Wright:: For a copy of the decision of the board of grain commissioners in connection with the Kreutzweiser case, along with a copy of any correspondence, findings or rulings given by the Department of Justice to the board of grain commissioners relating to this case.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Speaker, on March 18 of this year, as appears at page 3054 of Hansard, there was a motion similar in nature to this one. In accordance with the order made on that occasion the Kreutzweiser judgment or order was tabled. It is sessional paper 121A. The other part of the motion is for a copy of any correspondence, findings or rulings given by the Department of Justice to the board of grain commissioners relating to the case. As it has never been the practice to table opinions or memoranda going from one branch of the government service to another, I must ask that the second part be dropped. The first part has already been complied with.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion be dropped?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion dropped.

Proposed Legislation CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



PROVISION FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, ISSUE OF SECURITIES, ETC.

Alphonse Fournier: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to make capital expenditures in the year 1953 not exceeding $146,767,198 and to make certain capital expenditures and enter into certain contracts prior to July 1, 1954; to authorize the national company to issue securities to provide amounts required for the authorized expenditures; to provide that, except as expressly provided, the aggregate principal amount of securities outstanding at any time shall not exceed $221,867,198; to authorize the governor in council to guarantee the principal and interest of securities issued by the company for the purpose aforesaid; to authorize the Minister of Finance to make loans to the said company secured by such securities and not exceeding $221,867,198 in principal amount to enable the said company to meet such expenditures and with authority to give financial aid and assistance to other companies of the national system.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house. Motion agreed to.



PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACT


Alphonse Fournier: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient, in the proposed measure before the house, "An act to provide for the superannuation of persons employed in the public service of Canada", Bill 334, to extend in the definitions the termination date of world war II from the end of March to the end of September, 1947; to grant election rights to certain contributors for prior part-time service; to make it possible that persons ceasing to be employed on and after January 1, 1953, but before the coming into force of the act may be able, through election, to enjoy improvements in benefits.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
At 11.25 a.m. the sitting of the house was suspended until twelve o'clock noon.
The house resumed at 12.25 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT OPENED FOR SIGNATURE AT WASHINGTON ON APRIL 13, 1953 Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minisier of Trade and Commerce) moved:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the international wheat agreement opened for signature at Washington on April 13th, 1953, and that this house do approve the same.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in my statement to the house on April 13 I reviewed the course of the negotiations at the international wheat conference. That same day Canada signed the agreement. Since the agreement was opened for signature all the exporting countries-Canada, the United States, Australia and France-and 35 importing countries representing 66 per cent of the guaranteed quantities have signed. The importing countries include all the major importing countries except the United Kingdom. The list is as follows, together with the respective guaranteed quantities:
Date April 13
April 20
Exporting
Country
Canada	
France	
United States Australia 
[Stage Direction]
Countries
Guaranteed Sales (bushels)
	 250,000,000
"	 367,437
	 270,174,615
	 75,000,000
Total	
Percentage of total guaranteed sales: Importing Countries
April 13
April 14 April 15
April 17
April 20 April 21
April 23 April 24
1.	Austria	
2.	Belgium	
3.	Ceylon	
4.	Denmark	
5.	Dominican Republic ..
6.	Egypt	
7.	Germany	
8.	Guatemala	
9.	Haiti	
10.	Italy	
11.	Japan	
12.	Liberia	
13.	Netherlands	
14.	Philippines	
15.	Switzerland	
16.	Lebanon	
17.	Cuba	
18.	Portugal	
19.	India	
20.	Ecuador	
21.	Sweden	
22.	Bolivia	
23.	Norway	
24.	Union of South Africa
25.	Saudi Arabia	
26.	Israel	
27.	Nicaragua	
28.	Greece	
29.	Mexico	
30.	Honduras	
31.	Brazil	
32.	Ireland	
33.	Spain	
34.	Costa Rica	
35.	Panama	
..	595,542,052
100 per cent.
9,185,927 22,597,382 9,369,646 1,837,185 955,336 14,697,484
55.115.565
918.593 1,653,467
31,232,154 36,743,710 73,487 24,802,004 8,671,515
7.899.898 2,755,778 7,422,229 6,430,149
55.115.565
1.286.030
918.593 3,490,652 8,451,053
____	11,757,987
2,204,623
7.899.898 367,437
12,860,299 15,248,640 551,156 13,227,736 10,104,520 5,327,838
1.286.030 734,874
Total	 393,194,440
Percentage of total guaranteed purchases; 66 per cent.
[Stage Direction]
This was the situation at 10.30 o'clock this morning. Today is the final date for signature of the agreement and I have reason to believe that all the importing countries which had not signed at 10.30 this morning, except the United Kingdom, will sign later in the day. I shall let the house have a final report later in the debate. It may safely be said that all countries party to the present agreement will have signed the new agreement within the prescribed time, except the United Kingdom, which accounts for 30 per cent of the guaranteed purchases, and perhaps one or two minor importers. This means that over 70 per cent of the total will probably be included in the agreement. Under its terms, the agreement becomes operative when countries representing 50 per cent or more of the guaranteed quantities on both the importing and the exporting side have signed and accepted. Since more than 50 per cent of the importing and exporting quantities have signed, it is in order now for Canada to proceed to accept. That is the purpose of the resolution which is before you. When it has been approved, Canada will formally accept or ratify the agreement.
As I have explained on previous occasions, the international wheat agreement is a multilateral contract between a group of wheat exporting countries on the one side, and a group of wheat importing countries on the other. The basic idea was developed in 1947 after long years of trial and failure with other types of agreements. While many minds contributed to the development of the idea, it is interesting to recall that a member of the United Kingdom delegation of that time played a leading part in solving some of the main problems.
Prior to 1947 most commodity arrangements were in effect agreements to limit exports or production. They were restrictive arrangements, or if you prefer, cartels. The wheat agreement now in effect, and the one which is the subject of this resolution, is nothing of that kind. It is a contract. In effect each exporting country offers to sell a certain quantity of wheat at the maximum price. In return each importing country undertakes to buy a certain quantity at the minimum price. That is the sum and substance of the agreement.
The exporting countries get their protection at the minimum. The importing countries get their protection at the maximum.
In the light of this explanation, you will understand why the government has been puzzled by some recent statements that the exporting countries were holding up the importing countries, and in particular the
27, 1953
International Wheat Agreement United Kingdom, and forcing them to pay $2.05 under the new agreement.
Let me say, in the plainest language of which I am capable, that this is not so. At $2.05 the exporting countries must deliver certain quantities of wheat to the importing countries. But the importing countries do not have to buy. If wheat is available more cheaply the importing countries are free to take advantage of the lower prices without any breach of the agreement. Their only obligation is to take up their quotas at the minimum of $1.55. The very fact that all the importing countries in the present agreement except the United Kingdom and possibly one or two minor importers have signed the agreement is evidence that the true meaning of the agreement is very well understood throughout the world.
Similarly, I wish to make it perfectly plain that Canada has not lost the British market for wheat if the United Kingdom does not sign the agreement. Agreement or no agreement, Canada will compete for the British market and will be in as favourable a position to get a good share of that market as any other exporter. Our friends in the United Kingdom know that, and there is no reason for any misunderstanding between our two countries.
We would prefer, however, that the United Kingdom should join the agreement. We would like to be able to extend to them the protection of the maximum price of $2.05 so that if prices outside the agreement are higher than that level they will not have to pay such higher prices. As hon. members know, the Canadian wheat board sells at I.W.A. prices and at higher class II prices. That is likely to continue to be the situation at the beginning of the new crop year under the new agreement. Of course the wheat agreement is not intended as a means of distributing charity or assistance to the importing countries. In return for giving protection to the importers at the maximum, we and the other exporting countries get protection at the minimum. That is why Canada is in the agreement.
It is in Canada's interest to prevent wheat prices from going too high as well as going too low. Prices which, because of some temporary condition, jump to very high levels discourage consumption unduly and encourage importing countries to increase their production. We do not want this to happen. We want steady markets which depend upon Canada as a reliable source of supply. Canada should be willing to sacrifice temporary price advantage for the assurance of
4400	HOUSE OF
International Wheat Agreement steady markets and protection against price collapse.
While it is desirable that the agreement should be universal so as to provide the maximum degree of stability to markets and prices, it can function without all countries being members. It has functioned, for example, without the Argentine. Moreover, the present agreement by no means covers all the wheat moving out of agreement countries. This crop year Canada will probably sell 235 million bushels within the agreement and around 160 million bushels outside the agreement.
If the United Kingdom or any other country does not join the agreement, the exporting countries will adjust their guaranteed quantities before the beginning of the new crop year. While the Canadian quota is fixed at 250 million bushels, this quantity would be reduced so that Canada would be in a position to supply the United Kingdom or any other country that does not join.
There has been criticism of Canada's participation in the new wheat agreement from two sides. There are those who say that the maximum and minimum prices are too low. On the other hand, there are those who would have gone still lower in order to bring in the United Kingdom. The Canadian government tried to get the importers to agree to higher prices. But we were not successful. After consulting the farm advisers who were on the Canadian delegation, Canada decided to go along with the other exporting countries in accepting a minimum of $1.55 and a maximum of $2.05.
On the other hand, the government was satisfied that this was the lowest point which should be accepted. The farm advisers shared this view. And it must be borne in mind that Canada was only one of the negotiating parties. The United States delegate made it abundantly clear that he would not recommend a lower maximum price to the United States senate. While all countries do not have to be members, an international agreement without the United States would be like Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark.
I shall not at this time enter into a discussion of all the technical details of the new agreement. Apart from the prices and quantities, the changes from the present agreement are relatively unimportant. Carrying charges which have been 6 cents under the present agreement will now be included in the price. This means that the new maximum is about 19 cents above the maximum in the present agreement. At the minimum, carrying charges could not be collected in any case, so that the new minimum is 5
fMr. Howe.l
[Stage Direction]
cents better than the minimum of 1949-50, 15 cents higher than in 1950-51, 25 cents higher than in 1951-52, and 35 cents higher than in the present crop year. The new agreement is not a perfect document. It is and must necessarily be a compromise. But with all its imperfections I commend it to the house. The international wheat agreement has given stability to prices and markets, and I believe it will continue to do so.
Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with some interest to the minister's address on the new international wheat agreement. He ended his remarks by saying that it is not a perfect agreement, but I should like to say that I believe it is very disappointing to the great majority of farm producers. He talked about security and stabilization. We have had some experience in this respect both under the United King-dom-Canada agreement and under the prevailing wheat agreement. On the basis of the difference between the price for class II wheat and what the farmers actually received in these periods, such agreements have cost the farmers in the neighbourhood of $800 million. To my mind that is quite a price to pay for the system of stabilization that is being sought.


Mr. Sinnoii:: How do you base your facts?


James Arthur Ross: If the hon. member for
Springfield had been listening he would have known that I said that it was on the basis of the average prevailing price of class II wheat during these periods and what the wheat producers actually received. Is that satisfactory?


An hon. Member:: That is no reason.


James Arthur Ross: These are facts and
the facts are borne out by the wheat board reports during these years.


Mr. Studer:: You cannot substantiate that at all.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: That is just political
propaganda.


James Arthur Ross: These are facts substantiated by the statistics issued by the minister's department, and they cannot be refuted.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Are you against the wheat
agreement?


An hon. Member:: Shut up.


James Arthur Ross: I shall be very pleased
to hear these hon. members make their own speeches on the international wheat agreement.
44UX


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Are you for or against it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


James Arthur Ross: You will realize before
I am through. These are very interesting interjections, and I look forward to hearing these hon. members make their own speeches.
Probably the most disappointing feature about the agreement is the fact that Great Britain has refused to sign it. Great Britain has always been our best customer for wheat and, for that matter, other agricultural products which we do not sell to them now. According to the last wheat board report, for the crop year 1951-52 Canada exported some 357 million bushels of wheat and flour. Of that amount 127 million bushels of our wheat and flour went to Great Britain, which gives some idea of the importance of that market. Under the new agreement a total of 595 million bushels has been set and 177 million bushels have been allocated to Great Britain, a great percentage of the total. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has said, if Britain refuses to come into the agreement we shall have to take another look at it following July 15. We are today only speculating. We do not know what this agreement will mean in the way of figures until after July 15, which is the deadline for the different countries to really decide whether they shall be part of the agreement or not. While today is the final day for the signing of the agreement by those interested, as the minister has stated, they have up to July 15 to make their final decision.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not say that. I said that we would take a look at the initial payments for wheat-and Canada will accede to the agreement.


James Arthur Ross: On April 17 the minister was asked a question about Canada's position in view of the remarks of United States officials to the effect that if Britain did not come in the United States could not accede to the present quota. The minister answered on page 4006 of Hansard, and I shall read the last part, the important part of that answer:
In any consideration of the future, we must keep in mind that the British will require 200 million bushels of wheat from the world supply. Whether they purchase it under the agreement price or the class II price does not alter the fact that the United Kingdom will require wheat. I do not think Canada, the United States or Australia would like to commit themselves, within the agreement, to the point where they cannot take care of Britain's needs. I do not know what the agreement will look like. If after the middle of July it is found that Britain has not acceded there will have to be a meeting and a new allocation made. Just what that will be, I do not know.
International Wheat Agreement
Those are the exact words on the subject by the responsible minister and I think they furnish proof of the fact that we will not know what this agreement will mean to us as a great producing nation until after July 15. That was the point I was attempting to make.
There is another disappointing feature and it is the fact that there is no escalator clause to take into account cost of production during the life of the agreement. While the cost of production to the wheat producers was steadily rising, and there was a request from their officials that the increased costs should be taken into account, the Minister of Finance said that it could not be done.
I am sorry that there is no such provision in the present agreement.
Freight rates are one of the greatest factors in production costs of the farmer and they have been increasing. They are added to the cost of goods purchased from manufacturing centres by people on the prairies, for their production. Those same freight rates apply to sales by western producers so they feel those increases on shipments both ways.
The Economic Annalist put out by the Department of Agriculture in April, 1953, points out that since April 7, 1948, there has been a 98 per cent increase in freight rates with the granting of the five various increases during that period. On page 43 of that publication there is, I think, a very enlightening paragraph which reads:
Because of the level of corporation income tax, it takes about two dollars of new rail revenue to provide an additional one dollar net. Moreover some important segments of freight traffic are not subject to the general increases authorized by the board.
That gives you some idea of what this government's heavy taxation is costing farm producers. I know that my good friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will talk in the west about the small percentage of farmers who pay income tax and he will say that they should not be concerned about taxation. However, as taxation enters into the cost of everything used for farm production, that taxation to a very large extent is borne by the farmers in the west, whether they show a profit or not. I think that freight rates are out of all reason and when increases are granted they are not spread over the entire system but the maritime provinces and the western provinces bear a very great burden in those added costs- something which is, in my opinion, very unfair. I think there should have been made in the agreement some stipulation which would take into account the matter of
4402	HOUSE OF
International Wheat Agreement increasing costs, because while the farmer's general income is decreasing rather rapidly his costs of production are still increasing and he does not know where those costs will finish.
I realize that the great majority of prairie farmers certainly want the Canadian wheat board marketing system. I have been a continuous supporter of the Canadian wheat board-irrespective of what some of my friends may say. That board was brought into being by the Bennett government in 1935 and the only people who have tried to set it aside are those in the Liberal government. In fact, one of the orders in council which we discussed in the house pretty nearly took the meat out of that board in 1938 and made it non-effective. It is just getting back to operation now.
Despite the figures I have given of the very great cost to wheat producers, I am satisfied that 80 or 90 per cent of them still want an international wheat agreement of some sort. Along with many of those farmers I was very disappointed with the present international agreement; but, as I say, the vast majority of farmers want some sort of international wheat agreement to be arrived at, and I am satisfied that they want to continue with the Canadian wheat board. While I am not at all satisfied with the present agreement I do propose to go along in support of it and I hope it will work out considerably better than I presently foresee. I think it is a real gamble. The other day when we were on the minister's estimates I gave the figures of the wheat held by the people of this country. I think the statistics of the minister's department showed that we have on hand now some 604 million bushels of wheat. I believe that the average over the period 1943 to 1952 was 380 million bushels, so we have a considerable surplus now. We have on hand some 1,160 million bushels of wheat, oats, barley, flax and rye, and those figures indicate a very great surplus except perhaps in the case of flax. Farm producers at this time are very much concerned about their future and I am bound to agree that they have some reason to fear.
I am sorry that things are so indefinite when we are discussing this agreement, and, although the minister has not said anything himself, I had expected that before now he would have announced the initial payments for the crop year, that is on grain produced in 1953. Some days ago I asked the minister about the matter on the orders of the day and his answer was that unsettled conditions made it impossible to announce the price yet. To the extent that they were previously
rMr. Ross (Souris).]

announced, the producers have gauged their acreage and production to some extent based on these initial payments, but I am very sorry that the minister has found it impossible at this date, while people are seeding, to have made an announcement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Do you know any people who are seeding?


James Arthur Ross: According to announcements of the Manitoba department of agriculture there are a number who have seeded in the last few days. In fact, they started to seed during the week I was home at Easter but because of very bad weather their operations were held up. According to an announcement by the department of agriculture in Manitoba they are seeding today in southern Manitoba.
With those few remarks and criticisms I will close and say that I sincerely hope that this agreement will turn out somewhat better than we may anticipate at this time. It is a speculation and a gamble by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and such gambles have cost the people of the country a great deal of money in the past. I hope this agreement will turn out to be more satisfactory than it looks at the present time.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the members of this group are pleased to lend support to the passage of this resolution in the hope that when the agreement finally becomes effective it will include all countries and work to the satisfaction of producers and consumers during the next three years. We support the agreement not only because we feel that it has in it certain distinct advantages for the western producer but also because we believe in the principle of international commodity agreements. We would have liked to see the United Kingdom sign the agreement. We are extremely disappointed she has not seen fit to come into the agreement. We hope the United Kingdom may enter the agreement before the beginning of the new crop year. Under the agreement she has until July 15 to signify her intention of coming into it, and then if the international wheat council approves of her application she can be admitted before the beginning of the crop year.
I know that the coronation will see a great number of cabinet ministers in Britain. I hope that our cabinet, led by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), will interview the British government to see if it is not possible, even at this late date, to persuade the United Kingdom to come into the agreement. If the United Kingdom came into the agree-

merit, I believe the agreement would function well. Without the United Kingdom, the agreement as it now stands is bound to run into difficulties, in my opinion. Certainly it is going to be much harder to operate the agreement successfully in the interests of the producers without the United Kingdom. If you have a country that has 30 per cent of the quota set in this agreement shopping around the world for wheat, going to Canada which has large surpluses; the United States, with large surpluses, and the Argentine, which is likely to have a sizeable carryover this year for the first time in many years; and going to Russia-then there is certainly a real possibility that the competition amongst exporting nations may result in a reduction in price below $2.05 per bushel. I feel that this agreement can work best in the interests of the producers if the United Kingdom has to pay the international wheat agreement price, whatever it may be, and that can only be accomplished if Canada and the United States see to it that neither one dumps surplus grain on the market. Just as sure as that is done, it will result in a serious reduction in the price of wheat. I think the agreement, suffering from the fact that Britain has not signed it, may work almost as well without Britain if the authorities in the United States and the authorities in Canada feed the wheat on to the international markets in exactly the same quantities as wheat would be placed on the international markets if Britain had been in the wheat agreement. If our friends to the south refrain from drastic action, I feel there is a good possibility that the price, both in the international wheat agreement and outside, may be fairly satisfactory within the next three-year period.
We in this group have always supported an international wheat agreement, whether it was the Canadian-United Kingdom wheat agreement or whether it was the international wheat agreement that is now operating, or whether it is the wheat agreement that we are being asked to endorse. We feel that the measure of stability that farmers are assured is worth a great deal to them. We feel that the producers would not have had any real criticism of the United Kingdom wheat agreement or the present wheat agreement if the government of Canada had taken steps to hold down the farmers' costs of production after the agreement had been signed. We have a range of prices that promise some stability for the producers in the next three years. If the agreement were working right now, I imagine the price would be at the ceiling. In other words, there will be a gain of 19 cents 68108-279
27, 1953
International Wheat Agreement per bushel in price which will, to some extent, compensate the farmer for recent increases in costs of production. If the farmers' costs of production taper off or go down, then the ceiling price as it is will be satisfactory. But if we should run into another inflationary period, and the government should again allow great increases in the farmers' costs of production, then this agreement would not be satisfactory. It is not a criticism of the agreement. All I am saying is that with the prices set within that certain range it is necessary for the government here to see to it that the farmers' costs of production do not fluctuate to a larger percentage than the possible fluctuations in the wheat agreement.
We not only support the agreement today, but we would like to see this principle extended to other commodities. Over the last few years we have seen a large increase in the production of coarse grains, not only in Canada but in other countries of the world which are the chief exporters under this agreement. We would like to see an international commodity agreement in regard to coarse grains. We hear that the Japanese and other countries are becoming more interested in purchasing Canadian barley for human consumption. We have a market for oats in the United States. It may be an uncertain market, but recently it has been of importance. We would not only like to see an agreement like this wheat agreement with all countries signing it, but we would like to see this same principle extended to other commodities.
I wonder if you would call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, in this agreement there is one provision that, in my opinion, constitutes for producers a considerable advantage over the provision in the previous agreement. I refer to the clause which provides that the funds in which payment is to be made for the wheat are to be Canadian funds. Because of that fact there will not be, in addition to whatever fluctuations may take place between $1.55 and $2.05, any fluctuation because of the change in the value of the Canadian dollar. During the life of the four-year wheat agreement that is still operating, we had a fluctuation of as much as 25 cents a bushel in the price received by the wheat board because of a fluctuation in the value of the Canadian dollar. For a time, because of a ten per cent discount on Canadian funds as related
4404	HOUSE OF
International Wheat Agreement to United States funds, we received $1.98 a bushel instead of $1.80. We liked that; we had no complaints about it; it helped us. But when the Canadian dollar value changed and instead of being at a discount in relation to United States funds it was at a premium, we did not like the fact that producers had to take from the wheat board as little as $1.74 or $1.73 a bushel. That additional fluctuation has been removed from the present wheat agreement since the moneys are payable in Canadian funds.
There is in relation to the marketing of wheat an aspect of domestic policy that we have advocated in the past and that I should like to stress again today. A custom has grown up of connecting the price the domestic consumer pays for Canadian wheat to the price paid in the international wheat agreement. Over the years the farmers have been advocating parity prices. I think the stand taken at present by the three farm unions, in advocating that wheat going into domestic consumption be based on parity, is a good one. I think they are advocating a sound principle. All that would mean is that the price of wheat going into Canadian consumption would be tied to a cost-of-production index. Every other industry in Canada has a parity price, if I might so define it. There is not a major industry in Canada that, when its goods are sold, is not certain that they will return to it sufficient to cover the cost of production, to pay a return on capital and to leave some additional surplus. The major implement companies and oil companies so set their prices that, year in and year out, they have a return on account of capital. As I say, every major industry in Canada has a parity price. They can get their own parity price by establishing the prices for their commodities. It is only agriculture that has to take a varying price that so often has no relationship whatever to the cost of production.
The floor price in the international wheat agreement is $1.55 a bushel. That is an improvement on the floor price that appears in the previous wheat agreement. If one considers the freight and the handling charges, the $1.55 a bushel will probably result in an effective floor price to the producer of $1.30 a bushel at his local marketing point. That is not a high price. It is not even a good price. But it probably is a price that will allow the farmer to stay in business if prices should fall to that level. The floor price is just as important as is the ceiling price, and the $1.55 a bushel constitutes a guarantee to the farmer that is a real advantage.
Another reason I am glad to see the wheat agreement being presented to this house is this. I feel that the wheat board system of


marketing grain is far more secure-particularly under the present government-with an international wheat agreement than it would be without one. I think that when we have an international wheat agreement, it is almost necessary then to have a government agency handling the marketing of grain. Without an international wheat agreement we might get the grain exchange opened again for wheat. I for one would not be nearly as certain that the wheat board will be maintained as I am when we have the additional stability resulting from an international wheat agreement.
This government is a fairly recent convert to the idea of planned marketing for farm products. This government does not believe- and has never said it does-in a planned economy; but the government has come around to the point that it is willing, through international arrangements, to do some planning in relation to the marketing of wheat by continuing the wheat board as the sole marketing agency for wheat. It is willing to place government planning in the field of the marketing of wheat, and that is all to the good. This government has been in office now for some 18 years. In the first eight years, from 1935 to 1943, we had a wheat board that was in and out of the grain business because it was allowed to purchase grain only when grain was offered to it; and the grain exchange was allowed to function at the same time. Therefore, from 1935 to 1943, the old wheat board functioned only when the grain exchange price was substantially under the wheat board initial price.
I should like to see the government go one step further in its grain marketing legislation, The wheat board now handles the marketing and the purchasing of oats and barley. Some oats and barley are marketed through the grain exchange. Other quantities are marketed directly. I should like to see the grain exchange closed as far as the oats and barley futures are concerned. Indeed, I would go one step further and say that I should like to see the government bring all grains under the wheat board with respect to marketing. I should like to see the grain exchange closed, the door locked, and the key thrown away. That is something that is going to happen sooner or later. The trend is towards closing the grain exchange. If a vote on it were taken amongst producers, I am sure that 90 per cent or more of them would vote for having the wheat board handle the marketing of all grain.
We are pleased that the government has come as far as it has come in using the wheat board as a marketing agency, but we should like to see the board's operations extended. I agree with the hon. member for Souris

(Mr. Ross) when he says that it is time the initial prices for grain were announced. A great many farmers will be seeding in western Canada this week. Seeding will be fairly general this week if warm weather continues. They are out on the land now in my constituency.
The announcement of the initial prices for grains has been too long delayed, but it should not be delayed any longer. In establishing initial prices for grain this year the government will have to take into account supply and demand considerations. It will have to consider the relative demand for oats and barley as compared with wheat. If the announcement had been made a few weeks ago, on the basis of the initial prices, farmers might have been given some direction as to what grain should be increased or decreased in acreage. The time has come when the initial prices for wheat should be increased substantially.
The minister told us this morning that under the international wheat agreement the floor price is up 35 cents a bushel over the floor price of this year. He said that even after subtracting carrying charges, the initial price for wheat is up 20 cents a bushel. To strike a rough average I think that the 25-cent increase in the initial price for wheat this year would amply justify an increase from $1.40 to $1.65 a bushel. The minister has always said, and rightly, that the initial prices should not be established at such a high level that the wheat board might lose considerable money. I do not think that an initial price of $1.65 a bushel for the coming year would be establishing the floor at an unduly high level. It is certain that the price for wheat in the coming crop year will be substantially above the initial price o $1.65 a bushel.
A great many people have criticized the British for having failed to come into the agreement and for having stuck to $2 a bushel when there was only a 5-cent difference separating the countries. Some have suggested to me that Britain never even offered $2 a bushel. In reading the British Hansard I noticed that Major Lloyd George, the Minister of Food, stated quite categorically that Britain would have signed the agreement had the exporting countries accepted her offer of $2 a bushel. I realize that the United States would not go below $2.05 and the British would not go above $2 a bushel. As far as we were concerned, we had to decide whether we wanted the United States in the agreement or Britain; we had to make a choice. I think the choice was the right one; but if Britain was too sticky over 5 cents a bushel, the United States was 68108-279J
27, 1953
International Wheat Agreement in exactly the same position. I doubt whether any greater criticism of Britain is justified than of the United States, because each one was quibbling over 5 cents a bushel.
When I gave some figures the other day, on the wheat surplus in the world today and the possible carryovers, the Minister of Trade and Commerce said my statistics were all wrong. Well, I have checked them over, and I believe my statistics are a hundred per cent correct, because I have a good deal of faith in the dominion bureau of statistics. The figures I quoted were given out by the dominion bureau of statistics in their March wheat review. These statistics showed that the export and carryover for the four major exporting countries at the end of their respective crop years would likely amount to 1,468 million bushels. I estimated from that that the total carryover, or the total quantity of wheat available for export and carryover at the end of our crop year on July 31, for these four main exporting countries, was likely to be in the neighbourhood of 1,200 million bushels. I have since looked at the statistics and I still think my estimate will be quite near the mark. I estimated that Canada's own carryover would probably be in the neighbourhood of 330 million bushels on July 31. The minister shakes his head. Well, the carryover was about 200 million bushels last year, and, with the huge crop last year, if there is added only an additional 130 million bushels to the carryover on July 31 we shall be fairly lucky indeed. These calculations are based on the estimate that we sell in the export markets of the world as much wheat as we sold in our peak year, which was the past year.
If I had wanted to quote other publications I might have quoted the Foreign Agriculture Circular published by the United States department of agriculture, dated March 19, 1953. After saying that coarse grains, meaning oats, barley and current world supplies, were very high, it had this to say about wheat:
Larger supplies of wheat contributed most to the increase over the January 1, 1952 supply, though corn was also significantly larger. Total wheat in the four exporting countries was estimated at 2,243 million bushels, which was larger by 575 million bushels or about a third more than supplies a year earlier. Based on current estimates, the quantity of wheat available for export or carryover from current supplies in these countries is estimated at about 1,585 million bushels.
I believe those statistics show that on the North American continent in particular there is a huge surplus of wheat. I have used those figures not only in parliament but outside in order to convince certain people, who were doubtful as to the need of an international wheat agreement, that they had large supplies of wheat on hand in the exporting countries
4406	HOUSE OF
International Wheat Agreement of the world today, and that a wheat agreement was essential even though the ceiling price may be lower than some people had hoped it would be.
As I read the agreement, Britain can come into it at almost any time even after it goes into effect. If she makes an application and the international wheat council approves her application she can come in one year hence. Naturally I do not know the thinking of the British government, but if something could be done to correct Britain's adverse balance of payments with the dollar countries, if something could be done to reduce that $386 million difference in the quantity of goods Britain purchased from Canada last year and the quantity of goods we purchased from her, if Britain were given a better position as far as the dollar area is concerned, with that better position Britain might still come into the agreement. I hope steps can be taken to increase our purchases of British goods in order to relieve her shortage of Canadian and United States dollars. If Britain's shortage of United States and Canadian dollars were dealt with she might yet come into the agreement.
We can have an agreement covering almost 600 million bushels of wheat a year, an agreement that gives Canada an assured market of 250 million bushels a year, a floor price of $1.55 a bushel, a ceiling price of $2.05 a bushel. If we can have that kind of agreement, and if the Canadian government will see to it that inflation does not once again cause farmers' costs of production to soar, then I believe three years from now the wheat producers in Canada will agree that the agreement has been to their advantage.


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, although the new international wheat agreement has been signed, I believe it would be of advantage to tell the minister and the government what we think about it. Let me start out by saying that we are supporting it. It does provide some form of stabilization; but it does not go all the way, because in my opinion the price under the agreement is too low.
Many people feel that those of us who grow wheat are making a lot of money; but they fail to realize that in the past number of years we have had increased taxes, that freight rates have jumped by more than 85 per cent in the last three years, and that farm machinery prices have jumped 54 points in the last five years and almost 100 points since 1939. They also do not realize that, like labour in other industries, the cost of farm labour has increased considerably. They do not realize that we cannot get the efficient farm labour to which we are entitled.

The negotiations preceding the agreement were drawn out for at least ten weeks. Many people were fearful that no agreement would be reached. However, I am glad to note that those who took part in the negotiations had lots of patience, and perhaps wore down the others, so that an agreement was finally reached.
Under the agreement the maximum price is $2.05; and when we take the carrying charges out of that amount we have the figure of $1.99. If we look back to the period of the present agreement, when we had a 10 per cent discount on our Canadian money, and were receiving payments for our grain in United States funds, we will remember that the price then was $1.98 a bushel, and it will be realized that that is only one cent lower than the present price. If we translate that into 1939 dollars we find that it is worth at the present time only 944 cents. The minimum price of $1.55 is somewhat better than the minimum under the present agreement. But that again represents a price of 714 cents as compared with the 1939 dollar.
One thing that does not appear in the agreement, and most certainly should be there, is the escalator clause for which we have pleaded time and again. Such a clause would make allowances for adjustments and would keep pace with the changes in the cost of production as well as with the prices of goods in other countries. This, however, has been neglected. Perhaps it was not possible to obtain such a clause; but I am not sure that any attempt has been made to have it included.
During 1952 farmers' costs have increased by 7 per cent. In many cases the prices of farm products have increased considerably. However, past experience proves that prices of farm products are the last to rise and always the first to drop; and that still holds true today.
If I understand correctly, the present agreement is a gentlemen's agreement, as was the case with the one now in force. Under certain conditions the signatories are not compelled either to buy or to sell. There is however one missing link, and that is the British government. There have been many criticisms of this fact, and some people are wondering why Great Britain did not sign. There would appear to be a difference of five cents a bushel between the price asked by the sellers and that offered by the purchasers. Great Britain alone refused to pay that additional five cents.
In the last issue of the Western Producer, dated April 23, 1953, there are some observations which express the opinions of people
[Mr. Argue.!

in the western provinces, and which I should like to place on record. This article proceeds to deal with an editorial in the Manchester Guardian of England, and makes this observation:
The Guardian writer proceeds to point out that any reductions in wheat prices to the sterling area would be far-reaching in their effects and then
goes on:
"To take the extreme possibility, if, perhaps through the restoration of a free market, the wheat price was to fall by about 80 cents to a little more than $1 a bushel, the sterling area would save more than $220 million a year.
"This is more than two-thirds of the defence aid received by this country in 1952 and about a fifth of the sterling area's dollar gap last year."
Then we find a little later on in the editorial that Britain was not considering the cost of producing the wheat, but that they were dealing entirely with the large surpluses both in Canada and in other countries. For that reason they felt they were entitled to buy wheat at fire sale prices, regardless of the fact that it might bankrupt the farmers in this and some other countries.
To quote again from the editorial in the Western Producer:
When, over 20 years ago, the farmers of western Canada decided to work for an international wheat agreement they knew quite clearly what they wanted. They wanted to put an end to the cycle of boom and bust which had wrought havoc alike with the producer and consumer of wheat. They believed that a system which at one time resulted in $3 wheat and at another in 40 cent wheat could bankrupt the producer and be ruinous to the consumer. They wanted instead a fair, stable price which would enable the farmer to plant his crop with confidence and would guarantee the buyer satisfactory supplies at reasonable prices.
That in my opinion sums up the matter fairly well. Perhaps in face of the stand taken by Great Britain we should remind them of some of the advantages they had in the past. By doing so I believe we can make that five-cent difference look rather small.
For the crops from 1946 to 1949 we had an agreement with Great Britain for the sale of a certain quantity of wheat. I should like to place on record the quantities of wheat we sold to Britain, and the prices they paid. I shall also place on record the prices of class II wheat during each of those years.
In the 1946-47 crop year Canada supplied Britain with 169 million bushels of wheat at $1.55. The price of class II wheat was $2.43. Therefore Canadian producers lost 88 cents a bushel, or a total of $148,720,000 in that year's transaction with Britain. In the 1947-48 crop year Canadians supplied Britain with 170,600,000 bushels of wheat at $1.55 per bushel. The class II price that year was $2.88 so therefore the Canadian wheat growers lost
International Wheat Agreement an average of $1.33 per bushel or $226,898,000 because of our agreement with Britain. We did not do any crying about that either. We felt that we had some obligations toward Britain and that deal was not made on a strictly business basis. We had obligations during the war and that was one way we took of paying off some of them. We did not cry over spilt milk.
In the 1948-49 crop year Canada supplied Britain with 146,342,802 bushels of wheat at $2 per bushel. The price of class II wheat that was sold by the wheat board outside the agreement was $2.23 per bushel. Therefore the net loss to the Canadian producer was 23 cents per bushel or $33,658,844. In the 1949-50 crop year we supplied Britain with 140 million bushels of wheat at $2 per bushel. The price of class II wheat was $2.16, making a loss per bushel of 16 cents or a total of $22,400,000.
The losses during those four crop years totalled $431,676,844. After quite a little bit of talk, a lot of misguided talk, we received from the Canadian government a payment of $65 million. That was simply a token payment to relieve their consciences. It still left a balance of $366,676,844 as the loss suffered by the wheat growers in relation to the prices received by the wheat board on class II wheat.
Then lest the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the government forget, during that same period the Canadian people were allowed to buy wheat on the same basis as that sold to the British government and the Canadian farmer thus suffered a further loss of $136,920,921, making a total loss to the Canadian wheat growers of $503,597,765. If the British government will take a look at these figures I think they will realize what the Canadian wheat growers have done and I hope they will hurry to sign the agreement without further delay. They still have time to do it today, and if they do not do it today they have until July 15. I hope that they will not miss this opportunity of living up to an agreement that has been to their advantage in the past, and I have no doubt would be to their advantage in the future.
Prices today are nowhere near where they should be and we have no guarantee that our costs of production will not skyrocket again in the near future. Unless the Korean situation is settled I have no doubt that there will be further increased costs of production. If Great Britain decides not to sign the agreement, then they should be treated as other buyers and pay class II prices for the wheat they get from us.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce was over there in May, 1949, I believe, but he
4408	HOUSE OF
International Wheat Agreement allowed the British traders to talk him out of additional money on this deal. The western wheat growers regret that very much. We have other wheat moneys coming; we are still waiting and will continue to wait.
As far as the wheat board is concerned, I believe that that organization must be kept in existence. Like the hon. member who resumed his seat a short time ago, I believe that the sooner the grain exchange is put out of business forever the better it will be for the Canadian producers. They are wasting a lot of money putting out publications of different kinds condemning the international wheat agreement and trying to get farmers dissatisfied with it so that they can get back to their own gambling games, gambling with food products and making easy money for a number of operators in the organization.


Mr. F. H. Larson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to see the universal support of this international wheat agreement that has come from all sides 'of the chamber. Certain regrets have been advanced by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) as to the British not going into this agreement, and I think those are important. We have given a good deal of aid to the British. I admit that during the war it was probably for our own benefit to make sure that the war remained in Europe rather than have the European outposts liquidated and the war brought over here.
On the other hand, those people were fighting for their lives and we were helping them, .and I think they should recognize that as a point. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said, the British are being guaranteed wheat at a reasonable price. I think it is to their advantage to sign this agreement. However, they have not chosen to do so, and as we do not run the British government I do not think there is much we can do about it.
The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) said that he was not afraid that there would be dumping of wheat on the world market to depress prices if Canada and the United States had an agreement that they would not dump wheat. It is quite obvious that, with the Canadian wheat board and the United States policy in connection with farm produce prices, there will be no dumping. We have our wheat board so that we can advance payments and hold the crop until it can be put on the market in a normal and orderly way and not cause dumping.
As far as costs of production are concerned,
I agree that it would be nice if we could get costs down. We have to sell our wheat on a competitive market. We must realize that the wheat board operates for the advantage of


the three prairie provinces as to export wheat sales. If we hope to maintain those advantages in the western provinces we should not push too hard. If about three-quarters of the people of Canada decided that they were not going to support our wheat board and our system of wheat marketing, then I am afraid we would run into considerable difficulty. We want the people of Canada to continue to support our position as far as the marketing of wheat is concerned.
I agree completely with the argument advanced by the hon. member for Assiniboia against a dual system of marketing wheat. We had no stability in the marketing of grains in this country until the present system of wheat board marketing was established. To revert to a dual system of marketing again would create all kinds of difficulties. I do not want to enumerate them particularly but I will say that the wheat board is in an untenable position if it only gets wheat when the price is below the board price. It has no way of getting out of such a difficulty except through federal aid which would be considered to be a subsidy. I do not think those of us in western Canada want to try to put that across, and also I do not think we could get support for it.
I am not going to say anything about the complete closing of the grain exchange. It certainly has proven very desirable to do our marketing as we have done under the wheat board. The chairman of the wheat board out in Winnipeg has been in the grain business for a long time and I am sure that ihe will advocate the system which is most advantageous to the farmers. If he feels that he can sell their products to better advantage through a certain amount of operation of the grain exchange. I am sure that he will do so. If he feels that the present partial operation of the exchange will become disadvantageous I am sure that he will advocate closing it completely.
There is another point with respect to the disadvantage of our strong dollar position in the United States. I realize that as far as selling agricultural products is concerned we are at a disadvantage if we must in effect get more money from the world to maintain our prices. On the other hand we have a reciprocal advantage in buying what we buy with high value Canadian money because that money will buy more on foreign markets. I would say that the advantages and disadvantages probably level off.
It was stated by an hon. member that he feels that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is right in saying that it would be more difficult to have an international wheat agreement with Britain

in and the United States out than it would be to have one with the United States in and Britain out. I think that we should take lull cognizance of the fact that if we want a wheat agreement we must make that agreement on the basis of the way it can be made rather than on the basis of some perhaps emotional feelings that we may have. There are some differences in the ways in which wheat agreements can be carried out. I agree that Britain should be in a better dollar position and I am sure that -the Department of Trade and Commerce, through its operations as I have seen them, is endeavouring to assist Britain to get herself in a better dollar position-and I do not see that we can do very much more than we are doing now.
The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) and the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) were very much in agreement on certain of the points they made during -their talks. For one thing they said prices were too low and costs too high. As a western Canada farmer I fully realize that it is to our advantage to keep costs as low as possible and revenue as high as possible. If we want a wheat agreement we have to sell wheat. We can either have wheat on our hands or we *can have money in our hands, and if we want to have money we have to sell wheat at a price which the buyer of wheat is prepared to pay.
I was going to say that since I have been a member of this house I have heard hundreds of speeches, but probably the figure is not that high; and I will say that I have heard a great number of speeches made in which it was said that we have lost huge amounts of money through these various agreements. The latest figure, that given by the hon. member for Souris, is $800 million. I have heard figures which run all the way from a few hundred million to over $1 billion that we have lost. If that wheat had moved to market and had been sold at $2 a bushel when we could have received $3 for the movement, then I would say that we had lost money. However, in the world, we have got something like 1| billion bushels of wheat overhanging the market. If we had sold that wheat at prices which people would have considered cheap it would not now have been in the hands of producing countries; and I would like those who make a great point out of the amount of money we have lost to tell me and to tell the people of Canada how it would have been possible to sell our entire wheat crop and the wheat crop of other producing countries to importing countries at the class II prices which are mentioned.
The argument is absolutely pointless until one can prove to the people of Canada that
International Wheat Agreement if we quoted higher prices for wheat the peoples of the world would not have used substitutes for wheat flour as they used them in the 1930's. We know that the Germans made ersatz bread, the French tore down their vineyards and grew wheat, and other countries used potato starches in bread rather than wheat. During the 1930's the British cut down the content of hard Canadian wheat in their bread. I do not think those instances were chiefly due to the price of wheat; rather, to quite an extent, it was because countries in Europe felt that world war II was in the offing, and I think they were attempting to make themselves self-sufficient as far as foodstuffs were concerned. The price probably would not have had the same effect on that situation as the war did. On the other hand, if the price gets too high, then you are going to find people will look for substitutes-and if there is anything that will wreck our economy faster than to have people who would normally like to eat wheat looking for substitutes and using substitutes, I would like to know it.
If I thought for one minute that the world would absorb the volume of wheat that could come on the market, as it has in the last four or five years, at a price higher than the agreement price, I would say we were making a mistake. But it looks to me, from what I have seen going around Saskatchewan and other wheat-producing areas, as though farmers are prepared to put their wheat on the market at a fair price which people will pay and can afford to pay. In any business with which I have had anything to do, volume is the thing that counts. In other words, if our wheat will flow on the market just as fast as we can grow it, or as fast as it is physically possible to get it to market and it is offered at a fair price, then I do not think that farmers have very much to worry about.
With respect to an escalator clause, I think that such a clause would be desirable. However, as Canadians we must go to these international wheat conferences and try to sell our wheat. We could say to them that in the light of today's cost of operation we feel that they are paying us a fair price, but that if our costs of production should go up we would want them to pay more-and we could have a clause in the agreement which would indicate that they would pay a higher price. However, I have sold lots of things to people and I have never seen a customer who was very sympathetic to my own personal economic problems. What he is interested in is the price of the article he wants. If I try to attach a condition to the sale to make him liable to pay me a lot more some time in the future, I do not think he is going to
4410	HOUSE OF
International Wheat Agreement be prepared to make a deal. If we do not make a deal, then we are back in the position where we have no wheat agreement. I have always had the feeling that if you have something to sell and you can see your way clear to selling it at a competitive price, you should sell it. I am afraid you would not meet with a very enthusiastic reception if you wanted to attach conditions to the deal.
Perhaps the federal government or some other body might like to do it, but I do not think it is sound government policy to talk about an escalator clause. There may be some way whereby it could be worked out, but I do not see it at the moment. To expect the world buyers, especially those countries which are in a rather unsound financial position with soft currencies and all these other troubles, to be receptive to the placing of an escalator clause in that wheat agreement, is not being realistic. It would be a difficult thing to do and possibly would endanger the agreement.
Now, I do not think there is very much more I want to say except that I can go back to my constituency with the knowledge that we have a wheat agreement and that the theory of marketing wheat in that way has been supported by our government. The government of Canada has not said that the British grain exchange is going to be open and other countries are going to put these foodstuffs on the free market, so why should we do that. If I went back and said this government thought that would be the desirable way of doing it, I would have a lot of trouble. I can go back to my constituency and say that our government has resisted that method; our government knows that the wheat board marketing system is good. They know they can stabilize wheat prices by following that system. I know quite well that my constituents are going to say the government has done a good job. From the comments I have had from my riding, I feel the people are going to say that, too.
What government introduced this type of wheat marketing under this type of wheat board? The government that is sitting over there. The people are going to say, if that government does that kind of thing then that is the government that should be doing it.
I think they would be right in saying that. The wheat board has a lot of friends. I have never seen anyone in this house or out of it who has not been a friend of the wheat board, but in this house I hear from people who are saying: This is wrong with the wheat board; that is wrong with the wheat board; you should do something else; you should change it here or there. It would be the 

same thing if I were trying to do something and my friends said, "Oh, what you are trying to do is all right but you are doing it all wrong." In other words, it makes you feel as though every time they agree with you they have a knife behind your back, and when they say "I agree with you", to your face, they hit you in the back with the knife. That is what is happening to this wheat board.
I am very much surprised that this government does not say, "If you fellows do not want the wheat board when we have the best man we can get selling your grain, then go ahead and sell it yourself." That is what I have heard all over the place. I think it is about time we cleaned up all the criticism. The chairman of the wheat board in Winnipeg and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and his department have had as much experience in selling wheat as anyone in this country. I am sure that they are going to get the highest price for the maximum volume. If anyone knows how to get it, they know how to do so. I feel that the people of Canada are going to say the same thing. They are going to support the wheat marketing methods that we have. If we are to have wisdom in our public thinking, I do not think we should turn down the efforts that have been made and, so far as I am concerned, I support them. I think they are good. I think they will give us a sound wheat economy in Canada for many years.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: This is one of the most important pieces of business that have come before this house for some time, Mr. Speaker. I think the decision which has been reached by these forty-six trading nations, after almost seventeen full weeks of negotiation, is one of the most important events so far as Canada is concerned. I listened with great interest to the previous speakers, the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), the member for Battle River (Mr. Fair), the member for Souris (Mr. Ross), and the member for Kindersley (Mr. Larson). They all seemed to be in agreement that what has been done has been a good thing for Canada. One member wanted to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds at the same time, but you just cannot do that. You have to be either for it or against it.
The hon. member said that we would like to have something better. We would all like to have something better. All these exporting nations would like to have something better. Nevertheless, the agreement which has been reached has been reached after long and tedious hours of negotiation. These representatives did not sit for one day, one hour or one week, but for seventeen weeks, before

they finally came to an agreement. Regardless of what the farmers' union president or anyone else says, I think it is agreed by all parties in this house that this deal is going to be a good deal for Canada. It is a tragic thing that Britain has not signed it. It would be tragic for Canada if we lost 182 million bushels of export wheat every year, a total of about 540 million bushels or a loss of $1,080 million. It would not be good for us. As the member for Kindersley pointed out, by the wheat board marketing system we have a method whereby we can hold this wheat for a while and we would not have to dump it on the market.
I think it would be only fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that after all these negotiations the exporting nations have arrived at a price which is not so high that it would encourage the other nations to grow wheat. In other words, those countries that are buying our wheat today would not buy it if the price were very much higher. For example, in the case of France, she would turn over, to the growing of wheat, land that is now devoted to growing grapes. If we continue selling these countries our wheat at a price which they can afford to pay, then we will not have to be discouraged about the future.
So far as the domestic price of wheat is concerned, I disagree with the present price and I think I can give my reasons. In giving my reasons, Mr. Speaker, in order to substantiate my story, I shall have to refer to freight rates and other things that the farmers have to buy. On March 9, an announcement was made by the board of transport commissioners to the effect that they were granting the railways a further 7 per cent increase in freight rates. This was the fifth increase since 1947, and made the total increases around 92-2 per cent. Mr. Speaker, this places an unbearable share of freight costs squarely on the shoulders of the eastern and the western provinces. True as it may be that revenue must be found to meet these increased costs, it is unthinkable that the poorer provinces and their people should be taxed by further increases. No doubt all provinces but Ontario and Quebec will vigorously protest, and rightly so. The reason that the two central provinces do not protest is that nearly all heavy industry is situated or located there.
Mr. Speaker, farmers in western Canada pay the freight on their own grain to Fort William, Churchill, Vancouver and other ports. They also pay the freight over and above the cost of whatever they purchase from time to time. All consumers plus the farmers of the west and the east are affected. They must pay the cost of the article plus the freight to its destination. Canned goods, steel furniture and farm implements are
International Wheat Agreement mostly manufactured in the two central provinces, namely Ontario and Quebec; therefore the eastern and the western provinces are forced to pay the cost of long freight hauls. Both consumers and farmers in the two central provinces have a decided and definite advantage over their fellow men in the east and in the west owing to the fact that they are close to the source of manufacture and do not suffer heavy freight costs. Competition is keen in the two central provinces. There is stiff competition to meet the truck companies and water transportation. Again I say that they have a decided advantage owing to their geographic locations.
Mr. Speaker, if we are to expand the production of the east and the west; if we are to encourage people to continue to live in the east and the west; and if we are to discourage the ever-growing trend of eastern and western people to leave these provinces, it seems only logical and reasonable that further consideration must be given immediately to equalizing the freight load for the producers and primary producers of the east and the west.
In view of what I have said, if the consumers of Canada were to pay an additional 15 cents per bushel-which would mean about $11 million for the treasury of Canada per year-I think that would compensate to some extent the loss which the farmers are being put to by these heavy costs for long rail hauls.
It is true that there are almost 1J billion bushels of wheat for sale at the present time by the exporting countries. From statements which have been made today and with which I can agree, I am sure that our wheat board is doing a good job. The men who are at the head of it are of the proper type and quality, and the service they have given us in the past has worked out to Canada's advantage. After today's statement in the house- and there seems to be fairly general agreement among all parties that this is a good thing for Canada-I hope we can agree. If we can agree on that basis, I am sure that this agreement cannot help being a success.


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words with regard to this resolution which the minister has placed on the order paper and which is being adopted now. I do not think that, in the last few years, there has been anything which has aroused such keen interest in western Canada as have these negotiations with regard to this international wheat agreement. There was general agreement that when the agreement comes into effect it will be of benefit to us in the wheat-producing area. There was, however, keen disappointment that Great Britain had failed to sign the agreement.

International Wheat Agreement
As has been indicated by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) and others, we in western Canada have felt that Great Britain has had a fair deal under the British wheat agreement and under the present international wheat agreement. We may not all agree that the farmers in western Canada have lost the amounts of money that have been suggested by various people; in fact, I do not think they have lost the amounts of money that have been suggested. But I think they feel that Great Britain has had a fair deal over the last eight years as far as her purchases of Canadian wheat are concerned; and there is keen disappointment that Britain is the only country that has failed to sign the present agreement.
We have carried on "Buy British" campaigns. We in western Canada have endeavoured in every way possible to encourage the purchasing of British goods. It seems to me that there are two major reasons why Great Britain has failed to sign this agreement. I think the major one is the fact that she is short of Canadian and United States dollars with which to purchase our products. That fact was indicated some time ago. In 1947 and in 1948, because of her lack of dollars, she started to purchase less and less of Canadian agricultural products. First she stopped purchasing those things which she considered to be luxuries: she stopped purchasing apples, salmon and fresh eggs. Then she reduced her purchases of bacon and cheese. I feel that she is now placing herself in a position where, if necessary and if she can procure wheat in areas other than the dollar areas, she will be in a position to do so; and I feel that her lack of Canadian dollars with which to purchase wheat is one of the main reasons why she has failed to sign the agreement.
I cannot imagine that Great Britain has failed to sign this agreement simply because of a difference of five cents in the ceiling price. The ceiling price is a protection to the buying countries. The floor price is a protection to the selling countries. So a five cent difference in the ceiling price does not seem to me to be a legitimate reason for a purchasing country to fail to sign the agreement. It seems to me there must be some other reason. I feel that the major reason is that Britain wishes to be in a free position, in a position where, if she can purchase wheat from Argentina or if wheat could be available from behind the iron curtain, she will be in a position to purchase that wheat and will be in a better bargaining position outside of the agreement than in it.
The other reason why I think she has failed to sign the agreement is the present policy of the present British government.
[Mr Wright. 1

The original agreement was signed by a Labour government in Great Britain. It was signed because the Labour government of Great Britain believed in commodity bulk purchasing; they believed in that method of doing business. The present government in Great Britain do not believe in commodity bulk purchasing and they are taking the first opportunity of getting out of the bulk purchasing agreements which the former government had. They are going to place themselves in a position where, if it becomes necessary, they can open the corn exchange again in Liverpool where they can purchase wheat anywhere in the world at the lowest price at which it may be offered on an open exchange.
We in Canada have felt for a number of years that we should have commodity purchasing agreements; that basic food products should not be subject to the speculative market; that there is a better system; that we can have a forward pricing system which will set minimum floors under basic products which will give to the producers and to the consumers some security, some basic level of prices over a period of years. The wheat agreement did that.
There will be keen disappointment in western Canada if the agreement should fail because of the failure of the British government to come in. The wheat board should be complimented on the fact that since the war they have secured a diversity of markets for our wheat which we did not have before. The figures which the minister placed on the record, showing the amount of Canadian wheat that is being sold in countries other than Europe, in the Far East and in South America, are a good indication that the wheat board has done an excellent job as far as finding markets for Canadian wheat is concerned.
This group at least-and I think this applies to all parties in the house-believes that the wheat board marketing of our wheat has been a success. I was surprised that the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Larson), while agreeing that the wheat board marketing of our wheat under the compulsory marketing system was a success-he did not believe in a dual system of marketing wheat-did not disagree with the present system of marketing our coarse grains, and the fact that the wheat board is using the Winnipeg grain exchange for that purpose. I do not think that the use of the Winnipeg grain exchange over the last two years in the marketing of coarse grains has worked to the disadvantage of the western producers. But there is certainly a feeling in eastern Canada that it has worked to the disadvantage of the eastern consumer

of those coarse grains. At their agricultural conventions in eastern Canada they have protested, I might say violently, against the use of the grain exchange in the marketing of coarse grains. They believe that it is working to their disadvantage; and in that way it is working to the disadvantage of the western producers, because our greatest market for coarse grains is eastern Canada. It is our most stable market. If the eastern consumer of those coarse grains becomes dissatisfied, if he has to go back, as he did before the war, to the purchase of Argentine or South African corn in preference to our western coarse grains, then we may find ourselves in a worse position with respect to a market for those grains.
Last year, I believe, we exported some 75 million bushels of oats to the United States. If anyone reads the United States papers and interprets them correctly he finds that the indications are that the secretary of agriculture over there is considering stopping the export of oats to the United States. With respect to anything which comes under the price support system, the parity price legislation in the United States, the position will be, if the present act is amended, that the secretary of agriculture, instead of the executive, will have the power to restrict the import of that particular product. If that amendment is made to the present legislation there is no doubt in my mind that the present government in the United States will very definitely limit the imports of any product, the price of which they are supporting under their price support legislation. That would mean we would lose a considerable market for our coarse grains, and we would be dependent almost entirely on our eastern markets and on our exports to Europe and to other countries.
Serious consideration should be given to taking coarse grains off the Winnipeg grain exchange. We should try to work out some agreement with the eastern people who are consuming such a large portion of our coarse grains, so that a price could be established that would be fair for the producers and to the consumers in the east, and we should try to satisfy them by placing sufficient quantities of coarse grains from western Canada in a position in the east where they can secure them as they need them.
During the last two or three years, and particularly in the last two, occasions have arisen when the consumers of coarse grains in eastern Canada have found it very difficult to get immediate supplies. What was in storage here had been used and the shipping situation was such that the stocks could not be replenished. Coarse grains could not
27, 1953
International Wheat Agreement be shipped down the lakes, and no cars were available to bring the grain from the head of the lakes, and there was a shortage of grain when they needed it. Because of that shortage the price has gone up; there has been speculation in coarse grains in the east. The eastern consumers feel that there should be some change, and I believe they are justified in asking that the Winnipeg grain exchange be closed. They, as well as the western producers, believe that when coarse grains were placed under the wheat board the Winnipeg grain exchange should have been closed. That was the understanding they had, and it has not been carried out.
I hope the British government will see fit to sign the present agreement before July 15. I feel that they have had a very fair deal over the last seven or eight years in so far as their purchases of Canadian wheat are concerned, and under the present wheat agreement they will have a fair deal for the next three years. If they do not sign the agreement, then there is nothing that we can do about it other than to exert whatever pressure we can. I hope that the Prime Minister and the other ministers of the cabinet, when they are attending the coronation and when they are having their discussions with the British government, will use every means at their disposal to try to persuade the British government to sign the agreement. One of the best means that they can use is to see that there are more imports of British goods into Canada. There is room for more imports.
I hear people say that the British cannot compete in our markets. Well, I was over in Great Britain last year. I happen to have on a jacket that I purchased there, a homespun Scottish tweed jacket. It cost me $19 and some cents. If I were to purchase the same jacket in Canada it would cost me $45 to $50. I have a pair of shoes which I purchased over there for under $10. Exactly the same shoes in this country would cost me $14 or $15. The British can compete on our markets if given an opportunity to do so. They have not priced themselves out of the Canadian market and the United States market. There are a lot of British goods that could compete in our markets if they were given an opportunity to do so.


Mr. Smith (Moose Mountain):: What is to stop them?


Percy Ellis Wright: There are tariffs and charges. On $100 worth of clothing which I brought into Canada, and which I declared, I had to pay $37 or $38. That consisted of tariff charges and sales tax. I suppose the British manufacturer pays the same tariff that I
4414	HOUSE OF
International Wheat Agreement had to pay when he brings his goods into Canada. It seems to me rather odd to talk about the British social service system having placed them in a non-competitive position as far as the Canadian market is concerned. That works two ways.
At different times I have heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) say that we cannot sell bacon on the British market because the British can buy bacon cheaper in other places; we cannot sell eggs and other agricultural products on the British market because Britain is buying them cheaper in other places. That is quite true. As a matter of fact, in agricultural products, we have priced ourselves out of the British market. And we have priced ourselves out of the British market because of certain things for which the government of this country is responsible-increases in freight rates, increases in the cost of living and in wages. All those increases have put the cost of production of certain agricultural products at a level where the products are not competitive in the British market.
So if we argue that British goods are not competitive in our market, we cannot have it both ways. Certainly our costs of production of agricultural products have increased in the last seven or eight years to such an extent that today we find ourselves in a position where we cannot compete in the British market.
I think there is a solution to these difficulties, and that solution is in the hands of this government. The taxation on various products entering into the cost of production is so high that we are priced out of the British market. The tariffs and restrictions we are placing against British goods coming into this country are preventing the British from securing the dollars necessary to purchase goods in this country. And both those conditions are under the control of this government. Until it does something in the matter, I am afraid our position will become worse.
I am quite certain that it is not just the five-cent difference in the ceiling price that has caused the British not to sign the agreement. I think it is because they want to leave themselves in a bargaining position, and in a position where they can purchase wheat outside the dollar area, if such wheat should become available. That is one of the major reasons they have not signed the agreement.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, before going to attend a committee meeting I should like to speak briefly about the wheat agreement and the minister's statement made in respect of the resolution standing in his name.


Let me begin by saying that I am thoroughly in agreement with the principle behind the negotiation of a world wheat agreement, if that is possible. The importance of that principle cannot be overestimated, so far as the farmers are concerned. Any time a world wheat agreement can be negotiated on a satisfactory basis, it will establish for the farmers a measure of stabilization during its term. That is one of the things farmers have been seeking for many years.
I do not know how they can hope to remain in business unless they have some sort of guarantee as to their returns over a reasonable period of time. They have been victimized at both ends. They have had to pay very high prices for the things they have had to buy; they have had to pay freight rates going both ways on everything they use and sell. As a consequence, over the years farmers have not been in anything like a stabilized position.
Under a world wheat agreement there seems to be some hope of establishing a form of forward price structure, together with something to count on; and I am thoroughly in agreement with that principle. But, coming to the present wheat agreement, I doubt very much if one could call it a world wheat agreement, without having Britain's participation in it. I suppose it is the next best thing that could be negotiated; and in anything I shall have to say I do not wish to leave the impression in anyone's mind that I am throwing the blame on the minister who introduced the resolution.
However, I do wish to set out some facts that we ought to consider when we are looking at the present wheat agreement. Without the participation of Britain, it cannot be called a world agreement because, according to my understanding, Britain usually takes about 30 per cent of those quantities of wheat that are exported. That is a very important part.
Then, while the present agreement does establish a ceiling price of $2.05, the handling charge is included in that sum; and I would understand therefore that the present ceiling will be only something like 19 cents better than the old price. That is not a very great amount when one considers the prices farmers have had to pay in their cost of production.
If the price begins to fall below $2.05 the farmers of Canada will have to accept a lower price, even if it goes down to the very minimum of $1.55 established under the agreement. That does not look too hopeful, and I can understand how disappointed the farmers would be when they look at the agreement. I understand the present value placed upon wheat by the wheat board is

about $2.16-at least, that is about what they are getting in the market today. When the farmer looks at that he will think that the $2.05 ceiling is no more than he should expect under present conditions. So when we are considering this whole agreement let us not overlook the fact that the farmer does have some reason for disappointment. He should get at least $2.05 a bushel.
On the other hand, if the farmer considers the position in which Britain is placed, and if those of us who are discussing this resolution do the same thing, I imagine we would have to be pretty careful in criticizing Britain. It has been said that she has been a bit sticky about the agreement. I do not like to hear that term used in connection with any country negotiating a deal. I do not believe Britain was sticky at all, but rather that she took a very careful look at her dollar position and decided that she had to take a certain stand; and she took it.
It is certainly true that under present circumstances Britain is forced to save every dollar she can save. What does the flve-cent difference in the ceiling mean to her? It means that if she purchases, we will say, 160 million bushels in a year from us, she will save $8 million. And that $8 million would buy nearly five times the amount of cheddar cheese she was able to buy recently from Canada. That would be an important consideration. If she purchased 180 million bushels in a year, she would save $9 million.
There are important considerations for Britain today, when all her citizens are trying to carry on under a severe system of rationing, and when they are suffering real food shortages. These are points we ought to keep in mind, and we must not be too hasty in criticizing Britain, particularly when we realize that we have not been too anxious to buy from her. I have in mind some action taken not long ago to keep British goods out of this country. At that time I believe some very unfair things were done to keep Britain from participating in some of the automobile shows of this country. This action was taken by Canadian automobile manufacturers. I drew attention to that fact when I was speaking some time ago on the budget. We ought to keep these things in our mind. I believe the attitude of Britain stems first from the fact that she has to husband every dollar that she can possibly save in order to get the barest essentials of living. To me that is perhaps the best reason why she has taken the strong position she has.
I think the second reason is that Great Britain gives every indication of believing that the price of wheat is going to fall and she is not prepared to tie herself up to a
International Wheat Agreement guaranteed price running up to $2.05 maximum for a period of three years. I should like to quote briefly from a clipping which I took from an old country paper, the Belfast Express, which has this to say:
Mr. Gwilym Lloyd George, the food minister, is adopting a tough attitude to the world's wheat exporters. His line is: "The customer is right."
So no British signature will be affixed to the new three-year international wheat agreement when it is signed in Washington today.
The new agreement will raise the maximum price of wheat from 1.80 dollars to 2.05 dollars a bushel.
This is the part I want hon. members to listen to carefully.
In the Commons on Wednesday he will make a statement setting out the government's attitude. He will tell M.P.'s that world wheat stocks are mounting rapidly. By June they will be double what they were a year ago.
That is sufficient indication of what is in Britain's mind. Looking ahead and taking everything into consideration, including present world stocks of wheat, she feels that there is reason to believe that prices will fall. The article continues:
So he is confident that Britain will be able to get all the wheat she needs in the next three years at less than two dollars a bushel. Our buyers wiU be operating in a free market.
It seems to me that that pretty well indicates at least the foundation for some of Britain's attitude. When we start criticizing Britain, as we oftentimes do, and say that we are not buying from them because they are pricing themselves out of our market, because they have not attempted to keep down prices and as a consequence we are not buying because we can get competitive materials or similar materials at competitively better prices, we ought to remember that perhaps we have been doing the same thing. As the hon. member who sat down just a moment ago said, I think we have been unnecessarily increasing the cost of production by our foolish attitude toward freight rate increases, which have nearly doubled in the past five years, and toward taxes all over the country.
The hon. member who just finished speaking mentioned the taxes which had been imposed by this government since 1935 when they came into office. The taxes that have been imposed upon many of the things that enter into the cost of producing farm products unquestionably would push up prices. At the same time we ought to remember that in addition to what this government has done there are the taxes imposed by municipalities from one end of the country to the other on farm properties and which also have tended to push up prices.


Mr. Prudham:: Do not forget the provinces too.

International Wheat Agreement


Solon Earl Low: Yes, that is probably true, but it is not true of my province. That is one important thing which the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Prudham) should keep in his mind.


George Prudham: This government collects
about $30 million for Alberta.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, and you collect about $160 million from Alberta for yourselves. Just keep that in your pipe while you are speaking. The hon. member for Edmonton West is going around Alberta, and perhaps other places, trying to tell them of the magnificent job this government is doing for Alberta in collecting $30 million for them. If the hon. member for Edmonton West will be honest about it he will tell the people of Alberta that at the same time this government is collecting $30 million for them they are collecting $130 million for themselves. I just wanted to keep the story right.


George Prudham: And this government pays for Alberta's defence, too.


Solon Earl Low: Granted that under the tax transfer agreements there is a certain amount of collecting done for the province by the federal government. We recognize that only too well and we are not trying to do my hon. friend out of any honour or glory for having done it. I just wanted to set the record straight on an interpolation which I think was uncalled for. What I have said about Alberta could easily be said about the other provinces of Canada which are participants in the tax transfer agreements.
I was referring to the part that taxation plays in wheat prices. If we find it difficult to sell wheat to Britain, at least to some degree that failure has to be attributed to the price which Britain feels she can pay. If the price is too high, then we ought to be looking for the causes. Other hon. members who have preceded me have pointed out some of those causes. One cause is the inordinately high tax rate that enters into the cost of the things which the farmer has to buy and which in turn definitely pushes up the cost of the production of wheat.
Machinery prices is one example. The prices of many items have skyrocketed out of all reason. Of course someone will say that higher wages are being paid to the workmen of the country. Granted that the workers of the country have higher wages, that does not for one moment obviate the necessity on the part of the government to take every action possible to keep cents in the dollar, to prevent this serious decline in purchasing power which this government has permitted to occur over the years.
(Mr. Prudham.]

As I said, this government has been in office since 1935 and during that time there has been a serious decline in the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar without the government having done one effective thing to prevent it. Certainly the labouring man is going to do his level best to get a living wage because he faces this terrific high cost of living as a consequence of the decline in purchasing value. So will the farmer want to get what he can in order to be able to live and stay in business. If we sit in this House of Commons and do nothing to prevent the loss in the purchasing power of our Canadian dollar, than to a large degree we are responsible for the situation in which the farmer finds himself today. Knowing the facts of this situation, if we expect Britain to pay the shot then it seems to me that we are not being realistic about the whole situation.
If we expect Britain to buy Canadian wheat and other food products we must be prepared to buy much more from her. I read an article the other day in a United States newspaper by a very realistic writer concerning an electrical contract on which Great Britain was asked to bid. According to this article the British bid was something like $6 million less than the lowest United States bid, yet the people who called for the tenders were not able to give the British firm the contract simply because certain interests in the United States raised the dickens of a cry against it. They asked for new tenders on a lower basis to meet that submitted from Great Britain.
That attitude is the thing I was referring to when I spoke in this house a few days ago. It is an attitude that has grown up, and it shows that you cannot clear away the difficulties in the field of foreign trade without changing your fundamental thinking. You just cannot do it. Nor can we expect to be able to deal with Britain on a satisfactory basis with respect to wheat and other materials unless we begin to change our fundamental thinking; and it seems very important to me that we should start now. I think we have to be prepared to buy as much as we can from Great Britain and give her every opportunity to show that she can meet competition from the rest of the world, instead of just taking the sort of under the table action that will keep Britain out of our market and force Canada to tie herself to the uncertain United States markets. I will say to the minister that I wish we were considering an international wheat agreement in which Britain was a participator. I am not blaming him for not being able to get such an agreement, and I can see that in the

negotiations, Canada was between the upper and the nether millstones. The United States originally held out for $2.50 per bushel maximum and Britain held out for considerably less than $2.05. I feel sorry that we had to go along with the crowd and accept $2.05 although, as I have already pointed out, I can see the farmers' point of view and they are disappointed; there is no question of that.
Taking all the circumstances into consideration, Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps we had better do our very best to make this wheat agreement work; and for that reason I am going to give it my whole support.


Mr. Rene N. Juiras (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at any great length on this subject, but since we have already had several speeches on the question today I would like to make a few brief references not so much to the negative aspect of the agreement, which has received prominence in the discussion so far, but more on the positive aspect of the agreement itself.
It was mentioned by a previous speaker that the measure was receiving universal support in this house. I doubt whether that description quite applies to the stand of the official opposition. The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) spoke on the measure and used all the time at his disposal to present arguments against the agreement, but when he came to the conclusion of his remarks he said he would support it.
We have had this argument presented to the house on many occasions. I well recall the discussion at the time of the United Kingdom wheat agreement after the war, and also the discussions on the other international agreements. On every occasion the official opposition took the stand, as in the case of the United Kingdom agreement, of not voting against the agreement but not expressing their dissociation from it, and then they later claimed that they had not given support to it. They have argued that these international agreements have resulted in great losses to the farmer. It is very hard to see how, if the agreements have caused great losses, the official opposition can turn around and support them on that basis.
The hon. member for Souris expressed his very deep and very great regret that the United Kingdom had not signed the agreement; but I suggest that he should welcome the United Kingdom not signing the agreement because the United Kingdom purchases represent 30 per cent of the purchases by
International Wheat Agreement all countries. If that much is eliminated from the losses, and according to his argument all there is to do is to turn around and sell at the class II price-we can presume that Britain will buy at that price-then that should reduce the losses. So it is difficult to see how we can reconcile the idea that the agreement is bound to bring a loss with the statement by the hon. member that he deplores the fact that Britain has not signed the agreement; and then he turns around and supports the agreement. However, as we all recall, the party went through the same antics over the United Kingdom agreement to which there has been a great deal of reference, so this is nothing new.
Coming to the agreement itself, I think the most promising thing and the great achievement is the fact that the countries concerned were able to negotiate and arrive at a compromise. That will to a large degree alleviate the anxiety in the minds of many producers. Not only that, it will alleviate the anxiety in the minds of the purchasing countries, the importing countries. I think it is fair to say that in this country producers generally would have faced the future with very great anxiety if there had been no international wheat agreement at all. They are aware, I think it is fair to say, that the production of wheat has increased substantially since the end of the war.
Dealing with the subject there was a very interesting memorandum presented by the international federation of agriculture producers who analysed the world situation with great care and came to certain conclusions. In their memorandum they suggest that world trade in wheat in the next five years may average annually as much as 825 million bushels, as against 900 million bushels in the years immediately following world war II and 550 million bushels in the immediately preceding years. Unquestionably there has been a considerable increase in wheat production in the world. In addition it is true that we have been able to dispose of production since the end of the war; but what has created anxiety once again is the fact that a very great deal of the export of wheat in the world has been financed through state aid.
I think the record shows that at least the equivalent of one-third of all post-war wheat has been financed through state aid of one kind and another. The United States, which is the leading exporter in our class, disposed of 55 per cent of its wheat through direct state assistance, and when you consider that you can understand why the producers of this country would have great anxiety over doing away altogether with any kind of

International Wheat Agreement agreement and relying exclusively on the day to day supply and demand of the world market. When these facts are taken into consideration the producer can readily see that if there were no agreement whatever he would have to compete openly on the world markets.
It is then that this fear we have had for a great many years, and those hard experiences that we had during the thirties, cause us to realize that we could easily price ourselves out of the market. All the representations that have been made in farm magazines, farm newspapers and so on, seem to come back time and again to this argument. This seems to be the primary concern of the producer today. In this type of bidding they would fear most pricing themselves out of the market and then creating a panic in the importing countries, with the result that there would be a further increase in wheat production in those countries as a result of this artificial stimulation. This would reproduce the disastrous results of the thirties.
It is very comforting to realize that even if the United Kingdom does not sign the agreement, a large percentage of the exporting countries were able to sit down and negotiate a set of conditions. All the exporting countries and then a good 65 per cent of the importing countries agreed to the set of conditions, so I think the producers can certainly look to the future with more assurance than if there were no agreement at all. I think the negotiators and the ministers should be highly commended for proceeding with the agreement in spite of the fact that the countries represented were not unanimous. As I say, I think we can face the future with some confidence.
It is true, I think, that we would all welcome United Kingdom into the agreement. It is true also, I think, that in view of the general feeling of the producers in this country, we probably went as far as the producer was willing to go in reducing the price to $2.05. Furthermore the United States made it clear that they could go no further, so it then became of the utmost importance that we try to keep the United States within the agreement. In other words, it was preferable to have all the exporting countries in the agreement if at all possible.
As I say, we can look to the future with a certain amount of confidence, because even if Great Britain has not signed there is still hope that she might join the agreement later. There is another factor, and that is that at the present time the grain market is still strong. It is the estimate of all the experts, including the chairman of the Canadian wheat board, that they will not have any difficulty

or should not have difficulty in disposing of the crop this year. The chairman of the wheat board was quoted in the Winnipeg Free Press of December 6, 1952 as follows:
. . . the board can sell the country's huge wheat stocks whether the international wheat agreement is renewed or not.
Mr. Mclvor made the statement to the annual convention of the Saskatchewan farmers' union in reply to a delegate's question. He said he does not know whether the prices would be better or worse if the agreement is not renewed. That would depend on world demand and supply over the next few years.
The point I want to make is that, at least for the moment and for the coming year, the market seems to be fairly strong. There is every hope that we will be in a good position. Personally, I would fear very much if we had to compete openly with the United States, particularly as long as their wheat production was financed through federal aid. We would then be put in a very difficult position. I think that is probably one of the main reasons why the producers as a whole will welcome the agreement, even in this form.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon):: Thus far western members exclusively have taken part in this debate this afternoon. I suppose that is inevitable because the measure we are discussing is of extreme importance to the western provinces.
The previous speaker, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras), tried to place the issue, I felt, on a partisan basis. As I have listened to the discussion, the conclusion to which I have come is that it is the western viewpoint being presented rather than a partisan viewpoint. Without exception the speakers to whom I have listened have spoken in favour of the principle of the international wheat agreement.
It is unfortunate that we do not get an expression of opinion from other parts of the country, because even though other sections of the country are not directly concerned with the problems that arise from the new international wheat agreement, certainly the whole national economy is very much affected by the terms of that agreement. Wheat is still one of our basic products for export, and as a result it has a very decided influence on what takes place in the general realm of international trade.
I want to speak very briefly, because the topic has been quite thoroughly discussed this afternoon. During the past few months, while the negotiations have been going on, I have discovered that my constituents are very interested in the wheat agreement. Even before the terms were finally announced they were making inquiries and were very much concerned as to what the official terms might be. It is a truism to say that wheat

is the lifeblood of the prairies. I feel that is largely because we are still tied to a one product economy on the prairies. Wheat is our basic production. It is due to this fact that following the disturbing economic effects of the depression we had to resort to the wheat board in order to bring about some semblance of stability in the marketing of our grain.
Western Canada could not afford to continue to go through the period of fluctuations that have been peculiar to our economy up until fairly recent times. This afternoon we have heard various members express themselves pro and con about the wheat board. I think it is inevitable, when you aTe tied to a one product economy such as we are on the prairies, to have to resort to the board method of marketing in order to avoid economic instability and wild price fluctuations. It is well known to hon. members of the house that the laissez-faire principle of economics has been operating in very few areas, if it operates in any at the present time. The government moves into more and more phases of our economy.
That being so in more stable areas of marketing, in the area of wheat marketing where you are subject to all the vagaries and fluctuations of nature, where you cannot control supply to any great extent, I think it is inevitable that we must depend upon the wheat board principle of marketing until such time as we reach a more balanced and mature level of economic activity in the western part of Canada.
There have not been any really severe criticisms of the terms of the agreement that I have heard expressed in this chamber this afternoon. There have been mild references to the fact that Britain is abstaining from the agreement, and also to the maximum and minimum prices. I think we have to agree that the long period of time which was spent by the negotiators, both in London and in Washington, can only indicate that they considered every possible aspect and angle of the agreement.
I should like to add my voice to those of others in the remarks that have been made concerning Britain's position with respect to this agreement. Britain's failure to enter the agreement at the present time is one of the most disturbing aspects of the whole arrangement. As several hon. members have indicated, this fact must be related to the severe economic problems, such as the sterling problem, from which Britain is suffering at the present time, and it must also be related to the fact that, so far as the production of wheat is concerned, the world at the present time is moving into a surplus condition. Britain is no doubt hoping that she will be able to
International Wheat Agreement negotiate more favourable terms by operating in the open market. I should like to add my voice to those of the other hon. members who have spoken and expressed the opinion that every effort should be made to bring Britain into the agreement.
There is another difficulty that relates itself to the specific terms of the agreement. The farmers are faced with rising costs at the present time. These rising costs are largely associated with the increasing necessity of moving towards the mechanization of our farm operations. It is significant, I feel, that in the past six years the farm debt has increased from $3 million to something like $100 million, and that 92 per cent of that indebtedness has been incurred because of the necessity for purchasing farm machinery.
At the other end of the problem you have the decreasing prices of agricultural products generally, a situation which is placing the farmer

and the prairie farmer in particular -in a rather embarrassing financial position. It is because of this that some farm groups are protesting the minimum price provided in the arrangement. A floor price of $1.55 has been established. There have been strong representations that the farm economy, with the present cost of carrying on farm operations, cannot endure a minimum of less than $1.75 per bushel. Certainly the minimum price of $1.55 represents a disaster price level rather than a floor price level.
The fact that we have so many farm groups disturbed over agricultural matters in the country at the present time gives, I think, a strong reason for the calling together of the agriculture committee to discuss these general problems; I refer to problems outside of the direct consideration of the international wheat agreement. It had been the hope of the western members that the committee would be called together long before this time, but such has not been the case. This basic problem that I have outlined-that of increasing costs and declining income-is something that will have to be met if our prairie economy-which, as I have indicated, is almost exclusively dependent upon the wellbeing of the farmer-is not going to reach an extremely critical state of affairs.
In summing up may I say it seems to me that the whole principle of the international wheat agreement is to provide some basis of security and stability for our wheat growers. At the same time I would like to emphasize that I think the principle which should operate in negotiating any arrangement of this kind should be to ensure and guarantee that the security obtained and the benefits derived are commensurate with the necessary sacrifice in price that has to be made.
4420	HOUSE OF
International Wheat Agreement


Mr. W. G. Weir (Poriage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we who come from western Canada and who are largely interested in the growing of cereal grain have welcomed the general expression of opinion which has taken place this afternoon on this resolution introduced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I think it has been singularly significant that the representatives of all the political parties in this house who have spoken, and who come from western Canada, have, as I have understood it, given their approval to the general principle of entering into this international wheat agreement. It is true that some may have criticized some of the terms; some have expressed disappointment with respect to certain features of it, but generally speaking the principle of Canada entering into this international wheat agreement has been fairly generally accepted.
I think that is a good thing to have happen.
I am sure that it fairly well reflects the general viewpoint of the farmers of western Canada, in that they want to see the international wheat agreement continued for a further period. It is true that there are certain features of it that have proved to be a little bit disappointing. However, by and large, the wheat agreement, with the stability it has brought with it, I think has lent a measure of confidence to those who have been producing wheat, and has encouraged them to feel that at least the government in this country, and those in other countries as well, have recognized the problem of marketing this important food commodity.
For my part I may say that I have been associated, indirectly and rather actively, over a quite considerable period of time in the marketing of wheat. I am one of those who can look back on the experience following the first world war and the efforts that were made shortly after that to establish the voluntary pooling idea, which was followed by state marketing. As to the voluntary pooling idea compared to what we have under the wheat board act, so far as practical experience goes the fundamentals are not materially different other than that in this instance there is the added stability gained by having the government endorsing the wheat marketing arrangement.
Then too, with reference to supporting this international wheat agreement for a further period, I think there is something else of particular significance and that is the position of the United States. While our friends have expressed concern because the United Kingdom was not a party to the agreement- and I share that disappointment-it would be of greater significance if the United States


were not a party to it. In fact, if the United States had not signed the international wheat agreement I doubt very much whether an agreement would have been completed.
The position of the United States is singularly important in a transaction of this kind. When the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) refers to what he claims to be the losses that have been sustained by the farmers of western Canada because of the wheat agreement, both the international wheat agreement and the United Kingdom wheat agreement, I say that his calculations cannot be substantiated in dollars and cents by any means whatsoever. The agreement itself, with a price tag on it, if you like, meant that there was a figure that people generally had agreed to accept. Had that figure not been there, had that agreement not been made, no one can say what the price of wheat might have been. It might have gone higher; it might have gone lower, but at least that was the target. I am of the view that that figure in itself had an influence on world prices generally, and that we gained thereby.
In addition, in our experience in Canada in the last two years particularly, when we have been blessed with good crops in western Canada, one of which was in a very bad condition, I am sure the wheat agreement and the marketing of wheat through the Canadian wheat board have meant a good deal in dollars and cents to the farmers of western Canada that they might easily have lost otherwise. Had the damp crop of last year been dumped on the market I do not know where the price would have gone. That is something to be borne in mind.
I want to come back to what I started to project into my reasoning in so far as the United States is concerned. We hear a good deal about the price marketing policy of the United States in so far as agricultural products are concerned. I think anyone who is reasonable at all recognizes that the position in the United States with respect to agricultural prices is wholly and entirely different from our situation in Canada, and particularly so with respect to wheat. Here we are obliged to export about 75 per cent of the wheat we produce, while in the United States they consume about 75 per cent of their production. That means that they can adopt a price policy in so far as wheat is concerned that is wholly different from anything we might try to institute in this country. I say that because I am sure what the reaction of the taxpayers would be if we attempted to maintain a price in the way they do in the United States.
But that is not all. The point that I want to emphasize here-I have not heard any others put forward the argument very

strongly, but I think it is important-is that if there were no wheat agreement we would have no means of knowing how much money the United States was prepared to lose in the marketing of export wheat. We have no guaranteed method of knowing now, but I am sure that when they are in the wheat agreement they have some appreciation of their position and their relationship with other countries in so far as the discount they will give in selling their class II wheat, or wheat outside the agreement. Therefore I say this, and I say it after a good deal of thought: that this agreement in itself creates a price structure which is recognized by those who are parties to the agreement, and as such has brought about a measure of stability that we could not have hoped for under any other method. Not only that, but there is the particular position of the United States. What I am saying now should not be looked upon as critical of their policy in any particular way, but the fact still remains that we are in a position where their two-price policy could establish prices outside of the agreement that could materially affect the general world prices.
I come back to what I said at the beginning, namely that this policy of establishing an international wheat pool, if you like, has brought about a measure of stability which is recognized by all the exporting countries, and which is looked upon as a reasonable price relationship in so far as the importing countries are concerned. It does give to the exporters a measure of stability; it is giving to the importing countries a sense of security in that wheat will be available to them. I would even go as far as to say-though perhaps this should not be projected into this debate-there are many other commodities, or at least several others, toward which governments might properly be looking from the international point of view rather than from the point of view of cutthroat competition, things that are of importance and of great significance to people all over the world. The wheat agreement might serve as a workable example when we come to deal with some other very important commodities.
Before I take my seat, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say this. I do not think I can do it adequately at all, but may I say that we have been singularly fortunate in the selection of the personnel that we have been able to secure to operate the Canadian wheat board. It has not been an easy task. These men, from the chairman down, have shown a measure of tolerance, a degree of understanding that has been particularly outstanding. We owe them a very large debt of gratitude for the manner in which they have carried out this very difficult problem of marketing
27, 1953
International Wheat Agreement wheat. Both the producers and the consumers have benefited greatly, and that is proved by the fact that they have been able to continue to talk to one another.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: As the
hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) has already said, Social Crediters will support this agreement. Of course Canadian farmers ought to have $2.05 a bushel. Whether Britain ought to pay that price is another matter. The farmers' union believe they should have $2.35. I believe that figure is not very wide of the mark. According to the Searle letter of April 22 the wheat board is charging $2.16J for class II wheat to the world. That would seem to indicate the value which the wheat board places on wheat. As I said, however, whether or not in refusing to pay such prices Britain should be called "sticky" is altogether another matter.
I regret that the word "sticky" was used in the debate. I should like to read some information into the record which I hope will be widely circulated throughout western Canada. I have noticed just a little tendency on the part of certain members to lay the blame on Britain again, just as the blame was laid on Britain some three or four years ago on another occasion. I say that any member who attempts to lay blame upon Britain in this connection ought to be ashamed of himself-


Clarence Decatur Howe: What difficulty?


John Horne Blackmore: -because thereby he is doing a disservice to Canada; he is casting a reflection on Britain when she does not deserve it; he is indicating his gross ignorance of economic conditions as they prevail in Britain, and as between Britain and the rest of the world. I have used strong words, but I can prove every one of them. I hope we do not have any more of this thing of going out on the hustings and trying to blame Britain for something that she is almost, if not utterly, helpless to avoid.
As I have indicated, there is a considerable passage in the Economic Record issued by the United Kingdom information office in Ottawa in February, 1953, which I propose to put on the record so that western editors may have this information. This publication makes reference to the general food situation in Great Britain, and says:
In a speech delivered in Edinburgh on January 7 to the Scottish grocers federation, Dr. Charles Hill, M.P., parliamentary secretary to the ministry of food, gave a brief survey of the food situation generally. He said that the government were compelled to examine food problems in the light of the present difficulty confronting the country as a whole-the deficit in Britain's balance of payments had to be eliminated before there could be any relaxation of control over expenditure on

International Wheat Agreement money safely and pay that additional price, greatly to the benefit of everyone in Canada. I have mentioned this several times, and I hope the Minister of Trade and Commerce will not get up and treat it lightly. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is one of the greatest men in Canada, but I think he will grant that there are several things he still can learn. That is one of them.
I should like to point out, as I have previously pointed out, that during world war I under the finance act of 1914 the Canadian minister of finance created $50 million of money and bought Canadian wheat at a reasonable price to be turned over to Great Britain free of cost and with no interest. Great Britain was allowed as much time as she needed to pay it back and had the additional privilege of paying it back in goods. What I have just said is a matter of the most solemn importance to this house.
That was done when the production of this nation was not more than $4 billion. I have not the exact amount at my disposal, but in 1939 our production was somewhere near $6 billion, so I would imagine that $4 billion would be a liberal estimate of our production in 1914. Today our production is $23 billion. If this nation could absorb $50 million in wartime, during world war I, is it not just utterly contemptible to suggest that it could not now absorb a great deal more money to be created and spent into circulation, debt free?
I do not propose to go into this matter in detail now because it would be slightly out of order, but after all when you are in trouble is the time to think about new things when you do not know what else to do. The finance act of 1914 was re-enacted as the Finance Act of 1923. The men who were in this parliament in 1914 and in 1923 were not afraid of "funny" money. We hear silly Liberals mentioning "funny" money to the point where you would think they should be taken out and horsewhipped for their sheer ignorance in using such an expression.
Those men of 1914 and of 1923 created money. The minister of finance under the act of 1923 was given the power to go on creating it to be used. They did not call it "funny" money because they knew a lot more than many people know today. What is the matter with creating government money to pay this extra 5 cents per bushel? Or what is the matter with calling on the Bank of Canada for money, letting that bank lend the government the money interest free?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member a moment ago made reference to whether or not he was in order. I thought he admitted that what he was saying was perhaps slightly out
[Mr. Blackmore.l
of order, but I think the hon. member now should consider the international wheat agreement. I know that reference has been made to the fact that Great Britain was not in the agreement but I think at that point, although reference can be made to it, it should not be made the subject of a 40-minute speech.
I will have to ask the hon. member now to speak about the international wheat agreement.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate your opinion and I am going to bow to your ruling. However, do not let anyone get up in this house or on the hustings and say this government cannot do anything about this matter, because in doing so he will be lying, that is all.
I do not propose to say anything more at present along these lines. As I have said several times-and I said so on the trade and commerce estimates-I have very little use for a person who gets up and rails against a condition but offers no way of avoiding the difficulty or of solving the problem. I merely have sought to avoid being under condemnation in accordance with my own rules.
I say that this government should at once set about to determine ways and means of paying that extra 5 cents. Then let members of this government go over to Britain for the coronation and ask Britain if she will consider going into the wheat agreement, as far as Canada is concerned, if we will let her have wheat at $2 a bushel and we will pay the extra 5 cents, doing it out of created money.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, there are a few points that have been raised in the debate which I should like to touch on briefly.
Reference was made to the fact that initial payments for the crop year 1953-54 have not been announced. It is difficult to get the last word on the situation, but I think I can give enough information to satisfy the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) as far as advice for planning crop production is concerned. For wheat the initial price this year was $1.40 a bushel. That will be the lowest price for next year for northerns. We would like to see more durum wheat produced; therefore the minimum initial payment for durum will be $1.50 per bushel.
A good deal has been said about surpluses, and that prices must fall, so some hon. members may think it is venturesome to suggest those prices under present conditions. Were some major country to fail to ratify the agreement-all have signed, but sometimes the ratifications required go wrong-that could upset the agreement. Nevertheless I would point

out that we have had three tremendous crops and, by the law of averages, most of us who have been associated with wheat for many years and who know a great deal about crop averages, know that we cannot go on getting bumper crops always. The wheat surplus throughout the world is held in strong hands, in fact it is held by governments; and I am perfectly satisfied that the governments which hold those surpluses today are not going to sell them at fire sale prices. Therefore I have no hesitation in saying that $1.40 for northerns and $1.50 for durum will be the initial prices next year. When all the factors are known, as they will be toward the end of July, it may be possible to increase the initial payment for wheat moderately.
As far as barley is concerned, the initial payment for this year was 96 cents for 3 CW 6-row barley. That will be the initial price for next year. I cannot think of any reason why the initial payments should be increased on barley and I know of no reason why they should be lowered, although we had a tremendous crop of barley and still have substantial stocks unsold at this time.
As far as oats are concerned, the initial price this year was 65 cents for 2 CW oats. That will be the initial price next year. The worst that can happen with oats is that we may have to ration deliveries in step with sales. The crop of oats last year was tremendous, and the marketing has not been active, largely because deliveries were not particularly brisk. We still have a tremendous stock of unsold oats. There is some suggestion that our usual marketing arrangements in the United States will be interfered with. I can see no reason why that should be so; nevertheless that is the one obstacle that could interfere with our present marketing program.
There you have the worst story that I can predict: $1.40 for northerns and $1.50 for durums, in wheat; 65 cents for 2 CW oats; and 96 cents for 3 CW 6-row barley.
I am very glad indeed to find that in this discussion, all parts of the house seem to favour signing the agreement. I think our discussion represents the views of the country as I have been able to interpret them. I am interested to note that the Winnipeg Free Press, which has taken a very positive stand on wheat agreements up to date, has nothing much to say for or against at the moment, which I think is a good omen. So I think we can say that there is unanimous consent for signing the agreement.
One statement was made by a member to the effect that payments under the agreement will be made in Canadian dollars at
International Wheat Agreement par. That is not correct. Payments may be made in Canadian dollars but they will be made on the basis of United States dollars. In other words, if Canadian dollars are at a premium, the price under the agreement in Canadian dollars will be discounted accordingly, and vice versa.


Mr. Quelch:: I wonder if the minister can inform us why it does not say that in the agreement. Under the agreement it would appear to be payment in Canadian dollars on the basis of 1949.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It says that payment is in Canadian dollars the value of which will be determined by the international monetary fund. That will be on the basis of $35 an ounce for gold.
There was some discussion about why the United Kingdom did not sign the agreement, and the reason given has been lack of dollars. Well, I have not been entirely satisfied in my belief that the United Kingdom may not have received all the good advice they should have received about the agreement. It is rather significant that expert grain men in every other country which buys wheat have thought it wise to sign, yet the grain men in the United Kingdom have thought it unwise to sign. The one thing I am sure of is that the decision not to sign was not based on an expected saving in dollars by purchasing wheat outside of the agreement.
The fact that the United Kingdom did not sign will mean that she will buy wheat at the world price. You may say that the world price may fall until it is below the agreement price, but that is not possible until the agreement price reaches the floor of $1.55. If the world price comes down, of course the agreement price will come down, since it cannot possibly be higher than the world price. No one is obliged to buy under the agreement if he can buy more cheaply outside the agreement. The agreement, therefore, would not function; that is, no wheat would be sold under the agreement if the agreement price were higher than that of wheat sold outside the agreement.
In order for Great Britain to save dollars under this arrangement she must contemplate the price of wheat dropping to $1.55. I doubt if she expects that to happen. Certainly I do not expect that to happen. I have been surprised at the advice Britain has been getting. As a sample, I am going to read Major Lloyd George's statement in the House of Commons. This extract is taken from the

International Wheat Agreement London Times of April 16, 1953, and reads as follows:
The reason why the government have decided not to accede to the international wheat agreement was explained in the House of Commons yesterday by Major Lloyd George, minister of food.
Answering a question by Mr. Osborne, Conservative member for Louth, Major Lloyd George said:
By a majority vote the international wheat council has decided to recommend to member governments that the international wheat agreement be extended for a further three-year period at a new price range per bushel of $2.05 maximum and $1.55 minimum, to replace the present range of $1.80 maximum and $1.20 minimum. After mature consideration Her Majesty's government have decided not to accede to the new agreement. In the judgment of Her Majesty's government the maximum price of $1.80 written into the present agreement-with the valuable insurance afforded by the guarantee at the minimum price-is a fair reflection of the value of wheat in present conditions in a free market. We were nevertheless prepared, in a sincere attempt to reach a settlement acceptable to all, to agree to an increase of 20 cents in the maximum price-and an increase of 35 cents in the minimum price-in spite of the heavy additional dollar expenditure this would have involved. Her Majesty's government consider that this would provide a generous settlement and feel unable to go further.
I would point out that the price written into the agreement is $1.80 plus carrying charges, so that the price is $1.86 when compared with the price of $2.05 maximum, which includes the carrying charges. I quote from the statement:
We were nevertheless prepared, in a sincere attempt to reach a settlement acceptable to all, to agree to an increase of 20 cents-
If that is the case, then Britain should have signed the agreement. I offer that as an indication that whoever was advising the minister perhaps did not understand the terms of the present agreement or how the proposed agreement would operate. I point that out in all sincerity, for I cannot see any other reason why Britain should not have signed the agreement.
Having said that, I want to say it is entirely optional with Britain as to whether or not she signs the agreement. It is her decision. Canada has not attempted in any way to interfere with that decision other than to put the facts before the officials who have visited Ottawa. I think it would have been inappropriate to do more than that. There is still time for Britain to accede. She can do that up until July 15 next. The decision that she has taken has been announced in ringing tones, and whether she will accede is very doubtful, in my opinion. However,
I do hope that before finally deciding against accession she will reconsider the whole position, in the light of developments between now and then.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, but since neither he nor his parliamentary assistant is in the house perhaps it can be taken as notice and answered tomorrow. My question is related to the serious tie-up of shipping in the port of Vancouver in the past seven days as a result of the strike of grain handlers. My question is, will the minister take whatever action may be necessary to enable the grain ships in Vancouver to be loaded at once?



THE CORONATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: In view of the recent announcement in Great Britain concerning the pardoning of prisoners in view of the coronation of Queen Elizabeth, will the same thing take place in Canada?


Hon. Siuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I am afraid I did not hear the first part of the hon. member's question.


William Joseph Browne: In view of the recent announcement regarding the pardoning of prisoners, will the same principle be applied in Canada in view of the coronation of Queen Elizabeth?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The usual practice in connection with such amnesties is that they are announced in due course by the Secretary of State. Further comment by me now would be inappropriate.


Mr. Knowles:: The matter is covered in a proclamation which has already been published on page 1153 of the Canada Gazette of April 25, 1953.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES RESTRICTION OF MOVEMENT OF PASSENGERS AT HARMON FIELD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (Sf. John's East):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Justice which does not appear in the Canada Gazette, but which did appear in another newspaper. Is there any truth in the statement that Canadians were refused permission to leave Harmon Field following a flight in a T.C.A. aircraft some few weeks ago? Does the minister know anything more about the matter now than he did two weeks ago?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If the hon. member is referring to the Newfoundland publication which he brought me alleging the facts which he has just stated, and which he left with me to have investigated, I may tell him that up until the present time we have been unable to find any foundation for the news item in question.



CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT MEASURE PROVIDING FOR ORGANIZATION AND SUPERVISION OF ASSOCIATIONS

Stuart Sinclair Garson: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 338, respecting co-operative credit associations.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Louis-René Beaudoin: May I point out that this bill has been carefully considered in the standing committee on banking and commerce and reported to this house with amendments.
Sections 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On section 5-Matters to be declared in special act.


William Joseph Browne: Will the minister state whether any organizations, apart from those which will be created by the special act, are contemplated as joining the national association at the present time?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am afraid I cannot hear
my hon. friend's voice. Perhaps he could speak a little bit more loudly.


William Joseph Browne: Are there
any other co-operative societies concerned here, except what would be in the nature of a national association of credit societies, which will be created by a special act of parliament? This legislation will enable the government to provide for supervision of a national co-operative credit association?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. This act will authorize the bringing into being by a special act of parliament of what my hon. friend referred to as a national organization. This act will authorize the supervising and inspection of that national organization and of the provincial centrals which are members of that national organization.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
On section 8-Objects and powers.
Louis-René Beaudoin: There is an amendment
to this clause. The amendment is to the 34th line which reads "to borrow or raise 68108-280
Lead and Zinc Exports money from its members or from"; these are the amending words, "an association of which it is a member or from". Then the section carries on as it is now.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the clause as amended carry?
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 9 to 85 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Alphonse Fournier: that the house go into committee of supply.



LEAD AND ZINC EXPORTS TO THE UNITED STATES

Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: 
Serious effects have already been felt in British Columbia as a result of the reduced prices of lead and zinc. The Northern Miner of April 16 reported eight shut-downs in mines which normally produce lead and zinc. Only last week a delegation of miners from western Canada visited the house and the cabinet and discussed this very matter. They reported that at least twelve mines were now completely shut down in British Columbia.
According to available information, about 1,000 men have already lost their jobs. Effects have also been felt on wages. On April 3 it was reported that a union request for a 20-cent increase in wages was countered by an offer of a 10-cent cut from the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company.
Lead and zinc are of basic importance to the province of British Columbia and to Canada. According to the annual report of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company there are 8,866 employees in that one organization. I understand that there were 9,725 people employed in lead and zinc mining, smelting and refining in British Columbia in 1951.
The legislation in the United States congress means that some people in the United States are trying to use Canada as a marginal supplier. They want to take our lead and zinc in times of shortage, and they want us to absorb the grief when supplies become adequate and prices are reduced as at present. I do not think this is the way trade should be carried on between Canada and the United States. It seems to me that this contradicts all the economic co-operation which has been built up between the two countries during the war and since. Quite frankly, I do not believe that the rank and file of people in the United States are aware of what it would mean to Canada if legislation of this kind were to be passed in their country.
This is why, therefore, I am suggesting that the government should consider introducing legislation for the imposition of export duties on nickel and asbestos. I select these two minerals because the United States is absolutely dependent upon Canada as a source of supply for both. If they are going to put prohibitive duties on Canadian lead and zinc, my suggestion to the government is that the export duties on nickel and asbestos should be even more substantial. It is my view that such export duties should not apply to other countries but only to nickel and asbestos going to the United States. It would be very appropriate, furthermore, having established these export duties

at a high level, that they fluctuate upward whenever the escalator provisions of the United States tariff operate to increase their duties on lead and zinc.
I believe that action of this kind is called for to maintain our self-respect. It would not get us into trouble with the Americans. It would bring to their attention, however, a very dangerous situation in their own country which needs to be corrected. If this is not done, trade relations between Canada and the United States might well sustain irreparable damage.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: I should like to say that I am in agreement with the hon. member who has just taken his seat. It is not a new story to have idle miners of all kinds in this country. At all times we are up against United States markets and United States imports into this country. I have no intention of making a long speech or any kind of analysis of this matter; but if the United States government, which has been taking zinc and lead from Canada, has imposed a duty at this time that makes it impossible to sell in what apparently was our normal market over there, to the extent that there are 1,000 unemployed people in that industry, with the prospects of more to follow, then I think the hon. member who has just taken his seat is entitled to raise the grievance and to ask for retaliation against commodities from this country that the United States has to import at this time. Asbestos and nickel are two good examples.
I myself have no illusions about what the United States government will do when it comes to protecting their own economy and their own people. They will apply any measure that is in the interests of the United States, and I think it is pretty near time Canada paid some attention to that. The government of the United States is a high tariff government, and when it is to their interest they will apply that high tariff. That is indicated by the grievance raised by the hon. member at this time.
Since they will protect their own interests, then I think the Canadian government has to take the same stand. I do not want to delay the proceedings of the house, but I am in absolute agreement with the hon. member who has raised this grievance.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I will not be two minutes. If the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) is correct, and I have no reason to think he is not, then it is going to seriously affect one of the big industries in Newfoundland, namely the mine at Buchans, which is a lead-zinc mine. I do 68108-280i
Supply-Privy Council hope that the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay East and the hon. member for Cape Breton South will be taken into account. Truthfully, I would not like this idea of putting on an imposition of any kind on the commodities they have to buy from us. That sort of action may bring about a chain reaction, and I do not suggest that we should take strong actions of that kind. If something could be done short of that, we may be able to accomplish the same result without setting up some kind of a chain reaction against foreign goods in the future. If it so happens that we cannot do it in any other way, then I would agree with what the hon. member for Cape Breton South has said.
Motion agreed to and the house went into supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
PRIVY COUNCIL Privy council office-
306. General administration, $351,802.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Mr. Chairman, may I, as briefly as I can, take exception to the amount set out in this item. I know I cannot increase it, but I can recommend that it be increased.
We are very proud of our country. We have just heard that we are going to take action in one matter in conjunction with the United States. This afternoon in the debate we learned that we have been working in conjunction with Great Britain in the matter of wheat. But I suggest that before we take action in unison with any other country we should put our own house in order.
So far as I am concerned I think we can find a little money to ensure that the leader of our country is properly rewarded. Certainly it reflects no credit on us when we expect the Prime Minister to accept this amount. I can speak freely in this matter because, through some misfortune, some other party may at a future date have the responsibility of office, and anyone leading that party would hold the office of prime minister. However, I realize that the hon. member for Eglinton has given up hope of anything like that happening, the possibility of anyone from his party residing on Sussex street, because he objects to our putting the building in proper order so it will be a credit to the country.
The people in my constituency find it most strange when they see members of the civil service drawing $35,000, $40,000 and I am informed up to $50,000, and at the same time the Prime Minister receiving much less. I am not in any way detracting from the ability of those civil servants, or the ability of any man holding a responsible position.

Supply-Privy Council I do doubt, however, whether they should receive that much money, when the man who is entrusted with the responsibility of guiding our country, a responsibility which at times might involve decisions of peace or war, does not receive as high a remuneration as is received by the head of the real estate branch in the government.
That does not make sense to me at all. If I were allowed to state a figure I would be glad to do so. However, I realize I cannot recommend the expenditure of public funds. I must say, however, that no matter who the prime minister of the country may be, he should be amply rewarded. And such reward or remuneration should be entirely free of income tax or any other levies that may be made against it.
A man who holds the position of prime minister in this country carries a terrific responsibility, not only in the duties he discharges in Ottawa but when he represents us in foreign countries. During the discussion of the international wheat agreement today we were told that some 43 countries were taking part. If it is of vital importance that Canada take part in an international wheat agreement, then how much more important must it be that the Prime Minister should be properly rewarded, in so far as we can do it in a monetary fashion.
One of our brightest days was the day we decided to erect a residence for the prime minister of Canada, no matter who he might be. Since we were small boys we have heard about No. 10 Downing street and the White House; and I hope every Canadian will become just as familiar with the residence of the prime minister of Canada, whoever he may be.
I am sure the people of Canada are anxious to have their prime minister properly rewarded in a financial way. Members of the government can recommend the expenditure of money, while private members do not have that privilege. Perhaps they will consider what I have said.	It will be
recalled that, although Mr. Truman was not even a candidate in the last presidential election, he said before leaving office much the same as I have been saying this afternoon.
We are a greater country than the United States, and we should be prepared to set an example they might follow in future. I realize that, as the Prime Minister is in his seat, he might be embarrassed by what I have said. But I must say that he should not feel embarrassed. He is the prime minister of the day, and there are many who will hope that he will continue to remain
[Mr. Cruickshank.l
so. And so long as he is Prime Minister of Canada he should be accorded the dignity attached to that office, irrespective of party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might ask the Prime Minister a general question under this item. As he will recall, the Massey commission some time ago recommended that there be established a Canada council for the encouragement of the arts, letters, humanities and social sciences. Can the Prime Minister tell us what steps have been taken thus far to implement what I am sure he will agree was a very important recommendation?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, first of all I must thank the hon. member for Fraser Valley for the good will he expressed toward whosoever may at any time be prime minister of Canada. But I wish to assure him that the only worth-while compensation for whosoever is prime minister of Canada is the feeling that, though all his fellow citizens may not agree with him, they will all admit that he is always trying to do his best for the community at large.
With respect to the creation of a Canada council, I do not know to what extent I might be discussing matters with which I should not deal at this time. I will say, however, that this matter has received very serious consideration. Last summer and early fall there were discussions with several prominent Canadians about it. I hoped at that time that I could induce some of them to say that they would favourably consider assuming the responsibilities that would have to be discharged by the officials of a Canada council.
At that time to my disappointment I found I could not go to my colleagues with the prospect of getting acceptance from the several gentlemen with whom I had discussed the matter. They were all interested; they all told me that they realized the importance to the Canadian nation of the work this would involve, and that at some future date they might be prepared to consider it. They pointed out, however, that just at that time they were not in a position where they could step out of the matters to which they were devoting their time.
I had to come to the conclusion that I was not in a position to recommend a set-up for the kind of council that in my view would meet the objectives aimed at in the recommendations of the Massey commission. Here, too, is a place where we would not be paying money for the services the nation would receive from those who would be discharging the responsibilities that would be

incumbent upon them. The Canada council would have to be something that would appeal to people because of the satisfaction they would receive from promoting the proper kind of development in that regard.
Canada has been and will continue to be fortunate in having Canadians who are prepared to work for their fellow citizens for that kind of compensation. But I found when I discussed the matter last autumn that I was not in a position at that time to bring to my colleagues recommendations which would allow that to be done. It is something which should not be delayed, something which should be done reasonably soon.
I think I have planted seeds which will germinate, and that it will be possible for the Canadian government, whoever may be at the head of it then, within a reasonable time to get the kind of men who would honour themselves and honour the position by undertaking the responsibilities of that kind of council.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it that as soon as
it is possible to secure the personnel the Prime Minister feels would do a good job in fulfilment of this recommendation, the government would be favourable to setting up the council?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If I continue to be
responsible for public affairs I shall be only too happy to recommend to my colleagues the establishment of a council as soon as I can put before them a set-up that would appear to be the proper kind.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, when the house rose at six o'clock the Prime Minister had just answered certain questions put to him by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre concerning the Canada council. Can the Prime Minister tell the committee this evening whether it will be necessary to have legislation enacted if there is to be a Canada council and, also, would he give us his views about the type of council that should be set up? He did not give that information when he spoke earlier.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have not obtained an opinion from the Department of Justice, but when I was considering it late last summer or last fall it was my impression that legislation would be required.
Supply-Privy Council At that time I was trying to prepare a recommendation that I could bring to my colleagues in order to put in motion the preparation of that legislation; because we did make an endeavour to have all or practically all our legislation ready for the opening of the session.
I would not like to go into details as to the kind of council we should have, but what I had in mind was a council composed of ladies and gentlemen who had already made their imprint upon the mind of the Canadian public and whose prestige would be in keeping with the importance of the functions which they would have to perform. Those functions would be to act as the council that would operate under UNESCO, first of all; and second, to consider and have the initiative in all recommendations for grants for cultural activities in Canada.
I think it is important to have those matters dealt with on a basis that would be regarded by the public as entirely divorced from partisan politics. I think that if and when we place before parliament the recommendations of the Massey commission for national scholarships, those scholarships should be dealt with by this council. It should be to the council that the applications would be directed, and the council would pass upon the applical ions. I know there have been government scholarships-perhaps not federal scholarships, because the only ones I know of that are of federal origin are those awarded by the national research council-where there have been suggestions to the effect that in granting them there was political influence I do not think that is desirable.
I think it is desirable to have all these matters handled by a body that would have the respect of the Canadian public to an extent that their recommendations-I will not say would not be questioned, but would not be open to suggestions that they were in any way subject to partisan political influence.
There are other matters, too. At one time consideration was given to a Canadian order or medal. I think the Canada council, if there should come to be one, should have the initiative of recommendations in that regard, and that neither the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra nor I would be asked to try to influence recommendations in that regard. I do not say here that parliament would want to set up a commission over which there would be no control whatsoever, but it seems to me that in those matters having to do with the cultural activities of the nation applications should be directed to an independent council, and that no initiative should

Supply-Privy Council be taken other than through that council. This would require the appointment of ladies and gentlemen who would not be attracted by whatever expense allowances were made or by whatever monetary remuneration was provided, the appointment of persons who would be really interested in performing their duties for the advancement of these cultural activities in the Canadian nation.


Howard Charles Green: In effect, then, the council
would have quite wide executive powers?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Evidently, if I am right, and I think I am right, it would require legislation and parliament would determine to what extent the council would have these executive powers. If I were still to have any responsibility in public affairs I would prefer that the council should have the power of decision and that it should not be subject to any kind of control or interference that some people might find undesirable.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Chairman, I am so sympathetic with the motive behind setting up a council or at any rate seeing that something is done in the words of the report to try to come to the rescue of the humanities and social sciences-and I think that was one of the chief objectives- that I certainly do not wish to utter a single word that sounds unsympathetic. Nevertheless I find a question in my mind as to just what kind of body we are setting up, or at any rate, what kind of body is contemplated in the report.
I understood the Prime Minister to say before we rose for dinner, and I think it is implied in what he said a moment ago, that those who would serve on the Canada council would be doing so because of their interest in the matter and not as officials. However, on looking at the report, although the report is not necessarily to be adopted word for word, I find at page 370 that the chairman and the vice-chairman are to be full-time appointments.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That, of
course, in itself is not necessarily objectionable. It does however raise in my mind the question whether or not we are setting up a new department of government which very naturally will want to show results in what it does. I notice, for example, the report says at the bottom of page 377:
We should also consider it a misfortune if this Canada council became in any sense a department of government, but we realize that since this body will be spending public money it must be in an effective manner responsible to the government and hence to parliament.


Another quotation I should like to read from the report is' found on page 378, and is as follows:
We do not think it advisable that officers of the federal government sit as members of the proposed council; but in its deliberations it would undoubtedly need the expert advice of many departments of government.
Then on page 379 it says:
We therefore recommend:
d. That the Canada council have the authority to invite to its sessions officers of departments and agencies of the government, including the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the national film board, and that it give consideration to the appointment of advisory committees in the principal fields with which it will be concerned.
I find myself just a little troubled with the proposal for this rather elaborate machinery, as to whether we may find that we have really set up something which, in order to justify its existence and the money spent on it, will have to show great activity. I find myself a little troubled as to whether we will find that educational authorities and those in the pursuit of the arts may find that they have something here which may become almost more than ever contemplated, and which may end up by assuming a position which I would rather imagine at the present time none of us intend that it should.
I just come back to this. You have a fulltime chairman, president and committee, and there are going to be government departments called in. I think we are going to have, in fact, a rather important new department of government, whether or not we really intend to.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I discussed the terms of the report with more than one gentleman whom I was feeling out as to the possibility of having him serve on this council, and one of them felt that there was no requirement, at least at this time, for a full-time chairman as suggested in the report. We already have the national research council which has been doing very valuable work in its field. We have, and we are going to consider the estimates for it, the federal district commission. I think they have been able to operate in a manner that has been generally satisfactory.
Of course at this time we are not discussing exactly what the set-up and powers of the Canada council would be. I was merely replying to a question by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra as to what I had in my mind as preliminary thoughts as to the kind of legislation that could be recommended to parliament. I think we will all agree that we would like the kind of council that would operate in the manner that is characteristic of the national research council,

of the national gallery board, of the federal district commission, and that might not mean there would be no member or official who would receive any remuneration whatever.
If the chairman of the Canada council were a gentleman who had to receive the kind of remuneration that the president of a university receives, I think that might be entirely acceptable. It would not mean that it was for the remuneration he was doing the work. The remuneration would be merely living expenses to allow him to carry on and devote his time to that kind of work. This would not be something comparable to industrial or commercial activities, no more than the work of the very many men and women who are devoting their lives to universities is comparable to industrial or commercial activities. They do, however, have to receive enough to maintain themselves in a proper state. The principal compensation they receive is the satisfaction they get out of the accomplishments they achieve.


Howard Charles Green: This vote is for the privy council office. Apparently the head of that office is known as the clerk of the privy council. Just what are the functions of that official?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think, Mr. Chairman, they were rather carefully and completely set out in an answer I gave to a question by an hon. member on December 17, 1952. This answer is found on pages 821 and 822 of Hansard for that date.


Howard Charles Green: Could the Prime Minister
summarize it?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The duties were defined in the order in council appointing the clerk of the privy council secretary of the cabinet on March 25, 1940, P.C. 1121/40. He is the head both of the privy council office and of the Prime Minister's office, and has the rank of deputy minister. The two offices were combined, and there is now only one register and one filing system. All the employees of the two offices are under the direction of the clerk of the privy council. I have the full list of the officers and staff here as of April 1, 1953. I find there are 85 employees as of that date.


Howard Charles Green: I ask that question because, as the Prime Minister says, the clerk of the privy council is responsible for a staff of 85; it is shown in the estimates at page 379 as 87. Apparently he acts as secretary of the cabinet, in addition to being in charge of the privy council office. Quite frankly, there was considerable criticism of the Prime Minister's action in taking the present clerk of the privy council with him on a tour of the west last fall which was, in part at least, a political tour.
Supply-Privy Council
I believe it is fair comment to raise the question as to the propriety of the Prime Minister taking the clerk of the privy council with him on a political tour. I understand it has not been the practice to do so. This official is supposed to be in the same category as the deputy minister of a department. In fact he draws a larger salary than some of the deputies. I notice that he gets $15,000 a year. I suggest to the Prime Minister that it is not the right thing to do to take the clerk of the privy council along on political tours across the country. We are to have an election in a short time. If the clerk of the privy council could go on a tour last fall, I suppose there is no reason why he could not go on a tour this summer or this fall during the election campaign. That sort of thing, I think, would undermine the whole office. In fact I think what was done last fall has already undermined it to a degree. Personally I am sorry that the Prime Minister saw fit to take that action.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry my hon. friend is under the impression which no doubt he is under, otherwise he would not have spoken as he did just now. I did not take the clerk of the privy council on a political tour. I had been invited to attend the opening of the permanent buildings of the law faculty of the University of British Columbia and at the same time attend the meeting of the Canadian Bar Association in Vancouver. I decided that I would make certain stops on the way out. It was not a political tour-because there was no thought then given to any immediate prospect of a political campaign. I had been invited, ever since I became Prime Minister, to visit the Midland district which many people regard as being of some considerable historical importance in the early history of Canada, and I spent a couple of days there.
I had arranged for Mr. Pickersgill to meet me in Calgary where he was going to see his mother. It was arranged that the trips would coincide, that he would meet me in Calgary and would go on with me from Calgary to Vancouver. I went by train to Calgary and then flew from Calgary, going to Trail. A couple of weeks before that I had been up to the lake St. John district and had been greatly impressed; and, from my inspection of what was going on in that district, I think I learned something useful to me in my office as Prime Minister.
I had heard a great deal about the developments that were taking place at Trail, and I wanted to visit the plant of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada there. I had been quite impressed-some 25 years ago, I suppose, or more-by the fact that there had been an international dispute

Supply-Privy Council with the United States over the damages that were supposed to have been caused to vegetation by the fumes from the smelters at Trail. I had heard that all traces of that damage had disappeared in a quarter of a century. I was impressed by the fact that that was so, that things grow out there, and that there were no traces of there having been any permanent impairment.
I was glad to note that the use we were making of our resources did not appear to be depleting them, and that we did not appear to be wasting the heritage of future generations. Up in the lake St. John district I had seen a plant where something of the order of $125 million to $150 million worth of metal is marketed each year, to which nothing is contributed from Canadian resources but the water that flows in our streams and Canadian labour; the raw materials are brought in from elsewhere. At Trail I found that those obnoxious fumes, for which damages had been collected after an arbitration, were now being applied to phosphate rock that was brought in from Montana and turned into millions of dollars worth of fertilizer every year.
From Trail I then went on up the Okanagan valley and on to Vancouver. I went over from Vancouver to Victoria, went up the coast of Vancouver island and crossed over to Powell River. I felt that, in getting a firsthand impression of the things that were going on, I was not wasting my time. I had intended to fly over Kitimat about which I had heard some extremely glowing accounts from the president of the Aluminum company; but the weather was such that we could not get in. We went to Prince Rupert and on to Prince George. I think Mr. Pickersgill accompanied me until we got back to Edmonton. I am not sure about that, but I think he did. He did not go with me beyond that.
At Edmonton the only political activity in which I engaged was to make the kick-off in a football match that was being staged that evening; and the ball was set up by Premier Manning. I was in Edmonton a few hours and visited the new chemical industry-I think it belongs to the Cellulose corporation -that is being erected there, and I got several eye-openers about the kind of development that is going on in our country.
I then had a meeting-and that was the only political meeting that had been organized- in the constituency of my friend the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa; but Mr. Pickersgill was not there on that occasion. I was to speak, and I did so, to the Canadian Club in Winnipeg. Mr. Pickersgill had waited for me in Winnipeg on his way back from his visit. He did not proceed with me from there. I was going from there to Hamilton, to the 60th anniversary dinner of the federation of
(Mr. St. Laurent.]
Canadian Clubs. Mr. Pickersgill did not accompany me on that visit.
When I am away from Ottawa it is highly desirable that I have some liaison with what is going on here. It was for that purpose that Mr. Pickersgill waited for me on the way out and saw me while I stopped at the station at Winnipeg. After I left Ottawa he had received some communications about which my views were desired by my colleagues before making an answer. During that absence from Ottawa of about a week there were two or three occasions when communication was made to me of dispatches about which my colleagues wished to have my views before returning an answer.
When I am engaged in political campaigning and political tours, I do not take the clerk of the privy council with me, and will not take him with me. I recognize that it would not be proper to do so, and I do not intend to do so. But I do not apologize for what took place when Mr. Pickersgill came down-I think he came down twice when I was at St. Patrick-with bundles of dispatches to go over, and about which my colleagues wished to have my views.
On one of these occasions he met me in the Chicoutimi district and accompanied me while I was looking over these huge power developments that have taken place and are still taking place in that region, and discussed with me quite a large number of matters that were reflected in the official documents he had brought along with him. I have found it very convenient to have his assistance because of his rather wonderful memory and because of the fact that he does remember, as far as I have been able to see, practically everything that has gone on in the prime minister's office since he went in there in 1937. It is very useful to have someone who can almost instantaneously tell one what has been the practice and the procedure and what has taken place and is apt to be affected by what is going to take place.


Howard Charles Green: I realize that Mr. Pickersgill was formerly the Prime Minister's head secretary, but I do suggest that when he took over the position of clerk of the privy council that changed his duties, and that his duty then was to be in Ottawa acting as secretary to the cabinet. While the Prime Minister is away the cabinet meets, and I suggest that is where the clerk of the privy council should be. Surely there was no necessity for Mr. Pickersgill to help the Prime Minister see the great plant of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company at Trail, the Okanagan valley, the beauties of Vancouver, Vancouver island or Prince Rupert.


An hon. Member:: Or Prince George.


Howard Charles Green: Or Prince George. The Prime Minister's tour was in effect a political tour. He was quite right to take it; he was very wise to take it especially to British Columbia, where the fortunes of his party and of some other parties have not been so good in recent years.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Speak for yourself.


Howard Charles Green: But I do suggest that by taking the clerk of the privy council along on these political tours the Prime Minister is helping to break down and injure the standing of that position, and I do not believe it should be done.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I will not admit the hon. gentleman's strictures that the Prime Minister and the clerk of the privy council are breaking down the traditions of that office, and I will not admit that I was on a political tour last summer. It may be that wherever I go there is a political effect.


Mr. MacDougall:: I feel rather strongly about this debate because of the attack that has been made with respect to the Prime Minister and Mr. Pickersgill. I happened to be one of the committee in Vancouver who were arranging and assisting in the arrangements for the Prime Minister's visit. I do not mind telling you that we were quite annoyed in Vancouver because the Prime Minister definitely refused to hold a political meeting in the city of Vancouver or its environs because he was out there as a guest of the law society of Canada.


Mr. Wylie:: Oh, boloney.


John Lorne MacDougall: We would have loved to have a political meeting when the Prime Minister was out there, but we felt as he felt; that as a guest of the law society of Canada he could not hold a political meeting, and no political meeting was held in the city of Vancouver or its environs during his stay. Certainly I take personal objection to any innuendo that may be cast with respect to that matter, because if any man was fair and square and aboveboard in keeping politics out of the Canadian Bar Association it was the Prime Minister of Canada and the leader of the Liberal party.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I imagine it is always difficult to be quite sure when a trip is partly political and partly otherwise; but I have risen to say that I welcome the assurance the Prime Minister has given, because I do agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that there was a good deal of misunderstanding with regard to what C8108-281
Supply-Privy Council took place last autumn. That is why I welcome the assurance which the Prime Minister has given.


William Gilbert Weir: Reference has been made to the Prime Minister's visit to my constituency of Portage-Neepawa. I do not mind saying in the House of Commons tonight that that was a political meeting in the sense that it was an address by the Prime Minister to the constituents of Portage-Neepawa. When I got word from my associates that the Prime Minister would be glad to grace us with his presence at that meeting I immediately turned the arrangements over to the young Liberal association in the city of Portage la Prairie. They arranged the meeting. We had a good meeting; the Prime Minister had an immense .reception, but Jack Pickersgill was not there.


Mr. Fulton:: May I ask the hon. member whether that was the meeting in which the Prime Minister said it was only imaginary that there was overtaxation in Canada today?


Mr. Maclnnis:: It is not my intention to carry this discussion to any length, but I do think that the discussion, and perhaps more than anything else the remarks made by the Prime Minister, indicates to everyone how careful the Prime Minister must be in matters of this kind. He said that it was not a political tour, but perhaps every tour he makes is political.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Has political effect.


Donald MacInnis: Has political effect. People take it that way. I am sure that when the Prime Minister-and I do not find any fault or make any criticism of this-goes on tour anywhere in Canada he cannot do it without those present feeling that he is there not only as the Prime Minister of Canada. Many would feel he was the Prime Minister of Canada, but others would feel he was not only the Prime Minister of Canada but the head of the Liberal party. These are the facts. Let me say again that these things fall off my back quite easily because I attach no great importance to them. Any time the Prime Minister comes to Vancouver, with or without Jack Pickersgill, I shall be glad to hear that he is there.


Mr. Rowe:: I know the committee was very interested in listening to the Prime Minister's review of his splendid tour of western Canada. It is rather inspiring at this time to find that he is such a non-political Prime Minister when he travels from coast to coast, and only trusts that he may have a political effect.
I could not help thinking, when the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard was speaking,

Supply-Privy Council that there seems to have been in these last few days a strange non-political attitude, even among members of the government. However, I have every compliment to pay to the clerk of the privy council. I have known him for some years, and I know he is a very capable clerk. He was recognized to be a very capable private secretary to the late prime minister, the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, and he has splendid qualifications.	.
I know he is a very non-political gentleman, too. But it does appear to me that, in the estimates, he is now made deputy head as well as clerk of the privy council. I notice that the item here says that the special assistant to the prime minister in the year 1952-53 was paid $12,000. In 1953-54-and this is about the only economy I observe in the whole sheaf of estimates, full of necessary expenditures, combined with some extravagances-this amount is not voted. So I am wondering if the man who is now clerk of the privy council and deputy head is going to act as assistant to the Prime Minister, as well. If he is doing all that work, and remembers everything that happens, as I believe he does, I am not so sure whether he may be underpaid. Because even though he is getting nearly twice as much as some deputy ministers, it would seem that he has great responsibilities.
The Prime Minister has said that he must have a liaison to find out what is going on in Ottawa while he is in the country. It is to be expected by everyone that he will be out in the country quite a bit in the next few months, unless he thinks his political effect would be better if he did not go out in the country. Of that I am not so sure.


An hon. Member:: Wait and see.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, "wait and see"; that is the slogan on which you have survived for a long time. But there always comes a turn in the wind.
I was about to say that the Prime Minister is likely to be away from Ottawa a great deal; and if he is to have a liaison who would know what is going on in Ottawa, then I should think it would be better for the clerk of the privy council to stay in Ottawa rather than to move the privy council to Winnipeg or Edmonton or Vancouver, to attend these meetings some of which are called non-political and some of which are political. Some are called to say that the government has not been extravagant, or that their extravagance has been only imaginary. In any event these are supposed to be matters quite within the prerogative of the Prime Minister.


The Prime Minister said he believed- well, he did not say he believed; I must not misconstrue what he said; lately he is not so sure about his political effect as he has been at other times-but I do believe that the combined efforts of the clerk of the privy council, who at that time was more or less acting as private assistant, or almost as a prime minister's secretary, and those of the Prime Minister in Winnipeg were not greatly to the political advantage of the party they were representing.
I know and I do believe that the Prime Minister is well advised. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, who has contributed so much to the debates of this house this session and in many other years, has brought up a matter of great importance, and that is that the functions of the clerk of the privy council have been definite for a number of years. I believe it is a change to call him a deputy head. I believe he is now known as a deputy head, clerk of the privy council and secretary to the cabinet. And, by all signs, and from what we have heard tonight, he is also a special assistant to the Prime Minister.
I say that because I notice that the salary of the special assistant to the Prime Minister ceased when he became clerk of the privy council. I feel, and I have always felt, that it would be unfair in the House of Commons to take advantage of any of our capable civil servants during debate in the house. I think it is more unfair than to take advantage of the press, because the press can answer next morning, but a member of the civil service can answer only when his minister tells him to answer. Recently we have seen where they have spoken for ministers, but that does not happen very often.
Even if that were not so, I have every regard for the ability and the memory of Mr. Pickersgill, who is now clerk of the privy council. And I believe if he is allowed to carry out his functions in that office he will make an excellent clerk of the privy council. However, I do not like to see any man in public life overworked, and I hope the clerk of the privy council is not used as deputy head, secretary to the whole cabinet and private assistant to the Prime Minister, and his non-political powers used in an advisory capacity for the political effect they might have, or used to have in the old days.
He is a good man. I am pleased to see in the Prime Minister's answer to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that he is not going to work him so hard in the future, that he took him once but that he will not take

him again. Therefore during the election campaign, even though his services undoubtedly would be useful, we can assume he will be left in Ottawa to look after his proper position as clerk of the privy council. And I have no doubt he will do a splendid job, if he is not asked to mix politics with it during the hectic days of an election.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Had the hon. member looked at the estimates for last year he would have seen that this position was described in exactly the same language-deputy head, clerk of the privy council and secretary to the cabinet-when the office was occupied by Mr. Norman Robertson, who is now our high commissioner in London.


William Earl Rowe: Would the Prime Minister tell us who is special assistant to the Prime Minister? The item is still in the estimates, but no salary is indicated. Is there a special assistant, or has the Prime Minister only one private secretary? I believe the ex-prime minister had about a dozen secretaries. Does the Prime Minister now get along with one?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. member's beliefs show that he has extraordinary faith when he says he believes that the former prime minister had at least a dozen secretaries.


William Earl Rowe: That does not answer the question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not want to get into an argument as to details. However, if the Prime Minister will look at the item he will observe that in the fourth item of the details of the estimates at page 379 there is a position described as "assistant deputy head, assistant clerk of the privy council." And in the column on the left side it appears that, whereas there was one of these officials in the year 1952-53 there is no one in that office in 1953-54. Then if the Prime Minister will look at the columns to the right of the page he will see that the salary for 1952-53 was $7,320, and that for 1953-54 the salary is $9,000. If there is no one holding that position in this current fiscal year, then I am interested to know who has earned the $9,000 salary being provided: or, alternatively, if the $9,000 salary is being provided for that position, why is there no figure in the first column on the left side of the page?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, of course, I did not print the book of estimates.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I did not think that the Prime Minister had.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The salary at $9,000 is for one assistant deputy head, assistant clerk of the privy council. The gentleman who draws that salary is Mr. A. M. Hill, who has been in charge of records of the privy council ever 08108-281|
Supply-Privy Council since I have been a privy councillor, as far back as I can remember.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then there is a person holding that position and who will continue to hold it this year? Therefore I presume there should be a figure "1" in the first column on the left side?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There is a figure "1" there. There are two assistant secretaries.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the next item.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There is a figure "1" in the left column of my printed copy.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have just obtained another copy to make sure that mine is not a misprint. Perhaps this is not a very important item, but I just want to make certain that there is in fact a person holding the position for which a salary is being provided. In my copy, and in the one I have just borrowed, there is no figure "1" in the column on the left side headed "1953-54." There is a figure "1" in the column headed "1952-53", which was last year.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: They add up to 87. There is a figure "1" in my copy and that is required to make the total of 87. If there is no figure "1" in the hon. gentleman's copy and he will add them up, he will find they come to only 86.


William Earl Rowe: Who is the registrar of the privy council? That is a new item this year. There is a reduction of $12,000 for the special assistant to the Prime Minister, but there is this new position of registrar of the cabinet with a salary of $7,000. There are also two new assistant secretaries to the cabinet.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The registrar of the cabinet is Mr. W. E. D. Halliday.


William Earl Rowe: What are his functions?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I cannot tell the hon. gentleman exactly what are his functions, but the hon. gentleman knows that a couple of years ago I undertook to table monthly, while parliament was in session, a summary of orders in council. There is a register of orders in council kept and a summary is tabled every month. I do not know just what Mr. Halliday's functions were before he became registrar. These changes are made by the civil service commission as part of the reclassification.


Mr. Adamson:: It has always puzzled me as to just how many people are privy to the deliberations of the privy council.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not think there are ever more than two. There is usually the clerk of the privy council and one of his

Supply-Privy Council assistants. During and since the war we have had a system of keeping summary minutes of the deliberations and discussions in council. It used to be that there was nothing kept but the signed orders in council, and it was found that that was inconvenient. While Mr. Heeney was clerk of the privy council, following the practice in the cabinet at London, this custom was established of keeping a summary of all matters discussed in the cabinet. There is usually Mr. Pickersgill, Mr. Robertson or one other of the chief officers of the privy council office attending. They would be privy to the discussions that take place.


Agar Rodney Adamson: There is no transcript made of the deliberations of the privy council?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No. Summary minutes are kept, but they are not authenticated. They are simply memoranda of the discussions and deliberations. There is no adoption at the opening of one meeting of the minutes of a previous meeting. The only documents that have an official character are the recommendations to His Excellency the Governor General for orders in council.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Those are all signed at the privy council meetings?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: They are.


Agar Rodney Adamson: And sent to His Excellency?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: They are sent to His Excellency immediately. Sometimes when it is desired to lay them on the table of the house at once they are communicated to His Excellency by telephone and his assent is obtained while the messenger is on the way to Government House to get them signed.


Agar Rodney Adamson: But the Governor General must be informed before they are laid on the table?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Oh, yes, and they must be approved by the Governor General before the clerk of the privy council will deliver copies of what has been certified as an order by His Excellency.


William Earl Rowe: I should like to suggest that the new registrar of the cabinet might keep a record of the orders in council that are passed while parliament is sitting, that we do not hear about.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. gentleman is quite wrong in saying that he does not hear of them. A summary of all orders in council that are passed, whether parliament is sitting or not, is tabled every month.


William Earl Rowe: I want to keep them separate.
IMr. St. Laurent.]


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member only comes back every second month.


William Earl Rowe: I am glad you miss me. We would not miss you if you were away.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Federal district commission-
308. To provide for maintenance and improvement of grounds adjoining government buildings at Ottawa, and to authorize an amount not exceeding $135,500 for construction, improvements, maintenance and operation of the parkway system under the control of the federal district commission which is additional to the sum of $300,000 granted by chap. 55, statutes of 1927, as amended, $433,500.
Mr. Proudfoot:: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to draw the attention of the government to a situation in which the residents of rural municipalities find themselves at the present time, that is municipalities such as Onslow North, Onslow South, the village of Quyon and others in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario which lie within the boundaries of the federal district commission.
We feel that we have no representatives on the federal district commission, nor have we anyone to represent us on the national planning committee. I may say that on the federal district commission there are eight residents of Ottawa, two from Hull and one from each of the other provinces to make up the twenty members of that commission.
As to the national capital planning committee, this committee consists of fourteen members, of whom seven come from Ottawa, two from Hull, two from Montreal, one from Toronto, one from Bolton, Ontario and one from Maniwaki in the Gatineau, but who does not live within the boundaries of the federal district commission.
I also note that in the national capital area there are 364 square miles in the province of Ontario and 536 square miles in the province of Quebec. Of course I realize that the city of Ottawa is included in the province of Ontario, so therefore that portion would have a larger population.
But I submit that the rural municipalities in Pontiac, Timiskaming, Gatineau, Labelle, Carleton and Russell have no representation on the federal district commission or national planning committee, and I suggest that they be given representation on the federal district commission by one member from rural Quebec residing within the federal district commission. I suggest also that municipalities in the province of Quebec and municipalities in the province of Ontario which are within the federal district commission boundaries should have representation on the national capital planning committee.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, at this point I should like to express my appreciation to the federal district commission for having given us permission to play our outstanding ball game on the front lawn. They are allowing us that privilege again this year one week from Wednesday.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
310. To authorize payment of the sixth instalment to a special account in the consolidated revenue fund, known as the national capital fund, established under vote No. 809, Appropriation Act, 4, 1947-48, $2,500,000.
Gordon Francis Higgins: I think this is the correct item if it takes in the question of land which is to be expropriated for the national capital plan. Recently, within the past month although I am not quite certain of the date, there was an announcement by the big factory across the river that they planned improvements and that they were not going to await the capital planning people taking them over. In fact they went so far as to suggest that there would not be enough money to buy them out. I would like to ask the Prime Minister about the situation over at that plant.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, the federal district commission is an autonomous body that has to get approval of the governor in council for its acquisitions whether they be voluntary or by way of expropriation. It has been in existence now for something over 50 years and has, I think, been doing a very useful and satisfactory job for the Canadian people. This is set out in considerable detail in the 53rd annual report which I laid on the table of this house on January 19, 1953.
The hon. gentleman asks what is going to become of the industries across the river. Well, up to the present time I think the presence of those industries there has had a significance which has been appreciated by all visitors to Ottawa. Ottawa, its development and its prosperity, have historically been due in a large measure to lumber industries. Up to the present time those industries across the river have been a concrete demonstration to all visitors that the capital, like any other place in Canada, is still young, still close to the pioneering days, and that we still remember that we owe much for their start and their prosperous development to those industries.
I know there have been negotiations between the officers of the federal district commission and the gentleman who controls the stock of those industrial concerns. There are negotiations, if you want to call them such, under way at the present time; and a sort of indefinite proposal was submitted some months ago to the federal district commission to bring about the establishment of additions
27, 1953	4439
Supply-Federal District Commission to those plants at some removed point. The federal district commission submitted a questionnaire in order to find out just exactly what the proposal involved. The commission was told that it would take quite a considerable time to answer the questions.
I hope that whatever developments are made in this industry-and like other Canadian industries I suppose it is bound to develop-they will be made in such a way that when the appropriate time comes for the ultimate displacement of that industry there will be nothing involved by way of damages or compensation for interruption of operations. That matter has been discussed with the owners and I think they appreciate that some day there will be a removal of those plants to another site. I think they have already acquired the site which they intend to develop; and I am sure they will proceed in such a way that when removal has to be made they will not be in a position where they must ask for compensation for an interruption of their operations.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The Prime Minister has achieved a nicety of language in referring to pioneering. In the future when we have thait sulphite smell I shall consider it to be a pioneering rather than a primitive smell.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I thank the Prime Minister for his remarks, which were very clear; but it does sound very much to me like a Kathleen Mavourneen proposition. The eventual removal will take place, but when is a question that no one can answer as yet. It will be done some time in the future.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The owner agrees that it is bound to come, and has been very reasonable in the attitude adopted. He has expressed the hope that his company will be able to co-operate in such a way that when removal must take place it can be done merely by paying the value of what will be taken and not by paying heavy indemnities for interruption of operations while another plant is being established.


Gordon Francis Higgins: There is nothing that can be done about making additional improvements now; the plant has to keep up with the industry?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I understand that new machines have to be added, and there was a serious question about whether one whole part of the industry could not be removed right away. To that proposal the chairman submitted a long questionnaire so he would be able to determine in his own mind what the commission would be getting into. The

Supply-Agriculture
last time I inquired about it I was told that the answer had been that it would take a considerable time to answer those questions.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $354,893.
Mr. Charlton:: Is the minister going to make any remarks at the outset, Mr. Chairman?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Chairman, I have prepared answers to some of the questions which have been brought up during the session and upon which I expect hon. members would like to have information. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I shall stay rather close to my notes in placing that information on Hansard.
Net income to farmers from the sale of farm products reached a peak of $2-2 billion in 1951. Estimates for the net income received in 1952 are placed at just under $2 billion. There is some indication that this present satisfactory position may be maintained. The cost of equipment and materials used in agricultural production reached a peak in 1952 and has declined since that time. In January 1952 the dominion bureau of statistics index of equipment was 218-1 (1935-39 = 100) and by January 1953 it had dropped to 207-7, a decline of five per cent.
I should like to set out the position in relation to beef cattle over the period. The beef cattle market recently has undergone an adjustment under the influence of heavy marketings and declining prices in the United States. Since the first of this year the inspected slaughter of cattle in the United States has been over 30 per cent above 1951, and prices there are about $12 per hundred below the price of February, 1952. The influence of this has been felt on the Canadian market since the removal of the United States embargo on March 2, 1953. The present price of good steers at Winnipeg is $9 below that of February, 1952, the last month before the United States embargo was imposed. Good steers at Chicago were selling at $32.20 a hundred in February, 1952, and $20.45 at the beginning of April, 1953. At Winnipeg, good steers sold at $27.92 in February, 1952 and $18.60 at the beginning of April, 1953.
The present position of the cattle market, however, must be considered in relation to the substantial price advances of recent years. The average price received by farmers at their primary shipping points for all grades was $9.63 a hundred pounds during the period 1943-45. During the period 1950-52 farmers received an average price of $23.78 a hundred pounds, which is two and a half times greater.

Although present cattle prices do represent an adjustment from those of the period 1950-52, they are somewhat higher than prevailed in 1949 and almost double those of 1943-45. The average price of good steers at Toronto was $21.07 in March, 1953 as compared with $19.89 in March 1949, $15.44 in March 1948, and the 1943-45 annual average of $11.64.
While net cattle marketings for the first three months of this year, at 348,825 head, are 45 per cent above a year ago, they are very close to those of 1951 when net marketings for the first three months were 335,537 head. It is of interest, however, that in the month of March this year exports of beef and beef cattle to the United States were equal to less than one thousand head of cattle compared to approximately 27,000 head in March 1951. The present marketings are, therefore, being very largely consumed in Canada with the result that while Canadian cattle prices have declined recently they still are somewhat above the level which would prevail if there was a substantial surplus being exported to the United States.
This trend toward an increased domestic use of beef was also apparent in 1952 when, in spite of the fact that total marketings were 100,000 head lighter than the year before, the net domestic use was 15 per cent heavier.
As a result of this increased domestic use and of the lighter marketings during 1952, the surplus purchased by the agricultural prices support board during the period of the United States embargo was kept within reasonable limits. Those purchases resulted in the shipment of approximately 70 million pounds of beef to the United Kingdom under the New Zealand diversion arrangement, and the board holds approximately 20 million pounds of beef in storage in Canada.
I should also like to state the position in relation to hogs over a similar period. The hog market at present is in a sound position. Reasonably heavy marketings are clearing well domestically and to export outlets in this hemisphere. Prices are equal to or better than those of a year ago, and a continuing firm market is expected through the spring and summer with active buying interest from the United States, where hog slaughter is down 13 per cent from last year.
Hog prices are maintaining reasonably well the advances made since the late war years. The average farm price for hogs for the years 1943 to 1945 was $16.63 per hundred pounds. This increased to an average of $27.27 for the years 1950 to 1952. The present price of $27.50 for grade A carcass hogs at Toronto

compares to an average April price of $22.47 in 1950, $32.45 in 1951 and $26 in 1952.
The basic strength of the hog market is being maintained in spite of the fact that marketings last year and this year are at or above the levels of most of the years through the 1940's when heavy reliance was placed on exports to the United Kingdom. The 1952 hog marketings, when over 61 million head were cleared through grading centres, was the third highest in Canadian history. It is estimated that 1953 gradings will be in the order of 5J million hogs, which will be 16 per cent above the average for 1946 to 1951.
The disposal of the 1952 marketings was, of course, handicapped by the existence of the United States embargo. However, all of the 64 million pounds of pork cuts and sides purchased by the agricultural prices support board in supporting hogs during 1952 have now been sold back into the market. Of the 98 million pounds of canned pork purchased by the board the remaining 71 million pounds are expected to be disposed of this year. The clearance of the heavy 1952 marketings was facilitated by the fact that domestic use of pork in 1952 from hogs slaughtered in grading centres was over 859 million pounds, which was 27 per cent higher than in 1951.
I should like also to make a statement with regard to eggs. The position of the egg market is being well maintained by the expanding Canadian economy and by export outlets in this hemisphere.
Commercial egg marketings in 1952 were 5 [DOT] 4 million cases, only 7 per cent less than the average for the years 1944 to 1949. During this period exports to the United Kingdom were at a high level, reaching as much as 2 [DOT] 9 million cases, or 87 million dozen, in one year. In those six years the average domestic use of eggs from commercial marketings was 3 [DOT] 5 million cases. In 1952 exports were 400 thousand cases and domestic use 5 million cases, or 43 per cent higher than the 1944-49 average.
Marketings in 1953 are expected to be 10 per cent under those of 1952. With present indications that chick hatches this spring will be no greater than those of a year ago, it is anticipated that production over the coming year will be well within the requirements of the Canadian market and of usual export outlets.
The average farm price of eggs for the years 1950-52 was 43 cents per dozen, compared to 31 cents for the years 1943-45. To date this year the average farm price has been 8 cents per dozen above 1952.
Milk production during 1952 amounted to 16-8 billion pounds, an increase of 361 million pounds or 2-2 per cent from 1951. This
Supply-Agriculture
increase is needed to maintain the present rate of consumption for the increased population in Canada. So far this year, milk production in Canada is approximately 5 per cent greater than a year ago. The December report of cow numbers in Canada shows there were 160,000 more dairy cows in Canada at that time than there were a year earlier. However, during the first six weeks since the United States embargo on cattle was lifted 7,436 dairy cattle were exported, which amount is 436 greater than during the corresponding period of 1951; that is during the year prior to the embargo imposed by the United States.
During 1952, the fluid milk and cream trade of cities and towns used 4,345 million pounds of milk as compared with 4,227 million pounds in 1951, an increase of 118 million pounds or nearly 2-8 per cent. This increase is equivalent to about 111 million pounds of cheese. Last year, 1952, almost 26 per cent of all milk produced in Canada was used for the city fluid milk trade as compared with 19 per cent before the war, in 1939. The above does not include milk consumed on the farm or fed to livestock which amounts to 15 to 16 per cent of the total production of milk and which varies very little from year to year. During January, 1953, there was an increase of 8 per cent in fluid milk and cream sales as compared with those of January, 1952.
The increase in the requirements of the fluid milk trade of the cities and towns of Canada is due mainly to increased population, and explains why less milk is available for the manufacture of other products. The fluid milk trade is the highest priced outlet for the producers of milk. During the years 1943-45 the average price to producers was $2.45 per 100 pounds, while in 1950-52 it averaged $3.92 or an increase of $1.47 per 100 pounds of milk.
Canadian creamery butter production has through the years been pretty much in line with domestic demands. It reached an alltime high in 1943, when it was 312 million pounds. Since 1949, following the introduction of margarine, production of butter declined each year to 257 million pounds in 1951, which is approximately the pre-war level. This lower trend was halted in 1952, when production of creamery butter amounted to 281 million pounds, or 24 million pounds greater than in 1951, equivalent to an increase of approximately 9 per cent. This increase in butter production has continued in 1953 and, so far this year, it is 24 per cent greater than during the corresponding period of 1952. In eastern Canada the

Supply-Agriculture
increase is due largely to diversion of milk from condenseries to butter and cheese factories.
Consumption of creamery butter in 1952 amounted to 274-7 million pounds as compared with 268-9 million pounds in 1951, an increase of 5-8 million pounds or approximately 2 per cent. Stocks of creamery butter as at April 1, 1953, were 26-6 million pounds as compared with 17 [DOT] 4 million pounds a year ago. This year the government holds 72 per cent of the butter stocks and the total holdings by both the government and the industry at April 1, 1953, were equivalent to only one month's supply.
Of the total milk production in Canada, almost 45 per cent is utilized in the manufacture of butter. During the years 1943-45 the average returns to producers for butter-fat used in making creamery butter was 43 cents per pound while in 1950-52 it was 61 cents, or an increase of 18 cents per pound of butterfat. The continuation of the support price for butter for another two years at the same level as that of the past two years will tend to stabilize the entire dairy industry.
Production of cheddar cheese in 1952 was 66 -6 million pounds as compared with 85-3 million pounds in 1951, a decrease of 18-7 million pounds or 22 per cent. Cheddar cheese is produced in every province of Canada except Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, but about 75 per cent is manufactured in Ontario and 18 per cent in Quebec. The cheese-producing areas of these two provinces are now also producing milk for condenseries, butter and powder factories and, to a considerable extent, the fluid milk plants in cities. Cheddar cheese production has declined from the wartime high of 207-4 million pounds in 1942 to 66-6 million pounds in 1952. The decrease in cheese production is due mainly to diversion of milk to other products, and this was especially noticeable in 1952.
Stocks of cheddar cheese as at April 1, 1953, were 26-2 million pounds as compared with 24-8 million pounds a year ago. Earlier this spring there were exports of slightly over 5 million pounds to the United Kingdom. The present stocks are about normal, as the industry usually holds approximately 25 million pounds in order to supply the public with cheese of varying degrees of ripeness such as mild, medium and old.
Consumption of cheese has been increasing gradually in Canada, and during 1952 the quantity of cheddar cheese used was 59-5 million pounds as compared with 57 [DOT] 8 million pounds in 1951 or an increase of 1-7 million pounds. The importance of expanded domestic markets is reflected in the price of cheese

milk to producers. During the years 1943-45, cheese producers received an average price of $1.91 per 100 pounds whereas in the years 1950-52 it was $2.37, an increase of 46 cents per 100 pounds.
Coming now to condensed milk products, production of these products has increased steadily during recent years and in 1952 it was the highest on record. Last year, 1952, the total production of both whole milk products-that is, evaporated milk, condensed milk, whole milk powder-and by-products, that is, dry skimmed milk, buttermilk powder, etc., amounted to 471 million pounds as compared with 435 million in 1951. This is an increase of 36 million pounds and is equivalent to 8-2 per cent. For the first time in the history of Canadian dairying this branch of the industry used a greater proportion of the total milk production than that used by the cheese factories; that is, concentrated milks 5-2 per cent, cheese 4-4 per cent.
The domestic market uses approximately 86 per cent of the concentrated milks produced in Canada and the remaining 14 per cent is exported to some 50 different countries throughout the world. Exports are being hampered by embargoes, quotas and currency difficulties. Domestic consumption of most products, however, continues to increase. In 1952 the Canadian market used 265 million pounds of evaporated milk as compared with 250 million pounds in 1951, an increase of 15 million pounds or 6 per cent.
Stocks of evaporated milk at April 1, 1953, were almost 23 million pounds as compared with 13 million a year earlier. These are being reduced and it is expected that by early May they will be normal for that time of year. The usual trading stocks are from 13 to 20 million pounds.
Dry skimmed milk and dry buttermilk were exported to the United States in former years. The embargoes placed on these and other products by the United States have reduced exports. However, other countries such as Mexico and Venezuela, to mention only two, are now taking substantial quantities of powdered milk with good prospects of further development. Domestic usage is also being increased, particularly in the baking trade and for household use. In the meantime the government has undertaken to purchase 10 million pounds of dry skimmed milk as a means of assisting the industry in adjusting itself to these changing conditions.
During the years 1943-44-45 the average price to producers of milk for evaporating purposes was $2.05 per 100 pounds, while in 1950-51-52 it was $2.83, an increase of 78 cents per 100 pounds.

I come now to ice cream, which is now utilizing almost 3 per cent of our total milk production which is 70 per cent of the amount used by the cheese industry. Last year there were 27 million gallons produced in Canada as compared to 9 million gallons before the war, that is in 1939.
Turning now to apples, the 1952 Canadian apple crop was comparatively light at 11-7 million bushels as compared with 13-6 in 1951 and the 5-year average, 1946 to 1950, of 16-5 million bushels. A generally good demand and a firm market prevailed throughout the season. Price levels in eastern Canada were much higher than those of the previous season and in western Canada were at about the same relatively high levels as in 1951-52. Export demand, largely from the United States, was quite good and total exports to March 31 of 2-1 million bushels were approximately equal to those of a year ago. Storage stocks on April 1 were 747,000 bushels as compared with the unusually light holdings of 683,000 bushels a year ago and the 5-year, 1947-51, average for April 1 of 1,130,000 bushels. Approximately half of the current holdings are in British Columbia and consist of Newtown and Winesap. Remaining stocks are expected to be cleaned up without difficulty.
Coming now to potatoes, production in 1952 was 58-9 million bushels, 22 per cent larger than the light 1951 crop of 48-3 million bushels. High prices from the short crop of 1951 were carried over into the fall of 1952. First estimates of 1952 production indicated another comparatively short crop, and although subsequent estimates were revised upward, growers generally appeared inclined to hold in anticipation of a repetition of the previous season's high levels. The market started to decline in the late fall and continued until mid-April, when the first indication of a firmer market was apparent. Despite the current low prices, however, the returns on potatoes sold during the season to March 31 in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick compare quite favourably with the record high levels of a year ago and are much above returns for earlier years. Price returns per bushel to growers in New Brunswick for bulk Canada No. 1 grade table stock show average returns August to March inclusive as follows:-
1949- 50	53 cents per bushel
1950- 51	32 cents per bushel
1951- 52	1.68 per bushel
1952- 53	1,39 per bushel
When the figures are looked at on a monthly basis they show that the price trends for this year and last are almost in reverse. In 195152 the August price for New Brunswick was
Supply-Agriculture
56 cents per bushel and for March $2.64 per bushel, with an average of $1.68 for the seven-month period. This year, 1952-53, the August price for New Brunswick potatoes was $2.52 per bushel and the March price 68 cents per bushel with an average of $1.39 per bushel. Should the present upward trend in potato prices continue it will of course influence the seasonal average returns.
The situation in the United States paralleled that in Canada. The market in the state of Maine declined and prices in some cases were below the levels prevailing in Canada. This contributed toward the decline in Canada and resulted in the importation into New Brunswick during the period February 1-April 16 of approximately 100,000 bushels of Maine potatoes. These, however, represent a very small proportion of Canadian exports to the United States of 2-5 million bushels this season to date. In considering trade with the United States it is well to remember that during the 10-year period 1943-52, inclusive, Canadian exports totalled 47-3 million bushels -seed 29 million and table stock 18 million- valued at $57 million, while imports from the United States totalled only 17 million bushels valued at $28 million.
These are the reviews that I wished to make of the situation in relation to many of the staple farm products that we have been discussing from time to time. There is one other matter that I wish to discuss with the committee. It is a matter we discussed to a considerable extent at the beginning of the session, and that is the larger irrigation projects.
I am afraid the opposition have made it most difficult for us to debate some questions properly under the rules. They forced a full-dress debate on the South Saskatchewan river project, and carried it to a vote. The question has, therefore, been debated during this session. To state the case is to indicate how useless it is to call such a division and how much damage it could do if the rules were strictly enforced.
However, there is an item in the estimates entitled "major irrigation and reclamation projects in the prairie provinces, $7,893,420." Included in this item is the South Saskatchewan river development. Under this item it would be possible to finance work on the project.
It is, therefore, important for me to stare the present position of the project. After considering thoroughly the information compiled and the views expressed in the report of the Hogg commission as well as the comments on it by the Saskatchewan government, this government has decided that we should

Supply-Agriculture
be prepared to review and continue our discussions with the government of Saskatchewan on the feasibility of the project as set up by P.F.R.A. and the willingness and ability of the provincial government to assume the costs of what we would consider provincial obligations.
In order to place before the committee the attitude we have assumed toward further discussions with the provincial government, I ask leave to read into Hansard a letter to the premier of Saskatchewan which has gone forward to him and which is as follows:
Ottawa, April 24, 1953. Hon. Thomas C. Douglas, M.A.,
Premier of Saskatchewan,
Regina, Sask.
Dear Premier Douglas:
My files indicate that following the receipt of a report from our engineers to the effect that it is possible to construct a dam on the South Saskatchewan river at Coteau creek I asked for and had an interview with your government on June 24, 1950.
It was my opinion that because the resources were under the control of the province this information should be made known officially to your government.
We appointed a committee of top officials and engineers associated with the Department of Agriculture to compile the information. Before this report was made public, I again reported to the provincial government on February 2, 1951, indicating that the committee agreed with our engineers that a dam could be built creating a reservoir and that the direct results from such a construction could be irrigation and power generation.
I indicated that the estimated cost of the project would be approximately $101,000,000 on a basis of 1950 costs, divided as follows: $65,000,000 for the dam, $25,000,000 for irrigation and $8,000,000 for power installation. My memory is that you contended that the federal government had left the impression that this was to be a federal undertaking financed by Ottawa. I pointed out that it had been nothing more than a proposal to assist in rehabilitating the drought area and that the only large projects which had been undertaken up to that time, namely, the St. Mary's and Bow river projects, were purely irrigation and the responsibility for financing them was three-way-the federal government stored or made available the water, the province distributed the water over the area and the farmers formed irrigation districts under provincial legislation to distribute the water to the land and administer the districts. I also pointed out that a very considerable part of the return from this development could be from power which would be utilized by the provincial power commission. You were still of the opinion that the federal government should pay the whole cost of the dam and I indicated that you might put your views in writing which you did on February 10.
The committee of officials reported on April 2, 1951. This report was made public and tabled in the house. There was some discussion in the house after which I answered your letter on June 26, 1951, to indicate that all the information was being referred to a committee of experts. This turned out to be a royal commission which reported on January 19, 1953.
The report has been tabled in the House of Commons and has given rise to very diverging views about the soundness of the project. Your government has prepared a document which is quite critical of the report and you have written

the Prime Minister that your government feels the project should be proceeded with notwithstanding the report of the royal commission.
Since this is your view, the federal government is prepared to consider a definite proposal from the provincial government for co-operation in the project and I am authorized by my colleagues to discuss such a proposal with you once the question of water rights has been settled among the three prairie provinces and agreement reached that the water would be available for the project.
Any proposal put forward by the province should make it clear what contribution to the cost of the dam itself the province is prepared to make to remove any element of federal subsidy for the production of power since power development could obviously not be subsidized in one province unless the federal authorities were prepared to provide similar subsidies in all provinces and federal subsidies for power development are contrary to present government policy.
You will appreciate that any federal contribution would also have to be limited, as in the St. Mary's and Bow river projects, to works for the conservation of the water and that we could not justify the expenditure of money raised from taxes all over Canada until the provincial authorities had prepared a practical scheme for the distribution system w'hich gave reasonable evidence that the water would actually be used for irrigation on a scale which would justify the expenditure of national funds.
Any proposal would, of course, have to include some satisfactory means of determining in advance what the total cost of the project would be, and what the federal share of the cost would be. This would be essential so that there was no open-ended commitment which might result in the final costs being far greater than anything either government would regard as reasonable.
On these conditions as prerequisites the federal government is prepared to discuss the project further with the government of Saskatchewan.
Yours sincerely,
James G. Gardiner.
This letter is signed by myself as Minister of Agriculture, on behalf of the government.


Mr, Ross (Souris):: May I ask what date that was written?


James Garfield Gardiner: The letter is dated April 24, 1953. It will be delivered today to the premier of Saskatchewan.
In concluding my remarks with regard to the estimates for this year I would point out that they are approximately the same as last year. There are of course variations in the different items, up or down slightly, but the amount which has been provided for expenditure during the coming year is approximately the same as it was last year. I submit these to the committee. They will be before you for discussion, and I shall be prepared to answer any questions anyone may ask with regard to my estimates.
For the present I would suggest that if anyone has any remarks to make or questions to ask I shall be prepared to try to answer the questions or listen to the remarks. I understand it is the intention to go on with

these estimates tomorrow after other items of business have been taken care of.


James Arthur Ross: In connection with the figures that were placed on Hansard earlier, may I ask the minister in what year the Canadian embargo against cattle going into the United States was lifted?


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member is not referring to the embargo because of foot-and-mouth disease which was placed on last
year?


James Arthur Ross: The Canadian embargo.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was lifted in August, 1948, I think.


James Arthur Ross: The years used for comparison of cattle prices were 1943-45 and the present, and I think that was a most unfair comparison. The prices which existed in Canada during 1943-45 were as a result of this embargo imposed by the Canadian government. During those calendar years the difference between what the Canadian producer received for his livestock and coarse grains and the prevailing prices in the United States amounted to several hundreds of millions of dollars annually.


James Garfield Gardiner: I purposely did not base any argument on anything I said. I simply produced the facts which are on the record, and I presume that when we come to the different items there will be considerable discussion. I doubt very much if this is the time to have a discussion on the facts. The facts are on the record and between now and the time we come to the particular item any hon. member can look them up and I presume that arguments such as the one just heard will be presented. We can then argue out this matter. I would hesitate to start an argument at five minutes to ten.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to speak at any length at this time because we had a considerable debate on agriculture two weeks ago. I want to commend the minister for sticking so closely tonight to his prepared script. I think he gave a more factual resume than we would ordinarily have got, and he has veered away from that ultra-optimistic attitude which he has taken on previous occasions.
I should like to go a little further than the hon. member for Souris and say that the comparison made by the minister does not apply only to beef, it applies to all farm products. The minister used as a comparison the period of 1943-45 and the present time, and that was most unfair. The period of 1943-45 was two years after the government froze all prices of farm products when they were extremely
Supply-Agriculture
low. Prices were frozen in 1941 and they were allowed to go up but very little between 1941 and 1943. Therefore to make a comparison between 1943-45 and 1949-52 is most unfair. I think everyone in and outside the house will realize that fact.
As I said previously, I commend the minister for sticking to the facts tonight in his statement. He gave us a very good picture of the agricultural situation. As he said, there has been a great increase in the production of most dairy products in this country. What we need to know is what the government is doing about getting rid of the surpluses that are developing.
I see the house leader, the Minister of Public Works, getting a little jittery, so I presume he wants to call it ten o'clock.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall proceed with Bill No. 339, to amend the National Housing Act. The Minister of Resources and Development had intended to go to Lunenburg tomorrow to attend the funeral of the late Senator Duff. However, I had promised hon. members that I would call this item tomorrow, and the minister agreed to stay. Then we would like to move the resolution respecting the financing of the national railway company to the bill stage. Then we would move to go into supply and take up the estimates of agriculture, health and welfare, mines and technical surveys and veterans affairs.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply:]
PRIVY COUNCIL Privy Council office-
306.	General administration, $351,802.
Prime Minister's residence-
307.	Maintenance and operation, $25,000.
Federal district commission-
308.	To provide for maintenance and improvement of grounds adjoining government buildings at Ottawa, and to authorize an amount not exceeding $135,000 for construction, improvements, maintenance and operation of the parkway system under the control of the federal district commission which is additional to the sum of $300,000 granted by chap. 55, statutes of 1927, as amended, $433,500.
309.	Expenses of	the national	capital planning
committtee, $44,000.
310.	To	authorize	payment	of	the sixth instalment to	a special account	in	the consolidatedrevenue	fund, known as	the	national capital
fund, established' under vote No. 809, Appropriation Act No. 4, 1947-48, $2,500,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply
159. To authorize and provide for the reimbursement to the lieutenant-governors of the provinces of Canada of the costs of travelling and hospitality incurred in the exercise of their duties up to a maximum per annum for each as follows:
(a)	where the population of the province at the last decennial census did not exceed 500,000, $5,000;
(b)	where the population of the province at the last decennial census exceeded 500,000, $5,000 plus $1,000 per each 100,000 or fraction of 100,000 of population over 500,000, but not exceeding $12,000 in any case, $86,000.
Governor general and lieutenant governors-
158. Office of the secretary to the governor general, including the salary of the secretary to the governor general (administrative) at $7,600 additional to salary authorized by chap. 182, R.S. 1927, $177,062.

[Stage Direction]
The Senate-
The Speaker of the Senate-
200.	Allowance in lieu of residence, $3,000.
201.	General administration, $416,469.
House of Commons-
The Speaker of the House of Commons-
202.	Allowance in lieu of residence, $3,000.
Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons-
203.	Allowance in lieu of apartments, $1,500.
. 204. General administration-estimates of the clerk, $1,075,988.
205.	Estimates of the sergeant-at-arms, $667,620.
206.	Subscriptions to publications of the commonwealth parliamentary association to be distributed to members of the House of Commons, and to provide for the Canadian share of expenses of the commonwealth parliamentary association, $10,000.
207.	To provide hereby, notwithstanding anything contained in the Financial Administration Act or the provision of the Senate and House of Commons Act respecting the independence of parliament, for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund to each member of the House of Commons appointed by the governor in council to be a parliamentary assistant (which appointment shall not render such member ineligible or disqualify him as a member of the House of Commons) to assist a minister of the crown in such manner and to such extent as the minister may determine and to represent his department in the House of Commons in the absence of the minister therefrom, a salary of four thousand dollars per annum and pro rata for any period less than a year, $56,000.
208.	To provide for an allowance to the deputy chairman of committees, $2,000.
General-
209.	Printing of parliament, including salaries of staff of the joint distribution office, $270,954.
Library of parliament-
210.	General administration, $204,603.
Pensions and other benefits-
211.	Pension to the unmarried sister of the late Colonel Harry Baker, M.P., $700.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 28, 1953