1953-03-23

QUESTIONS


MEDICAL EXPENSES


Mr. Knowles:: 1. What is the average percentage of income spent by all Canadians on medical expenses under each of the following headings:	(a) on items allowed as deductible under the Income Tax Act; (b) on drugs, medicines, spectacles and all other medical items not allowed as deductible under the Income Tax Act?
2. What is the average percentage of income spent on (a) and (b) as set out in question (1) by Canadians in each of the following gross income brackets: (i) $2,000 per year or less; (ii) $2,001 to $3,000 per year; (iii) $3,001 to $5,000 per year; (iv) $5,001 to $10,000 per year; (v) $10,001 to $15,000 per year; (vi) over $15,000 per year?


Mr. McCusker:: 1.	(a) It is estimated that in 1950 all Canadians spent 3 per cent of total disposable personal income for those items of medical care allowed as deductible under the Income Tax Act.
For 1951, the corresponding estimate is 2-9 per cent.
(b) It is estimated that four-tenths of 1 per cent of total disposable personal income was spent for prescribed drugs purchased through retail outlets in 1951, but no estimates are available for the other items requested.
2.	This information is not available at the present time.



PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDITURES, NEWFOUNDLAND

Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: How much money has been spent In each of the federal electoral districts in Newfoundland, during the calendar year 1952, by the Department of Public Works, for (a) dredging; (b) wharves and breakwaters; (c) other work?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Constituency	(a)	(b) Wharves and breakwaters	(e)	TotalDredging	Construction and improvements	Maintenance and repairs	Staff and sundries	S cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.Bonavista-Twillingate	494,040 40	523,354 03	80,650 63	170 20	1,098,215 26Burin-Burgeo	126,467 59	135,141 50	236,154 39	Nil	497,763 48Grand Falls-White Bay	802 37	59,526 17	23,171 49	Nil	83,500 03Humber-St. George's	Nil	46,138 03	19,349 70	Nil	65,487 73St. John's East	20,844 10	6,602 48	56,817 69	Nil	84,324 27St. John's West	8,156 39	3,657 44	64,620 75	Nil	76,434 58Trinity-Conception	26,183 42	47,349 57	353,389 84	Nil	426,922 83Newfoundland generally	Nil	Nil	3,172 32	137,074 83	140,247 15Totals	676,494 27	821,829 22	837,326 81	137,245 03	2,472,895 33



SURPLUS CROWN ASSETS


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Why were 2,364 revolvers sold as surplus crown assets to G. K. Harper & Company Ltd., Ottawa, for $22,458, as shown at page 17 of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation report for 1951-52?
2.	What type were these revolvers?
3.	Were any tenders called for the purchase of these revolvers?
4.	Were any conditions attached to the sale or was any undertaking required to be given by the purchaser as to its handling of these revolvers or the conditions under which, and the type of person or persons to whom they might subsequently be sold?
5.	By whom were these revolvers declared surplus to the corporation?

Questions


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	The declaration of surplus showed they were of an obsolete calibre not used by Canadian armed services, police or protective organizations.
2.	The type was revolver, Smith and Weston and Colt manufacture, -455 and -45 calibre, not automatic.
3.	Bids were solicited from the trade.
4.	No. The transaction was cleared by the R.C.M.P. as the revolvers were exported to an approved agency in the U.S.
5.	Department of National Defence (army).



COLOMBO PLAN


Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	Is Canada financing dams in Ceylon under the Colombo plan?
2.	II so, in what amount?
3.	Are the dams for (a) irrigation purposes; (b) to develop electric power?


Mr. Pearson:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.



UNITED STATES FILMS

Mr. Calherwood:: 1.	What was the total amount of money paid by Canadians for the importation of American films, during the year 1952?
2.	Of this amount, how much was for rental of American films?
3.	How much of this total was for films which remained in Canada?


Mr. Mcllraith:: 1.	$2,733,917.
2.	$257,935-brought in for reproduction and originals returned to United States.
3.	$1,776,944-motion	picture positives
(theatricals); $699,035-(education).
All figures used are value for duty purposes.



CAMPBELLTON, N.B., RAILWAY STATION

Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	Is the renovation work at the Canadian National Railways station at Campbellton, New Brunswick, being performed under a contract or by a regular Canadian National Railways crew?
2.	If under contract (a) were tenders called for such work; (b) what are the names and addresses of tenderers with amount of each tender?
3.	To whom was the contract awarded and at what figure?
4.	If the said renovation work is being done by a Canadian National Railways crew, what is the estimated cost thereof?


Mr. Chevrier:: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows;
1.	Under contract.
2.	(a) Yes-by advertisement in newspapers at Moncton, Campbellton and Riviere du Loup.
(b) It is not the policy of the company to make public the amounts tendered for work undertaken as the result of calling for tenders.
3.	(a) Bayside Construction Company Limited, Campbellton, N.B.
(b) See answer to part (b) question No. 2.
4.	See answer to No. 1.



TRAIN SERVICE PERSONNEL


Mr. Hansell:: What are the classifications and rates of pay presently effective, of persons engaged in train service on the major railways in Canada?


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: Conductor	Per mile (a)	Per day	Minimum guarantee
C.N.R. passenger				East $371.77, West $384.28 (monthly)
C.N.R. freight, through				
Note.-Negotiations with C.P.R. are continuing at the present time. Consequently the December 1, 1950, agreement rates are still in effect as follows: Passenger				East $346.33, West $353.58 (monthly)
Freight, through		10*66-10-77 cents		
			

Orders for Returns
Brakeman, Baggageman and Yardman
The principle of the 12 per cent increase has been agreed upon for these three classes but agreement on the application of this increase to differential rates, etc., has not yet been reached. (No rates available.)
The former rates were as follows:
-	Per mile (a)	Per day	Minimum guaranteeBrakeman-	6-11-6-16 cents 9-25-9-48 cents 6-21-6-27 cents	$274.93-8279.48 (monthly)Freight, through	Baggageman, train	$279.73-1287.25 (monthly)Yardman- Foreman	$11.67 $10.82 $ 9.36	Helper	Switch tender	Locomotive Engineer (b)	11-	32-13-28 cents 12-	53-16-68 cents	$12.60-812.66 (daily)Freight, through	Yard	I12.53-S13.87	Locomotive Fireman (b)	9-97-11*67 cents 10-77-14-18 cents	$10.88 (daily)Freight, through	Yardman	$11-07-512-79 811-38-S12-06 $10-70	Hostler	Hostler's helper	
(a)	To obtain minimum rate per day multiply rate by 150 for passenger conductor, brakeman and baggageman and by 100 for other trades on a mileage basis.
(b)	Rate per mile varies with the weight on drivers.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES, OLD AGE PENSIONS, QUEBEC

Mr. Balcer:: 1.	What amounts were paid by the federal government as family allowances, during the year 1951, in the province of Quebec?
2.	What amounts were paid by the federal government as old age pensions, during the year 1951, in the province of Quebec?


Mr. McCusker:: 1.	Payments by the federal government in the province of Quebec under the Family Allowances Act during the year 1951 totalled $101,996,395.
2.	The federal government's contributions under the Old Age Pensions Act to the province of Quebec during the year 1951
totalled-
Old age pensions	 $25,408,923.48
Pensions for the blind . .	1,426,767.84
Total	 $26,835,691.32



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Gagnon:: 1.	What amount has been expended to date on the construction of the airport at Bagotville, Quebec?
2. What was the cost of (a) land; (b) runways; (c) hangars; (d) heating systems; (e) electrical installations; (f) officers mess; (g) living quarters for personnel and airmen?
3.	What are the names of those submitting tenders and the amount of each tender?
4.	Were extras paid?
5.	If so, for what amount and to whom?
6.	What is the estimated total cost of construction of this airport?



EDMONTON


Mr. Fulion:: 1.	What are the particulars of the item for electrical equipment, hardware, plumbing supplies, etc., sold to M. D. Muttart, Edmonton, for $5,000,

Orders for Returns
as surplus crown assets, as shown at page 21 of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation report for 1950-51?
2.	What was the original cost of acquisition of these items?
3.	Were tenders invited for the purchase of these items?



MONTREAL


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	What are the particulars of "certain immovable property including buildings located in the city of Montreal", sold to Ralph B, Hunt & Company Ltd., Montreal, as surplus crown assets, for $60,647.76, as shown at page 21 of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation report for 1950-51?
2.	If land or any interest in land was involved, what was its nature, and what were the dimensions?
3.	Where was this property located?
4.	How many buildings, and what type, were included and for what had they been used?
5.	What was the original cost of acquisition of this property and buildings?
6.	Were tenders invited for the purchase of this property?



SURPLUS CROWN ASSETS


Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	What respective quantities of (a) old steel; (b) brass; (c) mixed metal and tin foil, were sold to Abe Levine and Sons, Fredericton, New Brunswick, as surplus crown assets, for $15,774.40, as shown at page 16 of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation report for 1951-1952?
2.	Where was this material located at the time of the sale?
3.	Were tenders invited for the purchase of the above?
4.	If so, what are the names and addresses and amounts of tender of each tenderer?




Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	What are the makes, types and year respectively, of the 13 motor cars sold to Thomas Motors, Saint John, New Brunswick for $8,000 as surplus crown assets, as indicated at page 20 of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation report for 1950-1951?
2.	In what year, from whom and at what price were each of these motor cars originally purchased?
3.	Were tenders invited for the purchase of these vehicles?
4.	If so, what are the names, addresses and amount of tender of each tenderer?




Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	What are the particulars of the used dredging equipment sold to Marine Industries Ltd., Montreal, Quebec, as surplus crown assets, for $5,800, as shown at page 17 of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation report for 1950-51?
2.	Where was this equipment located at the time of the sale?
3.	When was this equipment originally bought and at what price?
4.	Were tenders invited for the purchase of the above dredging equipment?
5.	If so, what are the names, addresses and amounts of tender of each tenderer?




Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	What were (a) the over-all length, depth and width; (b) tonnage; (c) the type of engine; (d) the equipment of tug Laviolette, sold to Marine Industries Ltd., Sorel, Quebec, as surplus crown assets, for $10,000, as shown at page 16 of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation report for 1951-1952?
2.	What was the year of construction and the original cost of said tug and equipment?
3.	Where was the said' tug last in operation* previous to its disposal?
4.	Were tenders invited for the purchase of tug Laviolette?
5.	If so, (a) where and when were the notices of tenders advertised and posted; (b) what are the names and addresses of those submitting tenders and the amount of each tender?



PIGGOTT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY


Mr. Pearkes:: What amounts have been paid to the Piggott Construction Company Limited since January 1, 1949, on the following types of contracts; (a) noncompetitive fee contracts of all types; (b) what were the total fees paid under these contracts each year; (c) what sums were paid in competitive contracts for each year during the above period?



KIRKLAND ISLAND, B.C.  BANK PROTECTION

Mr. Green:: 1.	How much has been spent in the last twenty years for bank protection on Kirkland island near the mouth of the Fraser river in British Columbia?
2.	Of this amount how much was spent for the
present pile breakwater and what was the total lineal feet of piling used?	.
3.	How much of this piling is now in need of replacement and what is the estimated cost of such replacement?
4.	Of the total spent for protection, how much has been for rock rip rap?
5.	Is rock rip rap now in need of replacement and if so, what is the estimated cost thereof?
6.	What is the approximate size and arable acreage of Kirkland island and the average elevation above high water level?
7.	What sum, if any, is to be spent on bank protection, during the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1953?
architects' and engineers' fees


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What was the total amount expended in each of the years 1951, 1952 and 1953 to date, for architects' and engineers' fees and/or remuneration, in all departments of government?
2.	What are the names and addresses of all architects and engineers who. since the 1st day of January, 1951 and to date, received fees and/or remuneration in excess of $5,000?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Brooks:: For a copy of the report of the international joint commission on the power possibilities of the Saint John river, also all correspondence in connection therewith, between the federal government and the government of the province of New Brunswick, since January 1, 1951.


Mr. Pearson:: I should like to point out that the international joint commission has not as yet submitted a report on its investigations and studies of the Saint John river system and the conservation and regulation of its waters. I should like to point out also that the consent of the government of New Brunswick would be required before correspondence between that government and the federal government could be made available.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Did the commission not submit an interim report to the provincial government of New Brunswick about six or eight months ago?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not sure of that. In any event, whatever report has been submitted of an interim character would be made available subject to the consent of the government of New Brunswick.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the statement by
the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the motion is adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Gingues:: For a copy of the memorandum of agreement known as the Bilodeau-Rogers agreement, signed on September 17, 1937, by the federal government and the province of Quebec, to promote the technical training of unemployed young persons. Also a copy of the orders in council authorizing the signing of the said memorandum of agreement by the respective parties.


Mr. Gregg:: There is no objection to this
motion passing, but it will be subject to the usual proviso that approval of the province concerned be obtained.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture) moved: 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 amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to provide that certain crown lands in Manitoba and Saskatchewan granted after December 31, 1940, be made eligible with respect to the assistance provided under the act.
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.
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: I should like
to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if there has been any concrete evidence, either in the diplomatic relations between Ottawa and Moscow or at the United Nations meetings, of a change in policy with respect to Soviet Russia since the new premier took office there?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I know of
no such evidence in our relations with the Soviet embassy in Ottawa. So far as the activities at the United Nations are concerned, I suppose it is correct to say that the words and attitudes of the Soviet delegates have recently been more conciliatory. Their speeches have certainly been shorter. But I have no evidence that there has been any great change in Russia's policy, certainly none that has manifested itself at the United Nations in recent days.


Mr. Croll:: Does the minister suggest that shorter speeches are a friendly act?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It depends upon the kind of
speech.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if the military camp at Wainwright has been declared to be a permanent camp?
Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National
Defence): The hon. member was good enough to give me notice of his question. Camp Wainwright is a permanent camp in the same way as Borden, Shilo, Valcartier, Churchill, Calgary, Petawawa and others are permanent camps. However, it is used most extensively during the summer months when the peak attendance this year was in excess of 6,000. During the winter months our present plan is to use it only for winter operations.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: 
Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: I shall take that as notice and answer it tomorrow. '



CIVIL AVIATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like to ask the Minister of Transport if any decision has been made by the government regarding the building of an allweather landing field and runways at Prince Albert, Saskatchewan,


Lionel Chevrier: All I can say at this time is that I received a delegation some weeks ago which did make representations with respect to additional facilities at Prince Albert. My recollection is that there is nothing in the main estimates nor in the supplementary estimates. Consideration is being given to additional facilities for the further supplementary estimates.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Robichaud (Gloucesier):: May I
ask the Secretary of State when the return to an order for return appearing under my name and passed by the house on January 28, asking for a copy of all correspondence concerning the teaching of religion and French at the Woodfalle school, Royal Canadian Air Force station, Rockcliffe, Ontario, will be brought down? This order may be found at page 193 Votes and Proceedings of January 28. The Secretary of State stated two weeks ago that this order would be brought down as soon as conveniently possible.


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secreiary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, I will make further inquiry and endeavour to facilitate the bringing down of the order.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? Have any representations been received from the provincial governments


regarding the recent increase in freight rates? If so, has a meeting been arranged with respect to the matter?


Lionel Chevrier: In so far as I am concerned, no official representations on behalf of the provinces have been made to me. My hon. friend will remember the statement made by the Prime Minister in connection with telegrams which he has received and the pending notice of appeal. My understanding is that it is being prepared but in so far as I am concerned it has not come to my notice.



YUKON ACT


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to revise and consolidate the Yukon Act and inter alia to delete certain provisions in the act which are being brought within the legislative jurisdiction of the territorial council; to increase the amounts of the indemnity and living allowances of members of the council of the Yukon Territory to bring them more in line with those that may be paid to members of the Northwest Territories council; to further define the legislative powers of the commissioner in council; to provide for the administration of justice in the territory in the manner provided for the administration of justice in the Northwest Territory by the Northwest Territories Act; and finally to provide that the beneficial use of certain lands be appropriated to the territory and be subject to the control of the commissioner in council.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to submit a very brief argument to Your Honour on the question which you yourself raised on the 10th of February with respect to the proper construction of standing order 60. It will be remembered that last year there was a discussion about the construction of the standing order and you, sir, expressed in the ruling you then made the view found at page 3375 of Hansard on June 18, 1952, namely:
Accordingly in my opinion the practice of the minister opening the debate on the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair for the house to consider in committee of the whole a resolution preceding a money bill should be discontinued.
Some weeks ago, when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) followed the directive contained in that ruling, it will be remembered that quite a long debate ensued both about the propriety of his doing so and about the merits of the resolution that it was proposed to refer to the committee. Following quite a long debate on that subject

you, sir, on the 10th of February, as will be found at page 1784 of Hansard, stated:
From time to time there have been discussions in the house as to whether Mr. Speaker should leave the chair without question put when the motion Is called on the second day.
That is to say, on a day following the day when the recommendation of the Governor General has been communicated to the house and a resolution has been passed that it will be considered in committee. You went on to say:
I think probably we all agreed at that time that the motion for Mr. Speaker to leave the chair was debatable. I now am not sure that we were correct [DOT]-although we all agreed. The motion, when it is first put, is that at the next sitting of the house Mr. Speaker will leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on the resolution. That is a decision of the house-that Mr. Speaker will leave the chair at the next sitting.
If the house has reached that decision, then how can the resolution be debatable with the Speaker in the chair when that second day arrives? The house has reached that decision. I think that was a point which was not brought up on previous occasions when this matter was being considered; and it is certainly a point which was not raised on the last occasion.
Then you say:
I am satisfied that the ruling I made in June of 1952 should be revised.
I must apologize, Mr. Speaker, for not raising that point fully at that time because I think it has a very important bearing upon the proper construction of standing order 60. I want to make it quite clear that this is not an attempt to curtail debate in the house on a resolution preceding a money bill. There is ample opportunity for debating such a resolution under the terms of standing order 60 itself, but standing order 60 provides that the debate shall take place in committee. We have, 1 think, a very recent and convincing example that there is ample opportunity for debate in committee in the long debate that has been taking place in committee on the resolution that it would be advisable to introduce a bill to extend the duration of the Emergency Powers Act.
But the question arises as to when that debate should take place and in what form it should take place. Standing order 60 is an order that was adopted immediately after confederation and which in i,ts terms was founded on the similar order that existed in the parliament of Westminster. It was for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the British North America Act which provided that there would be no appropriation of money or imposition of taxes without a recommendation of His Excellency the Governor General. In order to carry out that
Standing Order 60
provision, standing order 60 was made and provides, as all members know, as follows:
If any motion be made in the house for any public aid or charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereof may not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned till such further day as the house thinks fit to appoint; and then it shall be referred to a committee of the whole house, before any resolution or vote of the house do pass thereupon.
It is quite proper that with respect to all matters involving charges upon the public there should be a debate, and the standing order provides that such debate shall take place in committee before there is any decision of the house upon the subject.
What is the proper procedure? It must not be overlooked, as Your Honour pointed out on the 10th of February, that when such a resolution is called, as this resolution was called today, there is in existence a decision of the house. If hon. members will refer to Votes and Proceedings of the 15th of January, 1953, at page 136 of Votes and Proceedings, they will find the following:


Robert Henry Winters: ,-That the house do go into committee of the whole at the next sitting of the house to consider the following proposed resolution-
Then follow the terms of the resolution that have just been read from the table by the deputy clerk.
Whereupon, Mr. Winters, a member of the Queen's privy council, informed the house that His Excellency the Governor General, having been informed of the subject matter of the said proposed resolution, recommends it to the house.
Resolved, that the house do go into committee of the whole at the next sitting of the house to consider the said proposed resolution.
That is a decision of the house, that at the next sitting it will go into committee of the whole to consider the said proposed resolution. That decision of the house, I submit, cannot be reversed during the same session. It would not be in order to reverse that decision of the house during the same session. It is a decision that the house would go into committee to consider the resolution at the next sitting. It is well known that "next sitting" does not mean the sitting immediately following but means some sitting following the one when the resolution is adopted.
I submit that that resolution in its terms is a binding decision of the house that it will go into committee to consider the proposed resolution, and that there are then two reasons why it should not again be the subject of a debate in the house until it has been considered by the committee. The first is that, the decision having been made, it is a general principle that it cannot be called into question again during the same session. Second, the decision amounts to a reference

Standing Order 60
of the proposed resolution to a committee. It is a well-known rule of the house that when a matter is referred to a committee it is then not subject to debate in the house until the committee has made its report.
Now, the question arises as to whether when, the resolution having been called to be considered in committee, the Speaker should leave the chair without question put. Your Honour pointed out that that question had not been discussed and that it was one that had an important bearing upon the procedure followed in connection with these resolutions and money bills. It might seem that there still remained a question as to which of the next sittings would be the one when the Speaker would leave the chair; but the question, that it will be considered and debated in committee has been decided. "The next sitting of the house" does not mean a definite date. It is not as if the house had said it would go into committee on March 23 to consider this Resolution. It is "the next sitting", and that is, in parliamentary usage and practice, an indefinite date.
It might seem that there could be a discussion as to when that next sitting might be. There again, sir, I submit that there are two reasons why there can be no question about that. It has become an established and accepted practice that at the end of a day's sitting the business for the following day is announced and, if there is no dispute about it, that is the business that will be proceeded with on the following day. There is, moreover, not only a matter of practice but a positive standing order, No. 17, paragraph 2, which provides that this having become a government order, or something that goes on the order paper under the heading of government orders, on any day that government business has precedence it may be called in such sequence among government orders as the government may see fit. That is a positive standing order of the house that makes it binding on the house to consider any such order as the government may see fit to bring forward and is on the order paper among the government orders.
I do not want to insist on any autocratic or arbitrary application of that rule "and that is why the business for a following sitting is announced the night before. If there is any question about it at all I think we always try to be as accommodating as possible. But, as a matter of rule, standing order 17, paragraph 2, is there and it excludes opportunity or occasion for any debate as to whether the next sitting should be a sitting of today or of the following or any other day.

Because of these provisions I submit that when a decision has been made that the house will go into committee of the whole to consider a certain proposed resolution, that is a decision that is binding on the house and the only further question is as to when that will take place. The time when it is to take place is announced in the house and is, under standing order No. 17, subsection 2, a matter that is put by the standing order in the discretion of the government.
It seems to me that after there has been the kind of decision that was made with respect to this resolution on January 15, there must be consideration given to the resolution in committee; and there should be full debate and consideration given to it in the committee. It cannot be disposed of elsewhere. It cannot be afterwards disposed of at all until the committee has dealt with it because it has been referred to the committee, and because the standing order says there shall be no debate or vote in the house upon it until it has been considered in committee.
Now, it may be that instead of its being considered in committee it would be more appropriate to have it considered with the Speaker in the chair, but that would be a departure from time-honoured constitutional practice in the mother of parliaments and here that any charge on the people must first be considered in committee before it comes as a definite proposal to be dealt with by the house. I am not going to speculate about why that became the practice of the constitution, but it did become the practice of the constitution that members of parliament in committee would first of all consider whether or not a thing of that kind should come as a formal proposal before parliament.
I submit that the argument advanced against the proposal I am contending for, that if there was a debate it had to be an opportunity for a full debate, demonstrates that there cannot be any half measure. If there is a debate it must become in fact a debate on the merits of the proposal, and that is something which cannot be disposed of until it has had consideration in committee.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) argued very strongly that there could not be any middle course.
I think Your Honour found, in our experience on the motion in connection with the Emergency Powers Act, that this suggested half course, namely that there might be a debate on the negative of the proposal that the Speaker leave the chair, afforded no possibility of determining what would be in order and what would not be in order; and in fact that meant that if there was a debate

at all it inevitably became a full debate upon the advisability or otherwise of having that kind of measure before parliament at the present session. The hon. member pointed out that a debate on the motion that the Speaker leave the chair cannot be excluded on grounds of any mere formality.
I think he was quite correct on the ground that if parliament had decided the question against the government it would have to be considered as a vote of no confidence. I do not think there could be any clearer vote of no confidence if the government announced in the speech from the throne and recommended a resolution of that character, and the house refused even to consider it. I do not think there could be any clearer demonstration that the government would have lost the confidence of the house. It may be that things could be put before parliament on the recommendation of the government, be debated, and' the government could change its mind and withdraw them; but if the government comes before parliament to carry out an announcement in the speech from the throne, recommending that something receive consideration, and parliament decides it will not get consideration, then that is a formal, categorical declaration that the government no longer has the confidence of the house.
So it is not just a formality, I submit, that proper construction of the standing order requires that there be a decision about whether it will go into committee or not. When that decision has been made, then it becomes a government order and it can be called after observing proper, courteous practices and when it is called, there is no motion required that the Speaker leave the chair. There is nothing further to do but to carry out the decision previously recorded, previously made, and appearing on the Votes and Proceedings-that that bit of the government orders will be considered in the committee of the whole.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member commences his argument, may I point out that in my ruling of June, 1952, I decided that a full discussion of the resolution on the second day would not be in order. It is true that the Hon. Mr. Glen, when he was Speaker, did rule that the resolution itself was debatable. I did not go that far. Hon. members will recall my ruling, on page 3375 of Hansard for June 18, 1952, which read in part as follows:
The minister makes an affirmative statement, frequently going into details, with the Speaker in the chair, and other members follow. The result is that a full discussion of the resolution takes place at this stage. I am sure that is not the procedure contemplated by standing order No. 60, . . .
Standing Order 60
If I allowed a full discussion of the resolution, as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), it would be contrary to the ruling I made in June, 1952.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the situation was very much the same as that which the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) gave in the summary with which he opened his remarks, that is the summary of the circumstances which have given rise to this discussion on the point of order concerning the application of standing order No. 60.
It was my understanding, accordingly, that Your Honour had indicated earlier in this session that, with respect to your ruling of June, 1952, that limited discussion only would be allowed, confined to the negative of the proposition that the Speaker leave the chair, that ruling was found to be impossible of application. We are, therefore, now considering anew the question: should any debate at all be allowed at this stage of the resolution. It was to that subject which the Prime Minister addressed his remarks this afternoon, and it is on that point which I understand, and I hope, Your Honour has invited argument today.
If that be the case, then may I just preface what I have to say with the assertion that it seems to me there will be no disagreement that the rules, of which we are now discussing one standing order, were designed carefully to preserve the rights of debate. Standing order No. 38 clearly lays down the motions which are debatable and was drawn for the purpose of preserving the rights of debate. It seems to me that is the issue before us in the point of order which is being discussed.
Having said that, and having indicated I approach it from that point of view, I think it should be made clear also that at no time have we asserted on this side of the house, and I do not myself now assert, that we will as a matter of course debate every such resolution with the Speaker in the chair. Your Honour will recall that a number of such resolutions have come before the house and have been allowed to pass; Your Honour left the chair and immediately the discussion took place in the committee. I think it would be safe to say that in connection with the resolution which we have before us now there would not be any discussion with Your Honour in the chair, except that this has been chosen as the vehicle to debate this point of order. There have been a number of such resolutions when the opposition has allowed the resolution to go through and the discussion took place in committee. I want to make

Standing Order 60
it clear that I hope we will not be taken as asserting that we insist on debating each resolution with the Speaker in the chair. We assert, rather, that the rules of the house, properly interpreted, give the opposition-or government members for that matter-the right to debate every such resolution while Your Honour is still in the chair, whether the right is always exercised or not.
Then, Mr. Speaker, as to the argument as to what standing order No. 60 actually permits, I should like to deal with that under three headings: First, the rule itself, as read in conjunction with standing order No. 38; second, the light which is thrown on the question by the fact that the British House of Commons now has a clear and specific rule to an exactly opposite effect- and I shall submit that the fact that they have a rule that specifically states there shall be no debate at this point is a clear indication that the fact we have no such rule means that a debate can be permitted at this stage in this house; third, I should like to refer Your Honour to a precedent which I shall suggest establishes clearly that there is a right to debate a resolution in this house with Your Honour in the chair.
Before coming to my main argument under those three headings, may I just deal briefly with the argument put forward by the Prime Minister this afternoon? If I followed him correctly, he stated that there should ibe no debate on the motion at this stage because there has been a decision of the house already that the house should go into committee on this resolution. If I understood him correctly the Prime Minister said that, since there was a decision of the house on the matter, it was not logical nor proper that a debate should take place as to whether, in fact, Your Honour should leave the chair for the house to go into committee. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Prime Minister has not fully stated the position. The question is not now on the resolution on which that earlier decision was taken; the question is now on the motion arising out of that earlier decision, the motion that the Speaker leave the chair. It is true that a decision of the house was taken on an earlier occasion, but the implementation of that decision now requires a further motion and that is the motion which is put, that the Speaker do now leave the chair.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is the question; does it require a further motion now?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Prime Minister says that is the question. I shall submit that that is our practice, and in this case your words would be to the effect that "Mr. Winters moves that I do now leave the chair for

the house to resolve itself into committee on the said resolution." Under our rules, such a motion is clearly debatable. I submit to you, sir, that the Prime Minister's argument is met when we think for a moment of the similarity between this procedure on a resolution and the procedure on a bill. It is true that when we have first reading of a bill it is merely a formality. The bill is read the first time. Then, if I am not mistaken, you will recall that Your Honour puts the words, "When shall this bill be read a second time?" The house agrees and decides that it will be read "at the next sitting of the house". Your Honour uses the words, "next sitting", and then I think goes on to say that this bill will be read at the next sitting of the house.
Now, that being the case, to deal with the line of reasoning which the Prime Minister followed, that there has been a decision of the house that the bill will be read a second time at the next sitting-and it is, as the Prime Minister has said, one of those matters of government business on which the government decides when it will next be proceeded with, subject to informal discussion as to the actual time of calling it-it certainly does not follow, as the Prime Minister argued in connection with the resolution, that, because the house has decided the bill will be read a second time at its next sitting, the formal motion for second reading would be carried without debate.


Mr. Speaker:: May I just interrupt the hon. member to point out that under standing order No. 38, paragraph (d), the second reading of a bill is debatable. The rule provides for debate on the motion for second reading.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, it certainly does, and that is my pointy I am seeking to illustrate the point by pointing out the parallel between the procedure on a resolution and a bill, and dealing with the argument of the Prime Minister which he says should be carried to the conclusion, in the case of a resolution, that the decision of the house having been taken on a previous occasion that the resolution will be considered later in committee, the subsequent motion to leave the chair is not debatable because, he says, a decision of the house has already been taken. But I am pointing out-and- as Your Honour has emphasized-that our standing orders provide clearly that although that same decision has been taken in the case of a bill, that it will be read the second time at the next sitting, nevertheless the actual motion for second reading is debatable.
I therefore think that is the answer to the Prime Minister's argument. The house has in fact made the decision but the motion

arising out of that decision is still debatable in the case of a bill; and my submission is that a similar motion arising out of the earlier decision of the house in connection with a resolution is similarly debatable. I base my opinion on rule 38.


Mr. Speaker:: After a bill has been read the first time, is the order of the house that the bill be read a second time at the next sitting? Is not the order of the house that the motion for the second reading of the bill be com sidered at the next sitting?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into too many refinements; and I hesitate to pit my judgment against yours on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I was not pitting my judgment against the judgment of the hon. member. I have not made up my mind and am seeking bis assistance on the ruling I should make.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I meant on that particular point, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The question I put to the hon. member was to assist me.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I meant on that particular question. I think Your Honour indicates that your opinion would be that the motion is for the second reading to be considered at a later sitting. My opinion is that the words Your Honour uses indicate clearly that the decision of the house is that a bill will be called for second reading at the next sitting in the same way as the decision of the house on a resolution is that the house will call the motion to go into committee on the said resolution at the next sitting.
I now come back to the point that, just as in the case of a bill the second reading requires a further motion, so in the case of the resolution the consideration in committee requires a further motion and, I submit, both motions are debatable. As I said, I base that opinion on three branches of the argument which I should like to put forward. The first is on the plain meaning of the rule of our house itself.
Under standing order 38 the following principle is spelled out:
(1)	The following motions are debatable:- Every motion
(a) standing on the order of proceedings for the day, (except government notices of motion for the house to go into committee at a later date).
Then there are a number of other subparagraphs under that heading, and then we find paragraph 2 which reads:
(2)	All other motions, including adjournment motions, shall be decided without debate or amendment.
Standing Order 60
To go back to rule 38 (1) (a), this motion that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee on the said resolution is clearly a motion standing on the order paper. It is like every other motion on the order paper and, spelled out, this motion has three ingredients: (a) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair; (b) for the house to go into committee of the whole; (c) for the purpose of considering the resolution that it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide so and so, in the words of the resolution.
Under the application of this Canadian rule Your Honour will, I think, agree that it would have been open to the house to debate the motion to go into committee of supply, even on Thursdays and Fridays, unless we had the specific exception provided by the rules, which says that the motion for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply shall not be debatable on Thursdays and Fridays.
The motion to go into committee of supply is exactly the same in form as the motion now before the house in connection with this resolution. It is a resolution by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), on which that minister moves "that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply for the purpose of considering the supply to be granted to Her Majesty". It is in exactly the same form as the motion made by the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters)- the motion which it is necessary for him to make-"that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider the resolution that it is expedient to introduce" such and such a measure. They are two identical motions. Yet in order to prevent debate on the supply motion on Thursdays and Fridays we have to have a specific rule saying that there shall be no debate. We have no such rule in connection with a general motion for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on a money resolution. I submit that the argument-I think it is called per contra-indicates clearly that if it takes a specific rule to prohibit debate in the one case, then the absence of that specific rule means clearly that debate is allowed in the other case.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope the hon. member does not mind my interruptions.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, not at all.


Mr. Speaker:: As I said before, I am trying to become enlightened myself with regard to this rule. It occurs to me that on the motion for the house to go into committee of supply

Standing Order 60
It is not permitted to an hon. member to discuss what will be considered when the house does go into committee of supply; whereas if the motion on so-called money resolutions is' debated, then the house is debating, with the Speaker in the chair, what will be debated when the house is in committee of the whole, a procedure which is not allowed on a motion for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, with respect may I suggest that we are likely to get confused between two things if we follow your suggestion any further. What we are discussing here is the question of whether or not a motion is debatable, not what we can discuss in the course of that debate. I think that is a separate question. As an argument in support of my contention that the motion is debatable, I am using the fact that to prevent debate on the similar motion to go into supply, we require, and the rules provide, a special prohibitory rule. I therefore say that fact argues clearly that, if it takes a rule to prohibit us from debating the motion to go into supply on Thursday and Friday, the fact that there is no such specific rule prohibiting debate on this motion means that the motion is debatable.
To deal perhaps more closely with the point which was just made by Your Honour, may I say I noticed that Your Honour did not suggest that the motion to go into supply was not debatable except on Thursday and Friday. There is no such suggestion. That motion is debatable. I submit it is debatable in the same way as this motion is debatable. It is open to any hon. member to advance reasons why the house should not go into committee of supply or to put forward any matter which he thinks it is desirable for him to put forward; and he can advance any reason that he can think of why the house should not go into committee of supply in accordance with the motion made by the minister; that is, except on Thursdays and Fridays when debate is specifically prohibited. Therefore, following that argument, on this motion to go into committee of the whole on a resolution, it is open to any member to advance any reason why the house should not go into committee of the whole to consider that resolution. I submit that the two are absolutely on all fours. And the fact that it takes a specific rule to preclude debate on the motion for committee of supply on Thursdays and Fridays, and that there is no such rule precluding debate on a resolution, is the clearest proof that, in fact, debate on the motion for committee on a resolution is allowed under our rules.

I think it is necessary in considering this matter to remember this, that what we are claiming the right to debate is not the resolution itself. The resolution is not before the house. What is before the house is the motion that Your Honour leave the chair for the house to go into committee of the whole. And it is that motion we debate and that, in my submission, we are as free to debate as we are to debate a motion on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday for Your Honour to leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply. The two are on all fours.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member suggest that the debate should be as wide on the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair on a money resolution as on a motion to go into supply? I am sure the hon. member has in mind that it is grievances that can be discussed on going into supply.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I hope I have not used words which might be taken to indicate that debate might be as wide on one occasion as on the other. I said that in the same way as one is a debatable motion, except on Thursdays and Fridays, so is the other. And it is open to any hon. member, within the rules of relevancy, to bring forward reasons why the house should not go into committee on the resolution, just as it is open to hon. members within the rules of debate to bring forward reasons why the house should not go into committee of supply on the other motion.
Then, leaving that for the time being, I should like to outline briefly another branch of the argument, which is based on the position in the British house. The British equivalent of our standing order 60 is their standing order 83, which is found at page 46 of the 1950 edition of the Standing Orders of the British House of Commons. That order states as follows:
If any motion be made in the house for any aid, grant or charge upon the public revenue, whether payable out of the consolidated revenue or out of money to be provided by parliament, or for any charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereof shall not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned until such further day as the house shall think fit to appoint; and then it shall be referred to a committee of the whole house before any resolution or vote of the house do pass therein.
Those last words-at least, the import of them-are exactly the same as the words in our standing order 60, which we are now discussing. However, the position is that in Great Britain the resolution preceding a money bill, by another rule of the British house, is rendered not subject to debate. The rule is clear and specific on the point. It says that there shall be no debate. Rule 17(1) of the British house states:
Whenever an order of the day is read for the house to resolve itself into a committee other

than a committee on a bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any question, and the house shall thereupon resolve itself into such committee-
That is the relevant portion. So that under British procedure now prevailing they have a standing order which specifically precludes debate on a motion for committee on a resolution such as we have before us. And if it took a specific standing order in the British house to preclude debate; and if, as the Prime Minister himself said, our standing order No. 60 was one the object of which was to adopt the general British practice on motions; then I submit that the significant omission of the specific standing order 17 of the British house, which prohibits debate on this resolution, is another very strong argument in favour of the proposition that, in the absence of such a prohibition, obviously, free debate is intended and must be allowed.
The summary of the argument here is, surely, that where our two practices are based upon the same starting point, namely, the preservation of the freedom of debate, and where both have an order which says, in general terms, that almost all motions standing on the orders of the day shall be debatable; and where in the British house, as set out in their standing order 17, they make an exception of a motion on a resolution preceding a money bill, and where we do not make that exception: then obviously our rules were designed and framed with the intention of permitting debate at this stage, on the resolution preceding a money bill; because if we had not intended to permit it we would have adopted the same standing order as has the British House of Commons under its rule 17.
Then the third branch of my argument deals with the suggestion made that this is a purely formal motion, and to some extent it comes back to the argument advanced earlier this afternoon by the Prime Minister. As I tried to indicate, although it is true that to some extent there has been a decision of the house that the further consideration of this resolution will take place on another day, it is still necessary that there should be a motion to implement that decision of the house. And that is the motion which the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) is now making-that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair.
It has been suggested that it is carrying things to an absurd point to say that the house should debate what has been described as a purely procedural motion, and which it is suggested in the Prime Minister's argument would mean that the house is trying to upset its own previous decision. I suggest that every time we have a debate at any subsequent stage in a bill we are doing exactly
Standing Order 60
that. We are reopening the question as to the merits of the measure upon which the house has made a previous decision.
And what is the occasion of that debate? The occasion of that debate in every case is a further motion, a new motion, either that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair for the house to go into committee, or that the bill be read a second time, or whatever the motion may be. But under standing order 38 each such motion is debatable.
That, I think, is the position under the rules. The Prime Minister has said that it is improper to suggest that there should be any debate on the merits of the resolution itself -that is, on the motion-because the house has already decided that such a resolution will be put forward in committee of the whole, and will there be discussed. But there is still necessary a formal motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair. That motion is exactly the same as the motion in connection with the consideration of a bill where, with Your Honour in the chair, the house has approved the principle of the bill. Then there is necessary still a further motion to be made by the minister who introduced the bill; and that is the motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair for the house to go into committee on the bill.
I do not claim to have done exhaustive research, but I have done some; and I find that that motion is debatable. The motion that Mr. Speaker leave the chair for the house to go into committee on the bill, even after we have just had second reading with Your Honour in the chair, is still debatable. And it is the same motion exactly as we now have before us-a motion for Your Honour to leave the chair for the house to go into committee on the resolution.
The authority which establishes that the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair on second reading of a bill is debatable is found at page 512 of the fourth edition of Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure. Bourinot is outlining the various stages gone through in dealing with a bill, and he comes to the stage of the order for a committee of the whole, and I quote from page 511 as follows:
When a bill has been read a second time by the clerk, the next question will be proposed:
"That the House go into committee on the bill (now, or on	next.)"
The house generally goes into committee on the bill at once-but when desired, the committee stage is postponed to another sitting of the house.
The motion generally passes, nem. con.-
A rough translation of that is "without opposition".
-like all such formal motions; though it is quite regular to move an amendment as to the time of committal.

Standing Order 60
When the order of the day for committee has been reached and called in due form the Speaker will put the question,
"That I do now leave the chair."
He puts that question: "On motion of Mr. So and So it is moved that I do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee on the said bill." Or, as we have it here, "that I do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee on the said resolution". He puts the question on the motion that he do now leave the chair. Bourinot continues:
Now is the time to move any amendment to this question. Members opposed to the bill may move that the house resolve itself into committee on the bill that day three or six months; or may propose motions adverse to the principle or policy of the measure.
That is, on the motion that the Speaker leave the chair. I submit that it is incontrovertible that that motion is exactly the same as the motion which we are now debating, for Your Honour to leave the chair for the house to go into committee on this resolution.
The reference which Bourinot gives to a case where such a motion was moved in the Canadian House of Commons was to an occasion back in 1875. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) will be interested in this. I quote from page 920 of Hansard of March 25, 1875, as follows:


Alphonse Fournier: that the house resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider the bill to establish a Supreme Court and a Court of Exchequer for the Dominion.
Mr. Baby said he would move a series of resolutions based upon the resolutions passed at Quebec prior to the passage of the British North America Act.
So it went on through three or four pages. The resolutions moved by the hon. member in amendment to the motiojj that the Speaker leave the chair for the house to go into committee occupied over one page of Hansard.


Alphonse Fournier: That goes back to 1875.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have not been able to find any change in our rules which would preclude the application of the same principle.


Alphonse Fournier: In twenty-two years it has not been in this house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not saying that it should happen; I am simply saying that our rules allow for it to happen just in the same way that I said we would not necessarily exercise our right every time to debate a resolution when the Speaker was in the chair, but we are arguing that we do have the right to do it when we consider the matter under discussion so important that it calls for such debate. That is all I am saying.

That concludes the third part of my argument. If the motion that the Speaker leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee after the second reading of a bill is debatable and is even capable of amendment-and precedents of this house establish that it is-then I submit that a motion that the Speaker leave the chair for the house to go into committee on a resolution is equally debatable and equally capable of amendment if hon. members wish to avail themselves of that right.
I conclude by coming back to the point with which I started, that the rules of the house were framed carefully to preserve the right to debate, to allow the opposition, which is a minority and which usually, although not always, represents a minority vote of the country, the right of full discussion. The rules were framed to protect the right to speak, so that there shall always be available for the benefit of the Canadian public full information, full opportunity for discussion of all measures'in the House of Commons so that the public may become fully informed as to the merits of the measure and so that the public's representatives in the house may become fully informed as to the intentions of the government with respect to the measure. And that is the particular purpose of rule 60 and rule 38, which in my submission permit debate on the resolution at this stage.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member read the ruling of Mr. Speaker Lemieux on June 18, 1923, with respect to the Speaker leaving the chair?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not recall having read it.


Mr. Speaker:: It is reported in Beauchesne, third edition, at page 782.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not familiar with it at the moment. I think I have occupied sufficient time of the house, and I have even taken a little longer than I had intended. I believe I have outlined the arguments which I submit support the contention that this resolution is debatable.
And so in conclusion, it is with the desire to preserve the right to debate that I am putting forward this proposition, not in a sense of saying that we will debate these resolutions whenever they come forward, because quite frequently where it is a minor matter, where the public good can be just as well served by confining the discussion to committee, we will allow them to pass. But I rest on this point, and I have put forward my argument as logically as I can to support it-I contend that it is an established rule of this house that the motion for Your Honour to leave the chair for the house to

go into committee on the resolution is debatable. I submit that standing order 60 read together with standing order 38 establishes that fact and that the arguments I have put forward indicate how they do so. I conclude with the greatest deference-I know you will believe me when I say it is with the greatest deference-by saying that if I am right in that contention, that it is a rule of the house which permits debate, then debate can be precluded or taken awa^ only by a decision of the house to amend the rules. I contend that the rules of the house cannot be changed by a Speaker's ruling. The only thing which can take away the right to debate, if it exists, is a decision of this house.
Your Honour having said that you will be content to confine the debate to standing order 60, then we are faced with the simple proposition: Is the motion debatable or is it not debatable under that . rule? I submit that it is debatable and that it continues to be debatable until the House of Commons decides otherwise.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) will allow me I wish to compliment him upon the most constructive contribution which he has made to this very debatable matter. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) spoke on this matter, I believe on February 17. Not having been trained either in the ministry or the law my remarks on this matter will not be as lengthy as those of the hon. members who have preceded me.
I think the question is this: Is the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair debatable at this stage of the resolution? There are various things that determine the procedure of this house. When there is no standing order or clearly defined regulation, custom and usage-that is, what has been done and what has been accepted-govern our procedure.
On that basis I think the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair to go into committee on the resolution is debatable. I would refer the house to citation 13 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, second edition, which reads:
The proceedings of the houses (Senate and Commons) are governed by statutes, by rules and orders adopted by themselves, and by those usages which have grown up in the course of time and consequently become a part of their own practice or are derived from the common law of parliament by which they have consented to be guided in all matters of doubt. All "rules" are not "standing orders;" they may be sessional orders or merely precedents; but all "standing orders" are "rules".
Standing Order 60
Basing my argument first on that citation, may I say that I had already been in the house twelve years when the question came up in 1942 on which Mr. Speaker Glen made his decision as to the meaning of standing order 60. During those twelve years I cannot remember a question ever having arisen as to the right of members to have a debate on the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair at this stage of the resolution. Mr. R. B. Hanson, leader of the opposition at that time, I believe, said that in the twenty years prior to 1942 he never heard of the right being questioned. Therefore I think that usage has determined our right to speak on the resolution at this stage.
In my opinion the ruling that Mr. Speaker Glen made in 1942 was not logical, even if it were workable. He said that a debate was in order but that speakers could only speak on the negative side of the motion. I do not believe that you can have a debate when the debate is all on one side. I am quite convinced on that point and I do not believe that we should attempt to follow that ruling.
The arguments of those who say that there is no debate at this stage are based on standing order 60 which I should like to read again.
If any motion be made in the house for any public aid or charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereof may not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned till such further day as the house thinks fit to appoint; and then it shall be referred to a committee of the whole house, before any resolution or vote of the house do pass thereupon.
I do not think it means that it shall be referred to committee of the whole without debate. In my opinion what this standing order deals with specifically is that no resolution or vote or financial commitment which will be a charge on the public treasury can be made while the Speaker is in the chair. That can be done only after the Speaker has left the chair and the house is in committee of the whole. I believe that is the central point of the standing order- "before any resolution or vote of the house do pass thereupon". If we turn to standing order 38, to be found in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, as has already been pointed out by the hon. member-


Mr. Speaker:: Probably the hon. member can assist me in this respect. Does not all money that is spent have to be appropriated in the first instance by an act of parliament? Therefore would not a bill after second reading necessarily go to committee of the whole, and before the supply vote would take place there would be a regular vote on the bill in committee of the whole?

Standing Order 60


Angus MacInnis: 
Mr. Speaker:: That was after Mr. Speaker Glen's ruling.


Angus MacInnis: Yes, that would be after Speaker Glen's ruling. Speaker Glen made his ruling in February, 1942, and this is December, 1942. Here we have a man who perhaps knew more about the rules of the House of Commons than any other person in Canada, and when he outlines the procedure with respect to a resolution of this kind he says that the minister moves that the Speaker leave the chair for the house to go into committee of the whole on the resolution, the

Speaker puts the question on the motion and debate is allowed. I do not believe anything further is required to demonstrate to the house that the procedure up to that time was that when a motion of this kind was made a debate was allowed, and it certainly was not a debate on the negative or on the affirmative only. It was a debate on both sides. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pointed out-


Mr. Speaker:: May I remind the hon. member that in 1946 Dr. Beauchesne, in a letter to the then prime minister, the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, said:
The motion for referring money resolutions to the committee of the whole is similar to the first reading of a bill which is not debatable under our standing order 71.


Angus MacInnis: Would you read that again, sir?


Mr. Speaker:: It is in Hansard for April 11, 1946, at page 761. Mr. Mackenzie King quoted from a letter which he had received from the Clerk, Dr. Beauchesne, and which in part read as follows:
The motion for referring money resolutions to the committee of the whole is similar to the first reading of a bill which is not debatable under our standing order 71.
It occurred to me that the word "debatable", which appears in Beauchesne's third edition, was necessarily put in there by Dr. Beauchesne after the ruling which had been made by Mr. Speaker Glen.


Angus MacInnis: I cannot say as to that, sir, but I have had it pointed out that the date of the introduction, the preface, signed by Arthur Beauchesne, House of Commons, is dated December 22, 1942. As I have already contended, up until the time that Mr. Speaker Glen made that ruling there was always debate, if debate was required or considered necessary, on the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair on a resolution at this stage.
In Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, when Dr. Beauchesne said this motion was debatable he was only putting in written form what already was the practice in the house.
Before I sit down I wish to point out one point that was raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The ruling given by Mr. Speaker Glen was given on February 23, 1942, but on March 18, 1942, the then minister of finance (Mr. Ilsley) moved:
-that the house do go into committee to consider the following resolution:
Resolved that it is expedient to introduce a measure-
-and so on. After he had moved that, and the resolution was stated from the Chair, he

said that it was his intention to speak to this resolution'-despite the fact that only a few days before that Mr. Speaker Glen had said that all debate must be in the negative.
We have ignored, since that time, Speaker Glen's decision just as often as we have observed it. In my opinion, our rules provide for a debate at this stage on the resolution. If it was intended that there would be no debate, then we would have done as they have done in the British House of Commons-passed another standing order to put it beyond doubt that there was no debate allowed at this stage.


William Joseph Browne: I
venture to make a few observations on 'the question we are now considering. What is it that we are considering? We are considering whether debate is allowable on the motion made by the responsible minister that the Speaker do now leave the chair.
That motion is made for the purpose of considering in committee a resolution standing in that minister's name. That resolution has to do with the expenditure of money and, theref ore, it can only be introduced by way of a resolution of the house. In that respect it is similar to a committee of supply. Now, if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) wished to make the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair for the purpose of resolving the house into committee of supply, then the considerations which are indicated in Durell's "Parliamentary Grants", 1917 edition, at page 25, would apply. There he says:
All proposals as to taxes or grants must in accordance with the rules ot procedure, be considered in the first place in committee of the whole house-
Then he says:
Such procedure which, as it has its foundation in prudence and an attention to the ease of the people ought to be in all instances invariably observed-
In the footnote the author refers back to 1667 when that principle was followed.
On the next page he says:
The demand for supplies having been made, the next step, therefore, is to refer it to the committee for consideration. But before the house can resolve itself into committee, the motion must be formally made and carried, 'that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair' since the Speaker does not preside over a committee of the house. It is the motion for this formality which1 illustrates and secures the ancient constitutional doctrine that the redress of grievances should precede supply; . . .
Now, sir, when you indicated that you wished this matter discussed in the house, I said to some of my colleagues who had more experience here than I have had: How is it that this house has been holding debates since 1867 and you are still in doubt about such a fundamental matter? If you cannot come
Standing Order 60
to a decision on precedents established in the past 85 or 86 years, why do you not go to the British house?
My hon. friend, the member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), said: They have altered their procedure over there and it is different from ours. I said: Let us then go back before they altered their procedure and see what the procedure was then-so I did that very thing although I had some difficulty locating it. Strange as it may seem, I did find a reference in Todd's "Parliamentary Government in England, 1869," volume 2, page 386. That reference was to a notice of motion introduced by Mr. Disraeli, who was prime minister and chancellor of the exchequer, on February 11, 1867, for submitting certain resolutions in connection with the reform bill of that time to the committee of the whole. He gave notice that he would, two weeks hence-and this was his notice of motion-on February 25, move that the house resolve itself into committee for the purpose of considering these resolutions.
So I went to Hansard and found that on the date in question, February 11, Mr. Disraeli had made a speech of over two hours and a half duration, and as a contrivance, to enable him to do that he spoke on one item from the speech from the throne. He gave notice then that on February 25 he would move that the house would resolve itself into committee on his resolutions. On February 25 he made a speech of an hour and a quarter to show why the house should resolve itself into committee.
All speeches made following Mr. Disraeli's were by the opposition and they were against the motion. There is nothing about the content of the resolutions because they were only bare resolutions such as we have before us now. It would be impossible to go into detail or a grand expose of what they involved, because they were just in skeleton outline. Several speakers from the opposition took part in the debate, but there was no other speaker from the government. The motion was withdrawn. It is a very interesting thing to note that it was on February 26 that third reading was given in the House of Lords to the British North America Act.
On February 26 the chancellor of the exchequer said he would withdraw his resolutions. Mr. Gladstone then spoke and said that if Mr. Disraeli had not done so he had intended to bring in an amendment to the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair.


Mr. Speaker:: Was there not just one motion?

Standing Order 60


William Joseph Browne: No, sir, there were two motions; one was a notice of motion.


Mr. Speaker:: One was a notice of motion.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: On which no action had been taken.


Mr. Speaker:: There was no action on his notice of motion?


William Joseph Browne: No.


Mr. Speaker:: But no action was taken.


William Joseph Browne: No, but two
weeks previously he had given the notice of motion.


Mr. Speaker:: And the debate took place when the motion was called in the first instance.


William Joseph Browne: On February 25.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes; and were it not for standing order No. 38, then probably when the motion is called the first time in our house it might be debatable. But standing order 38 (1) (a) exempts from debate the notice of motion to go into committee at a later date.


William Joseph Browne: I am not
sure that I have Your Honour's point quite clearly, but I noted the question you asked the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) when you read from a manuscript that you had in your hand, that Dr. Beau-chesne had written to the prime minister stating that a motion for reference to a committee was similar to a motion for first reading. Well, sir, I submit respectfully that that is a notice of motion and is not a motion for the Speaker to leave the chair.
What I want to say in that regard is that I went through a number of Hansards of the Canadian House of Commons taken at random. I found that from the earliest times down to recently when Mr. Mackenzie King was prime minister, and especially during the war, it was quite a common thing for a notice of motion to be given, that it is expedient for the house to go into committee to consider a certain resolution, and then on the motion that the Speaker do now leave the chair there would be a debate. I cannot say from memory if that debate was entirely confined to the negative, because it is some time since we had this matter before us. There is no doubt that there was a debate. It seems to me that the observation made by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) is incontrovertible. Here is an item on the order paper that the house go into committee on the resolution. I submit that under standing order No. 38 it is debatable without question. If you want to change that procedure, I 
suggest that you have to amend the rules. It cannot be done by any vote of the house. We may agree to dispense with any debate, but we cannot alter the rules without a substantive provision in that respect.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: This difficulty arose, Mr. Speaker, for the first time on February 10 when Your Honour made a statement which is to be found at page 1784 of Hansard for that date. You said:
A matter has arisen as to what was said in the house on Friday. May I refer briefly to the debate which took place on that day. I have no hesitation in saying that, in view of that debate, I am quite concerned about the ruling I made in 1952 with respect to standing order 60.
Now, first of all, I should like to refer Your Honour to the key paragraph of your ruling in 1952. Then, I shall refer you to what did take place in the debate on that Friday to which you referred on February 10. The key paragraph of your ruling in 1952 will be found at page 3375 of Hansard for June 18, 1952. It reads as follows:
After giving this matter my careful consideration I have come to the conclusion that if there is no objection to the consideration of the resolution in committee of the whole, the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair should be put without debate. If any members are opposed to the resolution, and do not think that it should even be considered in the committee of the whole, or if they require additional information before agreeing to the motion, they should be given an opportunity to speak on the motion. The minister should endeavour to answer the objections which have been raised and to give the information requested.
Then, in the following paragraph, you went on to point out that you thought the practice of the minister opening the debate by a statement should be dropped. That was your very clear-cut ruling of June 18, 1952.
Then, I refer Your Honour to what happened in the debate on February 6. The debate was on a resolution preceding a bill to extend the Emergency Powers Act for a further year. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) was conducting the measure and he did not make a statement when the debate on the resolution stage commenced, thereby following the suggestion you had made in your ruling of 1952. Accordingly, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and several other members rose to state their objections to this measure going any further. They, too, were acting in accordance with your ruling of 1952. When they had finished, and when it appeared that the last speaker had made his objections, the Minister of Justice rose and, as found on page 1694 of Hansard for February 6, 1953, stated:
Mr. Speaker, if all those who wish to raise objections have done so, I believe it is my duty to answer the various objections, and I will be glad to endeavour to answer those that have already been made.

So far, he was following your ruling of 1952. Then, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) rose and said:
On a point of order, the minister does not presume by what he is saying to close the debate?


Mr. Garson:: No.
Of course, he could not close the debate because the resolution stood in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). Then, the Minister of Justice continues:
That was the reason I was raising the point. I am really rising on a point of order because X do not wish to put myself In the position that I cannot answer any objection any member of the house may wish to make. If there are any others-
Then, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) spoke. I do not know whether or not it was because of what he said, but while he was speaking the Minister of Justice obviously changed his mind. From that point on he failed-I think I am quite fair in saying he refused-to follow the ruling you had made in 1952. We find his statement at page 1700:
Mr. Speaker, I think possibly I should speak shortly to indicate the reason why in my opinion I should not speak on a motion of this sort.
This is contrary to his own statement a few minutes before.
The question as to the method by which a resolution of this sort is introduced into this house was referred to His Honour the Speaker in 1952.
Then the Minister of Justice went on to use his first opportunity of speaking on that resolution to deal with this point of order, and failed or refused to deal with the objections which had been raised by other hon. members. Then, on the following Monday, Your Honour said that because of the way the debate had broken down on Friday you thought something ought to be done about the ruling of 1952. I submit that surely a new ruling is not to be brought about arising from the fact that the Minister of Justice himself refused to follow your ruling of 1952.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In fairness to the Minister of Justice, I must say that it was not because of the attitude taken by the minis*-ter that I made the remarks I did. I had realized for some time that it would be impossible for me to put into effect the ruling which I had made in June, 1952. In fact, when I made the ruling some hon. members expressed the opinion that it was not workable.


Howard Charles Green: If Your Honour will read again what Your Honour said on February 10 you will find this. I think it is fair to state that Your Honour said you had found on the preceding Friday that you could not enforce your ruling and therefore something had to be done about it.
Standing Order 60


Mr. Speaker:: Not only on account of what the Minister of Justice had said but on account of what many other members of the house had said. The resolution on that day, I remember quite well, was debated quite fully; it was not the motion that the Speaker leave the chair but the resolution itself which was debated. If the hon. member will read my ruling to which he has just referred, he will see there that I then ruled that it was not proper to debate the resolution itself at this stage.


Howard Charles Green: I sat here throughout the whole debate on the Friday, and the only trouble that arose in that debate was that the Minister of Justice declined to get to his feet and answer the objections in accordance with Your Honour's ruling of June 18, 1952, that the minister should answer objections if they were raised in the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to revive the debate of that day; but I can tell the hon. member that it was not only the nature of the debate of that day which caused me to make that statement; it was, shall I say, a culmination of what had been taking place when money resolutions were presented to the house.


Howard Charles Green: Finally, Your Honour, may I say that this privilege of debate on the first stage of a resolution is one which has been held by opposition parties in the House of Commons for many years. It is really of any value only to the members of whatever parties happen to be in opposition. Any government quite naturally would wish to see it done away with thereby cutting one whole debate. I can quite understand why the government wish to have it cut out. The Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King also tried to find a way to get it cut out, but he was unable to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: May I remind the hon. member that Mr. Speaker Rhodes, who was Speaker in 1917, would not allow a debate at this stage.


Howard Charles Green: I was not here when Mr. Speaker Rhodes was here; but ever since Your Honour and I came to this house in 1935 a debate at this stage has always been allowed. Where a right of debate is to be taken away under conditions such as those which exist in regard to this particular question, I submit that it should be done only by an amendment of the rules.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If there is a right under the rules, it could be done away with only by an amendment of the rules.

Standing Order 60


Howard Charles Green: Where a right of debate such as this has been exercised for so many years; where the late Mr. Glen and Your Honour have made rulings in each case stating that the motion was debatable; where the late Mr. King said the same thing, namely that the motion was debatable; where there have been decisions and where there has been a usage of that kind; I submit that it would be quite-


Mr. Speaker:: Did Mr. King not take the attitude that the motion was not debatable?


Howard Charles Green: No. I have not Hansard before me today in which he dealt with this matter-


Mr. Speaker:: I think he did.


Howard Charles Green: -but as I remember it, he said that he could not contend that it was not debatable.


Mr. Speaker:: I think Mr. King took the attitude that the motion at the second stage was not debatable.


Howard Charles Green: Well, Mr. Speaker, I cannot say because I do not remember. But in any event, if he did say that, he was overruled by the Speaker.
I submit that Your Honour should not now take away this right of debate by a ruling which must in effect reverse Your Honour's own ruling of a year ago. I submit that if there is a question to be settled here, it should be done by an amendment to the standing orders.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to thresh over a lot of old straw and I will therefore deal only with two points which seem to have introduced something new with regard to the matter that you should consider at this time. One of them is the suggestion by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) that the order made on this resolution, when it was originally introduced, is similar to the order that is made after the first reading of a bill. With that point I will deal just as a matter of fact, and I will call Your Honour's attention to the difference in form. When a bill receives first reading, it is then ordered for second reading at a future date; but there is no decision that it will be read a second time at a future date. It is ordered for second reading and that is the language you find in the Votes and Proceedings at page 366, for instance. That is the last one. Here is what we find:
Mr. Howe, seconded by Mr. Fournier (Hull), by leave of the house, introduced a bill, No. 233, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, which was read the first time, and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the house.

The same language will be found in Votes and Proceedings at page 316. I will give Your Honour only three examples. At page 316 we find this language:
The following bills, from the Senate, were severally read the first time, on division, and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the house:
The same language-and it is the language that is used in all these cases-is used in the third example, at page 306 of Votes and Proceedings:
The following bills, from the Senate, were respectively read the first time and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the house:
I would ask you to contrast that language with the language used in Votes and Proceedings when this resolution came before the house for the second time and when it was resolved that at the next sitting the house would go into committee of the whole to consider the resolution as required by the terms of paragraph 360. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) referred to Beauchesne's third edition in which there is a statement that, on the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair for the house to go into committee to consider a resolution preceding a money bill, debate is allowed. As Your Honour pointed out, that was after Mr. Speaker Glen's ruling had been made to that effect and the Clerk of the House was reporting a ruling that had been made a few weeks before. You will find confirmation of that by referring to Beauchesne's second edition, page 347, part II of his rules and forms, paragraph (6), which was published before Mr. Glen's ruling and in which you find the following:
Moving Money Resolution:
Upon the following day,-
That is the day following the time when the house has resolved that it would at the next sitting go into committee of the whole to consider a resolution.
-or at such subsequent time as is convenient, when "government orders" are called, the minister may move the money resolution.
The money resolution can be moved only in committee. It cannot be moved elsewhere than in committee. That was the impression that the Clerk of the House had gathered from his experience in the house up to the time of the ruling made by Mr. Speaker Glen.
Now, we all recognize that if there is a right by a standing order of the house to a debate, or to any other privilege whatsoever, that right cannot be taken away in any way other than by an amendment to the rule. The question is, what does the standing order mean? The hon. gentleman has established the practice-and he has been doing it for a

large number of years-of asserting that there is a right, on the first section of a bill when it reaches committee, to renew the debate that has taken place on second reading before it went to the committee.


Howard Charles Green: The Prime Minister has referred to the debate on second reading.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: I have said that the hon. gentleman is asserting the right to have a general debate on the contents of a bill when it gets into committee, and to have that debate on the first section of the bill, thus contradicting the terms of the rule which states that when a bill gets to the committee stage the debate must be confined to the strict terms of the provision then under discussion. But the hon. gentleman asserts: "We have established the practice that we can renew the general debate on the bill in committee, and do it on the first section of the bill".


Howard Charles Green: That has been done for a long time.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: And I think if there is credit to be taken for it, then the hon. member is entitled to credit for introducing and establishing that practice.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, no.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: But that does not establish a right. If that is something that is proper, then it should be provided by the rules. I think we are all agreed, in principle, that rights should be established by rules and not by practices, whether they be good or bad.
Your Honour suggested that you wanted to reconsider this rule, and that is the reason this discussion has taken place today, following the views that had been put before the house by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), before he was so unfortunately called away from the House of Commons for reasons which I hope will not exist very long, so that we may have him back with us at an early date. But that is the reason this discussion is taking place, so that Your Honour may have whatever material we can put before you to assist you in your reconsideration that you, yourself, stated you wished to make.
I am quite sure, and I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) will agree, that it was demonstrated there can be a full debate in committee. There is one going on now; I do not know how much fuller it will become before the resolution preceding the emergency powers bill gets out of committee. But that has been a demonstration that there can be a full debate in committee on that kind of resolution.


Howard Charles Green: We have always had that right.
Standing Order 60


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, I do not know what fuller right would be of any public advantage. Certainly there is no advantage in having the same debate twice, if there is an opportunity to have it fully once.


Howard Charles Green: Does not the Prime Minister realize that there is a great difference, because when we are in committee it is possible to have questions and answers. So the type of debate which takes place then is quite different from the type of debate when Mr. Speaker is in the chair.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is certain that, under standing order 60, debate with Mr. Speaker in the chair cannot be debate of the resolution. That is clearly provided by the terms of standing order 60. Now, is it really an advantage to have to try to get around the provisions of that resolution, under colour of debating the question as to whether Mr. Speaker will or will not leave the chair, by debating in fact whether the resolution is or is not a proper one? Because that is actually what takes place. There is no disguising it; that is what takes place. The question is not, is it a proper time for Mr. Speaker to leave the chair? The question is, shall Mr. Speaker leave the chair so this resolution can have consideration?


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the Prime
Minister a question? In a case where a rule is ambiguous in its interpretation, is it not a fact that through the years precedent has been established as a proper base upon which to determine how it should be interpreted?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There is no doubt that practice is of assistance in interpreting rules. But if His Honour comes to the conclusion that the practice has been wrong, then he will submit the practice to his own judgment of what the rule means. I am not going to ask him to do otherwise than to bring his own good judgment to bear upon what the resolution as drafted means.


Howard Charles Green: May I point out that from the point of view of the opposition, frequently there is great value in having two debates. The procedure which is followed is that where we need information about a resolution we can get it during the first debate from the statement made by the minister; and then when the house goes into committee, which it does at once on the same day, we have a better chance to decide what to ask in committee. I would not want the Prime Minister to think that we are trying merely to be obstructionists in asking that this debate with Mr. Speaker in the chair be not wiped out. Quite often it is valuable to those of us in the opposition.

Yukon Act


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to delay the matter further, except to say that it strikes me as being rather singular if the contention of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is correct, that not until 1942, when Mr. Speaker Glen made that rather interesting and somewhat strange ruling, was this ever challenged in the house. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) was here ten years before that time, I was here seven years before, and Mr. Hanson was here twenty years before. The first time the right was challenged, as I remember it, was in 1942, when Mr. Speaker Glen ruled that while debate could be had on the negative, it could not be had on the affirmative.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would be interested to know that in 1926-27 the motion was moved 33 times, and on no occasion was there a debate. In 1928 it was moved 26 times, and a debate on no occasion. In 1929 it was moved 12 times, and there was a debate on only one occasion. But as time went on there was an increase in the number of debates; and probably that is why Mr. King rose and objected to the procedure.


Major James William Coldwell: That may be so. But on the other hand the fact that hon. members on the government side of the house or on the opposition side-because a debate might arise from either side-did not choose to enter into debate at that stage, does not indicate at all that they had not the right to do so.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: But it does not imply the other thing, either.


Major James William Coldwell: I quite agree. I just wished to emphasize that one point. I think Mr. Speaker has a very difficult problem to solve. And may I suggest that if it is felt by the house that our procedure makes debate unduly redundant, then we should not put Mr. Speaker in the position of having to make a ruling; rather, we should amend the standing order ourselves.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to thank all hon. members for the very thorough manner in which they have considered this matter. I can assure them that it has given me considerable concern. I shall not attempt to give my ruling today. I think all hon. members agree that I cannot enforce the ruling which I made in June, 1952, that the debate on the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair should be directed to the negative. At that time I ruled that it would not be in order to debate the resolution itself. I had hoped that I could get something in between whereby there could be a debate of some nature, but frankly I cannot see how it is possible.

I can assure hon. members that I shall read *carefully all that has been said today and make a decision which I feel is in accordance with the rules. If the house does not approve of the rules, then I agree with the suggestion that the house should amend those rules. On the other hand, if the rule is there I think it is the duty of the Speaker to enforce it as it stands. Again may I thank hon. members for the interest which they have taken in this matter.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of *this resolution is to seek authority to introduce a bill to revise and consolidate the Yukon Act. As the resolution states, it is also proposed to give legislative jurisdiction to the territorial council over certain matters which previously were dealt with by parliament. Under these headings are roads, wills, property of married women, coroners and inquests, controverted elections, the establishment and maintenance of hospitals, and agriculture.
The bill would also give authority to the commissioner in council to pass ordinances authorizing the commissioner, with the approval of the governor in council, to borrow money for purposes designated therein and to make loans to municipalities for the construction of municipal works.
Jurisdiction will also be sought to give the territorial council authority to increase the amount of the indemnity and living allowances of the members of the council and thus bring them more in line with those which may be paid to the elected members of the Northwest Territories.
Finally, the bill proposes to give the commissioner the right to hold lands for the beneficial use of the territory.
Apart from the changes I have mentioned, the bill will be a revision of the present act with a number of sections which are no longer necessary being dropped. The new act will be similar in many respects to the revised Northwest Territories Act which was enacted at the last session of parliament.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Winters thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 230, to revise and consolidate the Yukon Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Alphonse Fournier: that the house go into supply.



AGRICULTURE-UNCERTAIN POSITION OF FARMING POPULATION

Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take advantage of this opportunity to bring to the attention of the house the very uncertain future of the farmers of Canada. I might say that in this connection I speak as a rancher with considerable experience and understanding, consequently I have a great deal of sympathy for the farmers in the uncertainty that faces them at this time.
I shall never forget nearly 50 years ago when we landed from a steamer on the Arrow lakes in British Columbia. The first two things from our effects that were put off that steamer were my father's silk top hat and a cross-cut saw. I always thought that was symbolic of the leisured past and the promised rigorous future. I shall never forget the trials of the people of those days in their efforts to clear the forest under great difficulty and to bring orchards into production.
I remember that my father was so anxious on one occasion to ship the first crate of cherries out of the district that he borrowed five pounds from a neighbour so he could fill up the crate. I mention this to indicate my intense sympathy for the farming population of this country and because there are hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country who have had similar experiences clearing land, building up farms and carrying on other activities in an effort to produce the food so necessary to our economy and to the people of this country.
With the approach of spring I consider this an appropriate time to bring this matter to the attention of the house and to ask for action by the government at this session along the lines we suggest. There is no question that during the last few months or perhaps the last year or so there has been a general decline in farm income across the country, while at the same time we have had increasing surpluses of some commodities, with increasing shortages in certain countries overseas whose populations exist at substandard levels. Not only has there been insecurity and instability created for the farming sections of our population, there has been instability of prices with a speculative element entering the picture so far as the consumer is concerned.
I have always thought that the farmer got, shall I say, the short end of the stick. It is generally recognized that the manufacturer has a recognized percentage of profit. The jobber selling agricultural commodities has a recognized percentage of profit. The wholesaler gets a recognized percentage of profit. The retailer gets a recognized percentage of profit. Transportation charges 68108-203J
Position of Agricultural Industry must be met. What does the farmer get? He gets what is left when these people have taken their cuts. As I say, there are recognized fixed commissions and profits for these people, and guaranteed transportation charges.
Regardless of the repetition of the words "free enterprise" and "everyone for himself" I think it is quite fair to say that various sections of our economy have had their returns stabilized or more or less guaranteed only as a result of government action. Compare the position of corporations selling certain commodities to the dairy farmers, the fruit farmers, the poultrymen and all other agricultural producers, to that of the farmers. I noticed that three or four days ago Imperial Oil Limited of Vancouver and one or two other oil companies simply made an announcement in the press that the price of gasoline would increase by so many cents a gallon commencing on a certain date. They have control of their commodities, they have control of their prices, while the farmer is facing more and more insecurity under present conditions.
At the same time, as the result of legislation passed by this parliament and the provincial legislatures on which the processes of collective bargaining are based, organized labour has some stability of income for the life of the contracts which it signs with the companies for which its members are working and with which it is dealing. With spring approaching-and there is no question about it that hope springs eternal within the human breast-the farmer has no assurance of what he is going to receive for his crop when he harvests it next fall.
I am not going to speak at great length. I am just introducing the subject. In the monthly commercial letter of the Canadian Bank of Commerce for November there is a general review of agriculture which is well worth reading. Many of the monthly letters issued by our banks nowadays are well worth reading. They deal with the economic position of the country from an interesting point of view. The monthly letter of the Canadian Bank of Commerce to which I have referred has this to say about the agricultural industry:
The bulk of Canadian farm products is now marketed under some form of price support. This underwriting of farm prices has cushioned agriculture as a whole from the worst effects of the adverse conditions to which some branches have been subjected within the last year and a half, with the result that prices at the producers' level have declined only about 15 per cent . . .
There are one or two things I might point out in that connection. First of all this letter is published by a Canadian bank. I remember that when floor prices were suggested years ago some of the banking interests opposed the principle because they thought it was
3202	HOUSE OF
Position of Agricultural Industry not a sound development in our economy. We see that today the principle of floor prices is recognized even by the banking institutions, and the good that has been done by the more or less minor application of the principle is recognized here. In addition, it is recognized that in the last year and a half farm prices have dropped about 15 per cent on the average, while we all know that the costs of production of the farmer have not declined to the same extent.
It is also very interesting to note that the banks of this country are showing more and more interest in the stability of Canadian agriculture. I remember when we faced a very difficult situation in the fruit industry of British Columbia in the mid-twenties, at a time when the growers were receiving far less than the cost of production. Previous to that there had been no organized assistance from the banks of the area, but even the banks were farsighted enough to see that if they were going to continue in business and make profits in that area they had to do something to assist in stabilizing that industry. When it came to reorganizing the fruit industry, building co-operatives and developing national marketing legislation, to the credit of the banks of the Okanagan and the Kootenays be it said that they got right behind the growers in their efforts to build some security for themselves in that field.
Not only do we find the banks concerned about the stability of agriculture; we also find that labour is getting more concerned. For years it was the current opinion of many labour and farming people that their interests were not identical but were opposed. That opinion has disappeared because everyone knows that the whole foundation of Canadian prosperity depends upon a sound agricultural economy. Therefore we find in various resolutions passed by labour organizations and in discussions at meetings, a growing consciousness on the part of organized labour that their prosperity is based to a great extent upon the prosperity of the farmer.
I do not happen to have at hand any quotations from Canadian labour publications that indicate that fact, but the same spirit is growing in the United States and to illustrate I am going to quote from the Manitoba Co-operator of March 19. The article is entitled "Straws in the Wind?" It reads in part as follows:
In its initial release this year, titled "The Meat of It," prepared and published by the research department, united packing house workers of America, C.I.O., Chicago, the union publication under a heading "A Depression for Agriculture?" notes with concern the decline in the net income and purchasing power of the farmer in the United States. A chart to show the general downward
[Mr. Herridge.l

trend since 1947 is included and is supplemented by the following paragraphs-
I think these paragraphs are most interesting.
"There are many things one could say about the increasingly dark farm picture, for it has become darker since this chart was prepared. But we can sum it up by recalling that the symptoms of a 'sick agriculture' were becoming increasingly acute during the 'prosperous twenties,' noting that today's symptoms are disturbingly like those of that earliest period, and warning that history could repeat itself.
The feature about that history to remember is not the crashing stock market, the closed banks or even the recently rich men jumping out of windows. Instead it is that the sickness of U.S. agriculture was one of the main sources of infection which caused a prolonged and devastating illness for the entire economy.
Have we learned enough since that earlier malady? If so, we won't be content to let 'nature take its course' in solving the price and income problems of our farming population. We won't be satisfied either by the appointment of advisory or investigating commissions most of whose members, no matter how much they may know about certain aspects of agriculture, are also members of big corporate boards of directors."
Then the article continues:
Because the trend of farm income and purchasing power in Canada somewhat parallels that of the United States, the deliberations of the conference will be awaited with deep interest.
It is because we in this group do not believe in a return to the conditions of the mid or late twenties and do not believe in allowing nature to take its course in the marketing of farm products that we are bringing this question before the house at this appropriate time. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture made representations to the government quite recently. The farmers met the cabinet on March 6, 1953 and made their usual excellent annual representations. In a paragraph dealing with price fluctuations and price support I read the following:
Surplus production and low prices for a farm product inevitably result in scarcity and high prices at a later date. Such extreme flexibility could be reduced if the policy of the agricultural prices support board were administered, not as a stock loss device only as at present-
That, Mr. Speaker, is the biggest complaint of this group.
-but rather as a device for preventing wide swings in production and price. Such a change in emphasis would in some cases mean a more generous application of the price floor principle than has been the case in the past.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we do not for a moment underestimate the value this legislation has been to the farmers of this country. We give the government credit for introducing it, but what we are seeking is the fuller use of the legislation to provide the greatest stability for agriculture in this country.

Instability is being felt by the poultry producers, the dairymen, the meat producers, the wheat producers and by all sections of agriculture. I am sure, from the activities of farm organizations from their briefs, from the press and from the correspondence I have received that there is in the minds of the farmers of this country at this time a greater sense of insecurity than has existed for some years.
As I said before, we believe that farm prosperity is essential for a healthy Canadian economy. With a world food shortage we believe that production must be maintained. At this point I wish to bring out the fact that we repeatedly hear our country and our way of life referred to as a Christian civilization. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it is complete humbug and hypocrisy to consider ours a Christian civilization if we do anything to restrict agricultural production while there are hundreds of millions of people in the world today who are short of food.
Mr. Speaker, we are in a happy position in Canada to do something about this. We have the act on the statute, and it has functioned to a moderate degree and with some advantage to the farmers of Canada. In addition we have a perfect set-up for our government to take action in a democratic way. We have our large farm organizations representing various groups, the machinery is all established, and they are willing to co-operate with the government to do something along the lines I am suggesting this afternoon.
I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that our proposals will be supported by speakers from other groups in this house this afternoon. As I said before, the legislation is sound in principle but we are seeking amendments that will provide for a fuller use of the act as the result of co-operation on the part of the government with the producers' organizations, and a formula being included in the act that will provide the producers with returns in relation to the general standards of the time. Surely that is not too much to ask, that the basic primary producers of this country be given the modest security that can be given them under the terms of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I have more or less dealt in generalities, but before I can conclude I do want to say a word or two about the fruit industry. As I said before, the government has the machinery at hand to work out a very fair and effective policy to provide some stability for the farmers of this country at the present time. It is the general policy of the British Columbia fruit growers' association to discuss their problems with members
Position of Agricultural Industry of the Canadian horticultural council, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the provincial and federal governments. I know the minister is fully aware of the problems which face the fruit industry in this country, in the maritimes, Ontario and British Columbia. I see the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) listening with great interest, and I am very ipleased on that account. I will say now, in fairness to the minister, that I happen to know that he is using his best efforts to assist the British Columbia fruit industry.
Last year the total apple production in North America was such that it offered few problems. On the whole the growers received reasonable returns. The soft fruit industry, however, experienced a very poor year for two reasons. First, there was a very heavy crop in both the United States and Canada; and second-a more or less artificial condition-there was a change in the relationship between Canadian and United States dollars. I know some producers are inclined to suggest that the remedy for this situation is higher tariffs. However, because of our general approach to this economic problem, our obligations to the United Nations, and the necessity for freeing world trade, we believe that we must find some other solution to produce some stability in this branch of agriculture.
I mentioned a moment ago that our tree fruit industry in British Columbia practises co-operation with other groups in the industry, with the provincial government and with the federal government. To illustrate that I wish to read one paragraph of a report by Mr. A. E. Garrish, president of the British Columbia fruit growers' association, to the last annual convention. This is what he has to say:
It might be in order at this time to mention that we, in the tree fruit area of British Columbia, are part of a very large industry which has grown to its present size slowly and painfully over a long period of time. What progress has been achieved has been through a process of discussion and compromise inspired by good will and a desire to co-operate. We, in our association, have learned to think in terms of our industry rather than in terms of local, or sectional, interests. It is equally important that in our representation on the national level we be prepared to see the whole picture and not just our side of it and that our presentations at ail times be sound, constructive and moderate, so that we may maintain the standing which has been built up.
While we endeavour to solve our problems to the best of our ability, some problems can be solved only by government action and must be kept constantly in front of the responsible officials. This can best be done by co-ordinating our approach to the government with that of other fruit producing areas through the medium of the Canadian Horticultural Council.

Position of Agricultural Industry
That is the attitude, Mr. Speaker, of the tree fruit industry in British Columbia and, I think it is the attitude of agricultural organizations generally. That is the reason I say there is a wonderful opportunity, with the legislation we have on the books at the present time and with the agricultural organizations we have in the country, to do something sound and fundamental to produce some stability for agriculture. I mention the soft fruit industry particularly because of its difficulties last year and owing to the fact that I have peach growers, prune growers and other soft fruit growers in my constituency. I know they will welcome the fact that I have mentioned their difficulties to the house and that the problem has the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and our energetic Minister of Fisheries.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that, in view of the soft fruit growers' difficulties being caused by the action of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) the government has in this case particular responsibility for measures to remove this injustice. Therefore I suggest that first of all consideration be given to a floor price being established for soft fruit this year, as a result of consultation with the industry. I also suggest that the government, in co-operation with the industry, make every effort to increase markets for tree fruits at home and abroad.
I would say that while the farmers of this country are facing an uncertain future there is a necessity for the greater use of funds under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, at a time when considerable relief from taxation has been given to the large corporations of this country. I am of the opinion that at least some of the relief, some of the savings that have been handed to the large corporations of this country, could have been used by this government to support the agricultural industry to the greater advantage of the economy as a whole.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we have instability and insecurity. I know that, in addition to the fruit industry of British Columbia, we have instability and insecurity in so far as the poultry producers are concerned. We are in a very fortunate marketing area, but costs have been such and prices have been such that only the most efficient have been able to survive during the last two or three years. This situation can only be remedied as a result of government action. Producers' organizations in all sections of agriculture are helping themselves to the limit of their ability, but they can only go so far. If we are going to do something for them, they

must have government assistance and government co-operation. I suggest, therefore, that now is the time for the government to give consideration to this need for stability, and to the amendments to the act that will provide that necessary stability following government action.
I am only speaking about general principles. As I said before, others will deal with the details of this situation that I have overlooked or omitted. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Jones):
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this house legislation should be introduced during the present session to provide floor prices for agricultural products at such levels as to ensure producers a price-cost relationship not less favourable than that prevailing from 1944 to 1948, such floor prices to be established in consultation with producers' organizations."


Mr. Speaker:: Would this amendment not
necessarily involve the expenditure of money?


Mr. Argue:: In that connection may I
point out to you, sir, that the motion has been drafted in the same way as other motions that are presented to this house and in connection with which one might also argue the expenditure of money is involved. This amendment merely asks the house to express an opinion, that in the opinion of this house certain legislation should be introduced. I suggest, with respect, that this amendment as it is drafted does not involve the expenditure of money but merely asks the house to express an opinion.


Mr. Speaker:: Would it not be considered
an order of the house if this resolution carried? In my opinion it is specific. It
says that,
In the opinion of this house legislation should be introduced during the present session. . .
It does seem to me that would necessarily involve the expenditure of money, and that the government would have to consider it as an order of the house.
Mr. Cold well: The government might have to consider it as an opinion of the house, but the government would not necessarily have to obey merely an expression of opinion; that is all it is. It is not an order of the house. The amendment would simply express an opinion which the government may, if it likes, approve; or if it does not wish to approve it, it could tak-e no action with regard to it. It is purely an expression of opinion on the part of the house.


Mr. Abbott:: Well, Mr. Speaker, here even the euphemism that the government should give consideration to doing such and such a thing is not used. The amendment asks for

an affirmative vote that in the opinion of the house legislation should be introduced, and it is quite clearly legislation which involves the expenditure of money. I suggest that the amendment is clearly out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid I could not
allow the motion to stand in its present form. It does seem to me that if it were the opinion of the whole house that legislation should be introduced at this session, the government would be required to introduce the legislation. For that reason I shall have to declare the motion out of order.


Robert Fair: I regret that it is necessary for me to once again-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lake
Centre.


Robert Fair: I had addressed the chair before the ruling was given.


John George Diefenbaker: I take this opportunity of bringing forward a number of matters in connection with the agricultural situation. This motion enables members of the house to place before the house matters of importance to different segments of the community. I intend to say a few words particularly along the lines of the amendment just ruled out of order by Your Honour, because I think the time has come for a discussion of this subject in the house. What I intend to do in general is to refer to one or two matters upon which there has been no discussion during this session, with a view to ascertaining the position of affairs, and in particular to the fear of Canadian farmers regarding sliding prices and lost markets.
I realize that during 1952 there was a pronounced increase in the production of farm products in Canada, but it will have been noted that during that year, while there was a material increase in the quantity of production, there was not an increase in the amount paid to Canadian farmers. I am going to refer to one or two suggestions to which I made reference a few days ago in a speech outside the house. I want to point out particularly that, while in 1952 there was a very much larger production of farm products in Canada, the value in that year was $2,787,800,000 which was $38 million below the all-time high of 1951. In other words, while in 1952 production went up by approximately 12 per cent, there was a reduced return to the farmer and there was also an increase in the cost of the things purchased by the farmer of approximately 5 per cent.
I think that generally speaking today across this country farmers are worried
23, 1953
Position of Agricultural Industry about conditions. In the present situation they do not yet see, nor do I, the ingredients of 1928 or 1929; but they do fear that unless action is taken by parliament now, with the loss of farm markets-however the government may say that it has not lost any markets-the situation is fraught with danger.
I mentioned a moment ago that they fear the situation generally. They also wonder why parliament is not taking some action. In a recent representation made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture the whole situation was summed up in these words: While Canada today is undoubtedly enjoying an era of extraordinary prosperity, agricultural producers, particularly in the field of livestock and livestock products, find themselves victims of an economic squeeze between declining farm returns and rising farm costs.
That situation applies rather generally all along the line, and it is causing a serious fear to be aroused in the minds of farmers in general. I believe their request to parliament is that a full discussion on the subject take place now, and that action be taken immediately in order to forestall the possibility of a deteriorating price level and a loss of markets which, in 1928 and 1929, led finally to a depression.
As was said by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, regardless of what prosperity there may be in other industries, and regardless of the tremendous increases that are taking place in mineral production in this country, in large measure owing to the demands of war or the preparations for the assurance of peace, nonetheless, unless agriculture is prosperous, that prosperity created in that way cannot but be short-lived; for those mineral products are in fact exhaustible and are being exhausted whereas agricultural products are produced continuously and repeatedly from year to year.
What I intend to do on this occasion is to refer but briefly to the general situation, because parliament as yet is completely in the dark as to what is happening at Washington. We in parliament learn what is happening at Washington at the international wheat conference not in parliament-because we are denied information here-but through the medium of the press. That is the only way we are able to secure any information. During recent days and weeks, on more than one occasion the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has been asked: What is the situation? What is being done? What stand is being taken by the representatives of Canada with respect to negotiations leading to another international wheat agreement? Yet up until this moment parliament

Position of Agricultural Industry has been vouchsafed no information whatsoever. Today the Canadian Press carried an article to the following effect:
Prolonged Washington negotiations on a new international wheat agreement will be continued for another week in a last-ditch effort to break a price deadlock, informants said Saturday.
Exporters are still holding out for a ceiling of $2.10 a bushel, while importers, with Britain at the lead, have refused to go any higher than $1.95.
However, the 42 importing countries are expected to hold another meeting next Tuesday-
That is tomorrow.
-at which time Britain likely will suggest that the offer be increased to $2 a bushel.
With increasing farm costs, a price level such as that suggested in today's Canadian Press article will, I think, be most detrimental to the wheat producer of this country on the basis of the suggested maximum and minimum prices set forth in that article; and it is borne out by a similar article in the New York Times. The western wheat farmer will find himself in a position that cannot but cause worry and concern. I cannot understand why parliament cannot secure any information on a matter that affects the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of people within this country. It is a matter that deserves consideration and that ought to have had consideration long ago, but it is one which parliament has had no opportunity to discuss in order to place before the government and the country the views of farmers in general.
I think we should be entitled to some information. During the last several years the international wheat agreement has been in effect, farm costs have been rising. On more than one occasion I asked whether or not the Minister of Trade and Commerce would give consideration to asking the purchasing countries to accept some escalator clause whereby, in the event of increasing farm costs, there would be increases in the minimum price, but the answer generally given was that nothing was going to be done about it. Indeed, the minister refused to discuss the matter at all.
I believe that, in the matter of our defences, the countries who are today in the main the buying countries should realize that if our wheat economy does not secure a fair return, Canada's agricultural plant for the production of wheat and wheat products- which are so necessary to our defence and that of the other NATO countries-would be seriously affected. We are in a position where, if communism marches, the only NATO countries whose production of wheat and other farm products will not immediately be seriously affected, if not entirely obliterated, will be the United States of America

and Canada. In the interests of our cooperative defence with the other members of NATO, I believe that Canada's productive machine should be maintained and sustained at a high level in order to meet the eventuality of war should it ever take place.
In the second place I believe there should be a realization by those countries that in a common prosperity, and in the preservation of this productive machine for wheat, the greatest hope for the future exists against communism. It should also be realized at this time that as between nations, members of NATO, quotas and restrictions against farm products should not be considered, much less imposed. The action taken in 1951 by the United States government in prohibiting the import of certain Canadian dairy products has had an extremely serious effect on Canada's dairy industry. It cannot be justified in the world of today. Objection was taken to that action by the government in a message delivered in February. But for some reason the United States government has not seen fit to remove the quota system or the embargo. The result is that surpluses of cheese and other dairy products are mounting, and the situation therefore is that, even in the world of today which demands far greater agricultural production than at present prevails, with mounting surpluses farm prices will necessarily fall, and fall out of proportion with other prices.
Certainly a successful farm production plant will never be maintained in Canada if the farmer is in the paradoxical position of being in a world where there must be farm production in order to feed hungry people everywhere and thus prevent their becoming a fertile recruiting ground for communism, while at the same time if the farmers do produce surpluses, the farm production plant of Canada is in danger of being undermined, if not destroyed.
Certainly during the early twenties the tariff imposed by the United States against Canadian farm products had an effect which, in the later twenties, culminated in an almost complete destruction not only of the Canadian farm production plant but also, because of low prices, of the will on the part of Canadian farmers to produce.
In a speech delivered during the election campaign in 1945 the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) pointed out that one of the main reasons for the fall in the prices of farm products in the thirties was the action taken by the United States of America. I think the time has come for the government of Canada to point out in the strongest possible terms to the United States government that its action in 1951 in regard

to dairy products seriously militates against this country doing its full share in the preservation of the agricultural production plant which, once destroyed, would take years to restore.
In that connection I feel the protest made in February was couched in more diplomatic language than it would have been if the farmers of Canada had had anything to do with the preparation of that message.
In so far as wheat production is concerned,
I feel the farmers should have some assurance as to what is being done in Washington. Certainly it is going to have a very serious effect if this conference, which first took place in London and, failing to arrive at an agreement, adjourned to Washington, falls to pieces, and this at a time when wheat production is so necessary, despite the fact that at the moment we have an unsold surplus amounting to about 650 million bushels. Markets have been or will be found for part of that amount.
So far as our market in Great Britain for other food products is concerned, one has only to read the Economic Record, a publication issued by the United Kingdom information office, to realize that today Great Britain would be purchasing many farm products that are surplus in this country if arrangements could be made either to make currency convertible or to allow Great Britain to supply us with tens of millions of dollars worth of defence products with which she could supply us. A credit would be secured for Great Britain, thus enabling her to purchase our farm products in surplus supply.
Many interesting facts are set out in this issue of the Economic Record for February of this year. It states that the $1,500,000 required to purchase about 5 million tons of cheddar cheese from Canada was found only because of unexpected dollar payments by Canada to the United Kingdom under the Canada-United Kingdom-New Zealand meat agreement.
Well, if credits could be arranged in that connection and to that extent to take care of that portion of the surplus in cheese, could not the same have been done in greater measure through the purchase of defence requirements Canada needs, and which Great Britain is able to produce, so as to assure that this market can be kept open for us? For, talk as some will, while the United States market is contiguous to us, and comfortably situated, and while it would be economical if it was always open to us, history has shown clearly that whenever we have had farm surpluses the United States has been in much the same position. In those times the preservation of the interests 68108-204
23, 1953
Position of Agricultural Industry of United States farmers has demanded imposition by the United States of quotas or tariffs against Canadian farm products.
Then the Economic Record goes on to say:
The United Kingdom market absorbs about 20 per cent of total world exports of bacon and ham and before the war people in Britain ate 600,000 tons, of which about one third was home produced . . . Britain has not been able to find the dollars to buy bacon from Canada where, before the war, some 68,000 tons were obtained and 95,000 tons (by no means a record high) in 1948.
May I repeat the suggestion I made a moment ago, that I do not believe the Department of Defence Production has gone far enough in the way of encouraging the purchase in Great Britain of those things that can be produced there, and which are required for defence.
Then this publication deals with meat, and points out that Great Britain today is buying more and more from Australia under longterm agreements, and also under the recent Anglo-Argentinian agreement, under which 238,000 long tons of carcass meat will be supplied this year. It states that this is an improvement over the 1952 imports from the Argentine. I realize reference will be made to prices paid under that agreement. But the fact remains that, however much members of the government may deny it, we have indeed lost our market in Great Britain for many of our agricultural products, and that market will not be restored to us unless serious steps are taken in connection with obtaining many of our defence requirements from Great Britain, thus creating a credit in funds which will preserve the market for farm products of this country. At the rate at which markets have disappeared, regardless of any increase in Canadian consumption because of a rising standard of living, we are going to find ourselves faced with undisposed-of surpluses; and the degree to which such surpluses will affect the economy, aside from the prosperity of the farmer, is shown in the supplementary estimates, where over $30 million is to be voted to pay for the maintenance of certain floor prices.
I feel that the subject of floor prices is one that should be discussed, and the time is ripe for the discussion of that question. Therefore I feel that an amendment would be in order at this time to give the house an opportunity of voting on the question. I believe that Canadian farmers are asking for fair farm price levels that bear some relationship to the prices of the products the farmer has to purchase. Therefore I intend to move an amendment very similar to the

Position of Agricultural Industry one this party has moved on previous occasions, and which I drafted following the disposition of the one just moved. I move, seconded by Mr. Ross (Souris):
That all the words alter "that" to the end of the question be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this house consideration should be given by the government to the advisability of introducing during the present session legislation to provide floor prices for agricultural products at such levels as to ensure producers a fair price-cost relationship.
Unfortunately I have not extra copies of the amendment, but it does represent the desire and I believe the demand on the part of Canadian farmers in general that action be taken now, before Canada finds itself in the position of having surplus production. We realize the needs of the NATO countries for all-out production in order to meet the eventuality that peace should cease to exist; and in order to maintain, farmers on the farms something must be done to remove the squeeze that is taking place because of falling prices which have resulted, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, in a reduction in income of 12 per cent in 1952 over 1951, while the production of agricultural products was materially increased during the same period and farm costs have risen by 5 per cent.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Diefenbaker moves,
seconded-


Robert Fair: I regret very much that it is
necessary for me to once again,-


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not a copy of the amendment, but after listening to it I cannot see that there is much difference between this one and the other one in so far as being in order is concerned. I would suggest that it is out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: It occurs to me that this is more in the way of setting forth an abstract opinion. This is certainly not as mandatory as the previous amendment. The previous amendment was that in the opinion of the house legislation should be introduced during the present session, while this amendment says the government should take into consideration the advisability of introducing legislation.


James Garfield Gardiner: Please read, on from there.


Mr. Speaker:: The effective words are, "in the opinion of this house consideration should be given by the government to the advisability of introducing legislation during the present session." I think that is wide enough to bring it within the rule known as the expression of an abstract opinion.


Robert Fair: Mr. Speaker, for the third time this afternoon

I regret that it has again become necessary for me to plead for equitable prices for the products of the agricultural industry. On different occasions during the present and previous sessions many of us have insisted that something should be done, yet this afternoon we find the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) trying to find some flaw in the amendment just presented. I hope that before this debate finishes he will have something more constructive to give to the agricultural industry than the excuse he offered just a moment ago.
We all realize that agriculture is the backbone of this country. Perhaps that cannot be said of some other countries, but we can continue to make that statement without fear of successful contradiction as far as Canada is concerned. The prosperity of many groups in Canada depends upon the prosperity of agriculture. Therefore I feel it is the duty of all sections of this house to see to it that agriculture gets a square deal.
They have an agricultural industry in the United States, and that government seems to do something about conditions when they get down to a certain level. The Alberta Wheat Pool Budget of February 27 contains an article from the XJ.S. News and World Report entitled "Farmers Being Squeezed" which reads:
As things size up, the outlook for business suggests this:
Peak in activity is passing. Farmers are hurt. Businessmen in farm communities find business slower. Exporters, generally, are hurt too. There's no zip left in any big line of business, though activity is high.
More lines will begin to slip as 1953 wears on. Builders face problems. Manufacturers, in many fields, will find goods harder to move. Dealers, merchants often are likely to be complaining about demand. A turn from years of inflation to mild deflation is to make its appearance.
Trends, barring bigger war, will be gradually downward. Jobs, probably, will be less abundant. Prices, often, will be tending down. The boom, quite definitely, will be over. Adjustment will be under way.
That's the way it appears from the signs that are gathering.
Farmers, even with government help, are in a squeeze right now.
A farmer, on the average, in 1953, will get a smaller proportion of the national income than in any years since the depression bottom in 1932.
He will have many more dollars than in 1932, but relative to other parts of the population, his share of the total will be back at a low level. Put it this way:	One person out of six in the country
is a farmer. In 1946, when times were best for farmers, $1 out of $9 in national income went to the farmer. In 1953, $1 in $15 will go to the farmer. Farmers, relative to other groups, are slipping. There's political trouble for Eisenhower in that simple fact. There also is to be a test of the theory that people are willing to forgo constant doses of government inspired inflation, even if times get a little harder.

We find that there is something of interest to our Canadian farmers in the treatment of United States farmers. It will be of great interest to note the statement made by President Eisenhower, and I quote from the overseas report on agricultural developments, economics division, marketing service, Department of Agriculture, which contains the following on page 4:
Some changes, perhaps of a substantial and fundamental nature, may be made in agricultural policies by the new Republican administration. In his state of the union message to Congress on February 2, President Eisenhower referred to the slow, irregular decline in farm prices which has been going on for two years, and promised that prices of basic commodities will be supported at 90 per cent of parity until the end of 1954 . . . We should begin now to consider what farm legislation we should develop for 1955 and beyond. Our aims should be economic stability and full parity of income for American farmers.
What is happening in Canada? From time to time we hear many speeches made, but speeches alone will not improve the condition of our farmers. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) went to London a few months ago to take part in the prime ministers' conference. We expected then that many of the obstacles to freer trade would be removed, but up to the present time not many results have been obtained. Recently we have had statements by Henry Ford, Jr., in connection with removing obstacles to freer trade. The president of the Ford Motor Company of Canada, Mr. Sale, also made a statement which I read into the record on February 26 last. The Minister of Finance agreed with the statement made by Mr. Sale, but when he delivered his budget speech on February 19 he apologized that he was making very few changes in the tariff.
That is the help our farmers are getting. So far as the farming industry is concerned, concessions were made on plow bolts and a few minor farm implements. I do not think that is the way to help agriculture. At the present time agriculture should be helped in every way possible because many people tell us that the best way to defeat communism is to feed the people in those countries that are threatened by it, and in those countries that already have had communism inflicted upon them. But we do not see very much being done to help. Prices are slipping in the agricultural industry and costs are increasing. According to information we have, costs increased in 1952 by 7 per cent; but if we take the prices of several commodities being produced by farmers we find that they have gone down, and it does not seem that very much is being done to increase them.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
68108-204J
Position of Agricultural Industry AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Robert Fair: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I had been discussing the question of agriculture in the United States and Canada, and had referred to statements made by some of the political and industrial leaders of Canada. I feel that while many speeches and statements have been made there are different methods that could be adopted to assist agriculture and, by so doing, assist the economy of the whole country. I think it is about time we started in to do some of those things.
One of the things we could do would be to keep production costs down. On many occasions I have referred to the excessive cost of farm implements. I notice that some of the implement companies claim that their prices have not increased very much, but only a few days ago I received some information from the dominion bureau of statistics which I might give the house. The figures are based on an index price for farm machinery for 1935-39 equalling 100.
In 1948 machinery prices stood at 141-6. In 1949 the index increased to 158-3. In 1950 there was another increase to 165-1. In 1951 the index jumped to 186-8 and in 1952 it jumped again to 195-4. That represents an increase of approximately 54 points in the price index of farm machinery in five years. I think it is time, when the machinery companies do not themselves do something, for the government to act and see that farmers are not soaked in this way.
In the Ottawa Citizen of Tuesday, November 25, 1952, under the heading "Report farm machinery parts dumped" I find something that may be of interest. Under a Winnipeg dateline it says:
Customs officials in Winnipeg are reported investigating complaints that castings for agricultural machinery are being dumped here by American firms south of Minneapolis at as much as 50 per cent below the Manitoba price.
The castings are for seeders, disc plows and other farm equipment.
Customs officials said there was normally no tax on such farm equipment from the United States, but, if dumping could be proved, a dumping duty, raising the price to fair market value, would be imposed and would be paid by the importer.
I think that is further evidence to show that we are paying much more in Canada for our implements and parts than we should pay. In the United States they pay higher wages than we do, they get much of their raw material from Canada, and there is no reason we should pay such high prices. Again I say, why not investigate the price of farm implements.

Position of Agricultural Industry We have still another .load placed on the backs of farmers through increased freight rates. Recently in this house a return was brought down in my name showing increases in freight rates in the past five years. The first increase was 21 per cent and it meant an additional $282 million in freight rates. The next increase was 20 per cent which, on the cumulative tariff, amounted to 45-2 per cent and an additional $197,400,000. The next freight rate increase was 17 per cent, which raised the cumulative total to 69-9 per cent, and accounted for an additional $86,700,000. Those three increases amounted to a .total of $566,100,000. There is another increase of 9 per cent pending, and it will run the total over the last five years up to 85-2 per cent. The weight of this freight rate charge is borne either directly or indirectly by the farmer, mainly in western
Canada because that is where we have most of our production.
We have to pay freight eastward on our grain, and on many of the things we purchase we also have to pay the freight westward. In order to show the effect of some of this burden I had another return tabled here from which I might read some of the items, unless the house would agree to have the return placed on the record. It is return No. 132D. It shows freight nates at February 1, 1945; February 1, 1950; and February 1, 1953. If I may have consent of the house I should like to place the return on the record for the information of hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Fair: The table is as follows:
STATEMENT SHOWING FREIGHT RATES ON VARIOUS COMMODITIES FROM TORONTO, ONT. TO WINNIPEG, MAN., REGINA, SASK., EDMONTON, ALTA. AND VANCOUVER, B.C. IN EFFECT ON THE 1st OF FEBRUARY, 1945, 1950 and 1953.
Rates in cents per one hundred pounds
COMMODITY	TORONTO, ONT.	Feb. 1,	Feb. 1,	Feb. 1,TO	1945	1950	1953Boots and shoes, leather in boxes.	267	349	477Regina, Sask	358	468	640Edmonton, Alta	453	592	812Vancouver, B.C	487	710	974Carloads,	178	232	315Regina, Sask	241	315	430Edmonton, Alta	303	396	541Vancouver, B.C	305	424	541Blankets, cotton or cotton shoddy, also	certain other dry goods.	267	349	477Regina, Sask	358	408	640Edmonton, Alta	453	592	812Vancouver, B.C	375	710	974Carloads.	267	349	477Regina, Sask	.358	468	563Edmonton, Alta	424	592	563Vancouver, B.C	175	331	422Nails, iron or steel.	138	180	243Regina, Sask	185	242	329Edmonton, Alta	233	305	414Vancouver, B.C	31)0	361	492Carloads.	114	149	200Regina, Sask	155	203	275Edmonton, Alta	198	259	352301Vancouver, B.C	125	177	226minimum weight 30,000 lbs	Vancouver, B.C	150	274	350

Position of Agricultural Industry
STATEMENT SHOWING FREIGHT RATES ON VARIOUS COMMODITIES FROM TORONTO, ONT TO WINNIPEG, MAN.. REGINA, SASK., EDMONTON, ALTA. AND VANCOUVER, B.C. IN EFFECT ON THE 1st OF FEBRUARY, 1945, 1950 and 1953.-Continued
Rates in cents per one hundred pounds
COMMODITY	TORONTO, ONT. TO	Feb. 1, 1945	Feb. 1, 1950	Feb. 1, 1953
Canned goods.				
178	232	215Regina, Sask	241	315	430Edmonton, Alta	303	396	541Vancouver, B.C	358	464	608Carloads.	114	149	900Regina, Sask	155	203	275Edmonton, Alta	198	259	352Vancouver, B.C	242	312	426321	Vancouver, B.C	150	209	205	Edmonton, Alta	194	252	Vancouver, B.C	90	140	minimum weight 70,000 lbs	276Vancouver, B.C	-	-	207Barbed wire.	138	180	Regina, Sask	185	242	329Edmonton, Alta	233	305	414Vancouver, B.C	281	361	492Carloads.	minimum weight 30,000 lbs	271Vancouver, B.C	125	218	278minimum weight 36,000 lbs	114	149	Regina, Sask	155	203	275Edmonton, Alta	198	259	352minimum weight 50,000 lbs	mn	minimum weight 80,000 lbs	Edmonton, Alta	193	261Vancouver, B.C	95	132	196Electrical appliances, viz. washing	machines.	Less carloads (with metal tubs)	267	24Q	Regina, Sask	358	468	640Edmonton, Alta	453	592	812Vancouver, B.C	552	710	974Carloads.	minimum weight 20,000 lbs	114	149	Regina, Sask	155	203	275Edmonton, Alta	198	259	352minimum weight 24,000 lbs	Vancouver, B.C	185	289	443Refrigerators.	267	Regina, Sask	358	468	640Edmonton, Alta	453	592	812Vancouver, B.C	552	710	974Carloads.	minimum weight 20,000 lbs	138	180	Regina, Sask	185	242	329Edmonton, Alta	233	305	414Vancouver, B.C	184	310	396
Position of Agricultural Industry
STATEMENT SHOWING FREIGHT RATES ON VARIOUS COMMODITIES FROM TORONTO, ONT. TO WINNIPEG, MAN., REGINA, SASK., EDMONTON, ALTA. AND VANCOUVER, B.C. IN EFFECT ON THE 1st OF FEBRUARY, 1945, 1950 and 1953-concluded.
Rates in cents per one hundred pounds
COMMODITY	TORONTO, ONT. TO	Feb. 1, 1945	Feb. 1, 1950	Feb. 1, 1953
Ranges-cooking.				
222	291	396(knocked down or set up without	Regina, Sask	298	390	533legs attached)	Edmonton, Alta	376	491	674Vancouver, B.C	453	584	800Carloads.	138	180	243Regina, Sask	185	242	329Edmonton, Alta	
Vancouver, B.C	233	305 361	492225	minimum weight 30,000 lbs	Vancouver, B.C	197	274	350Agricultural implements, other than	hand, viz:	Binders, harvesters, mowers, or reapers,	combined or separate, other than	bean, beet and corn harvesters and	cornbinders.	222	291	396Regina, Sask	298	390	533Edmonton, Alta	376	491	674Vancouver, B.C	453	584	800Agricultural implements, other than	hand.	Carloads.	82|	108	175Regina, Sask	128	167	242Edmonton, Alta	163*	214	317Vancouver, B.C	-	-	384274	minimum weight 36,000 lbs	Vancouver, B.C	185	-Automobiles, passenger.	Less carloads, actual weight subject	Winnipeg, Man	267	349	477to a minimum weight of 5,000 lbs.	Regina, Sask	358	468	640each.	Edmonton, Alta	453	592	812Vancouver, B.C	552	710	974Carloads.	267	349	363Regina, Sask	358	468	488Edmonton, Alta	453	592	617Vancouver, B.C	528	710	734Freight.	Less carloads. Actual weight subject	Winnipeg, Man	267	349	477to a minimum weight of 5,000 lbs.	Regina Sask.,	358	468	640each.	Edmonton, Alta	453	592	812Vancouver, B.C	552	710	974Carloads.	minimum weight 10,000 lbs., except	Winnipeg, Man	222	291	363as noted.	Regina, Sask	298	390	488Edmonton, Alta	376	491	617Vancouver, B.C	446	584	734(A)	334	-(A) Minimum weight 14,000 lbs.	

The above return will show that in some cases there is an increase of more than 100 per cent in freight rates over these years, and I think something should be done about that situation. Every time the railways take a notion that they should have another freight rate increase they make the necessary application and invariably it is granted. I think some further consideration should be given before any more freight rate increases are granted to the railways. There are other methods by which they can keep within their budgets.
We have been told that Canada's agricultural industry is in a very prosperous condition. I do not entirely agree with that statement, because when we analyse some of the conditions which exist today we find that the picture will not bear it out. Some of the reasons for the apparent prosperity in Canada might be summed up as follows. First, we had heavy grain crops in 1951 and 1952. Prices, of course, have not been climbing; they have been falling, and that has something to do with our not getting better returns from our grain. The crop in 1952, I might say, was the best we have ever had in western Canada, and the resulting prosperity is reflected all over Canada. Again, we had good prices for beef but those prices, I am sorry to say, have slipped. They have skidded; and apparently that skidding has not yet stopped. We had fairly good floor prices for hogs but farmers in all provinces of Canada are not satisfied that the prospects are good for raising hogs in 1953 because, in all provinces except the one from which I come, Alberta, the production of hogs has decreased. I do not know but I believe that help in the form of floor prices will be required to bolster prices of that commodity.
In my opinion the future for agriculture is not as bright as it might be. I see that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is in his seat so I will say that I believe his intentions are good, but I do not think his colleagues in the cabinet have yet learned the importance of agriculture in this country.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has lived in Saskatchewan for a number of years, and he has had a picture of agriculture in that particular area. Apparently he has not been able to convince his colleagues that certain things should be done. I know he has been trying, but if he has not been successful then perhaps other members of the house may be able to give him some assistance. At a meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in Montreal a little over a year ago the minister, in effect, told that gathering that they should not increase production of certain farm products. I believe that was
Position of Agricultural Industry sound advice because he realized, as many of us did, that there was no market for increased production. In case anyone should get false ideas about conditions today, all they have to do is read the speech the Minister of Agriculture made a short time ago to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in Victoria in which, according to newspaper reports, he told the farmers that they should cut down production in order to keep prices at a remunerative level.
With conditions as they are, as I pointed out before; with millions of people in this world going to bed hungry every night, I think a policy of that sort is criminal and should not be allowed to exist. By supporting reasonable and equitable floor prices for our products, at perhaps a smaller cost to the country than most of us imagine, we could increase our production. The president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Mr. Hannam, feels the same way the minister does about this problem. I think it is about time those in responsible positions on the government benches took this problem to heart and did something realistic about it.
The minister does not seem to like the word "parity". I do not know why he has a distaste for it, but he does not seem to like it. Some short time ago he told us that in place of parity the government would see to it that the farmers got prices comparable to those which were received in the years 1943, 1944 and 1945. According to the figures from the bureau of statistics, we find that the prices paid do not measure up to that promise. Even though we have floor prices provided which do not measure up to the prices which existed in the periods mentioned, they are mainly for the protection of the packers and the producers do not get much benefit at the point of delivery.
On March 5 the Minister of Agriculture made another speech. I am surprised that he made it, because he must not expect many people are gullible enough to swallow the statements he made. He compared the six years after the war with the six years before the war, and that certainly was not fair. He realizes, just as all of us here do, that the six years before the war were still in the depths of the depression. So far as the wheat grower of western Canada is concerned, he stayed in that depression until August, 1943. I believe that is the time our initial price was raised above 70 cents per bushel. Before that time we had heavy taxation levied, and we are still groaning under that burden. The six years after the war were years of prosperity brought about by the war and by preparations for, and the fighting of, the present

Position of Agricultural Industry undeclared war. It is a war, even though it is not declared. The fellows who are over there in the trenches, suffering through snowstorms and other hardships, realize that it is a war. We should recognize that and treat those people accordingly.
Up to the present there has -been no attempt to devise any effective remedy. That is a mistake, because it is affecting the whole economy of our country. According to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) 1951 was the best year we have had, and at that time nearly 25 per cent of the population of Canada was on the land. In that year this 25 per cent received only 9 [DOT] 95 per cent of the national income. I ask the government whether that is a fair percentage of the national income for the farmers to receive. These people work, in some seasons of the year, not 8 hours a day but 16 hours, and in some cases more than that because help is not to be had. In 1952 we had over 20 per cent of the population on the land, and those people received only a little over 13 per cent of the national income. There must be some reason for the reduction in the population on the land, and I believe that is because in other lines of industry there are better pay, better working conditions, pensions and so forth. The result is that we have not the farm population which a country like Canada could support if we had proper agricultural policies laid down and administered.
Before the dinner recess I was dealing to some extent with agricultural prices in the United States. In the Western Producer of September 24 last, under the heading "Support price set at $2.21 a bushel for 1953 United States wheat crop," I find this:
A national average support price of not less than $2.21 a bushel for the 1953 United States wheat crop was announced last week by secretary of agriculture Charles F. Brannan.
This is 90 per cent of the August, 1952, wheat parity price of $2.46. Support for the 1952 crop wheat, now eligible for loan and purchase agreement, is a national average of $2.20 a bushel.
A minimum price support is announced at this time in accordance with the ''forward pricing" provisions of the Agricultural Act of 1949. If the wheat parity price as of July 1, 1953, is higher, the support level will be increased to reflect 90 per cent of the wheat parity price at that time. In no event will the support be lower than the $2.21 national average announced.
The 1953 crop wheat will be supported through farm storage and warehouse storage loans and by the offer of the Commodity Credit Corporation to purchase wheat delivered by producers under purchase agreements. Loans and purchase agreements will be available from time of harvest through January 31, 1952. The loans will mature April 30, 1954, or earlier on demand.
At the time the election campaign in the United States was being waged many people were worried about agricultural policy if a

new administration were elected. Since the election, however, President Eisenhower has stated that they will continue the present parity price program until 1954, when they will carry not only 90 per cent of parity but will increase that to 100 per cent. I think that Canada could take a leaf out of the book of the government of the United States in that connection.
At the present time we have the wheat importing and exporting countries meeting in Washington to consider the signing of a new international wheat agreement. Only this morning I read that the exporters want $2.10 a bushel, while the importers are only prepared to pay $1.95. We do not know what the outcome of that struggle will be. So far as this group is concerned, we favour an international wheat agreement. We do not, however, favour sacrificing price in order to have an agreement. We must have a price that will give our wheat producers enough to cover the cost of production and something besides, because all other groups in the country are getting that.
If the wheat agreement should not be completed, I feel that we must continue the Canadian wheat board in operation. Regardless of whether or not the agreement is signed, the wheat board must not be allowed to go out of business because, in my opinion, that board is the last hope of the farmers.
We in this group feel that we should have parity prices for agricultural products. If the crumbling set-up that we have today will not provide them-and 1 think two or three years ago in London the Minister of Agriculture made some extremely critical remarks about those controlling our money system-there is another method that will provide parity prices, just prices, for all the commodities we can produce here. By providing them, we can provide not only for our agriculturists but for all in Canada the best that it is possible for the country to produce, and let them enjoy it in peace and without having to fight wars in order to bring us out of slumps, as we have seen on three different occasions since I came to this country less than forty years ago.


Mr. F. H. Larson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I wish to touch on and that is the question of the sale of our wheat. The farmers in western Canada, long before I had any interest in farming, were looking for stable wheat prices. We came out of the first great war with rather high wheat prices, and we enjoyed an era of prosperity. Then during the early twenties they declined, and in the late twenties we had good wheat marketing again. Then in the early thirties we had a carryover of millions of bushels of wheat-I would say hundreds of millions of

bushels-in this country which we could not sell at any price. That situation was cured to some extent by the second war when a goodly number of countries were out of production, and we did see a gradual rise in the world wheat market.
Then after the second world war we started to market in bulk. A goodly number of the countries of the world felt that bulk wheat marketing was the way they wanted to do their wheat marketing; and we accommodated the world market by instituting a system of bulk marketing here. The farmers and the farm organizations with whom I have been acquainted feel that, as far as they are concerned, we in this country should continue a system of bulk wheat marketing through the board.
When the Saskatchewan wheat pool and the other pools were formed, the chief reason for their existence was that the farmers wanted a steady, stable price for wheat at any time they wished to deliver it. The reason they desired that condition was this. When the average farmer gets ready to pay his year's bills in the fall, his wheat is forced on the market; he has to sell it. World wheat buyers know that when there is a forced sale, the price will naturally be low. Then during the spring, when the farmer had no more wheat left to sell, the price of wheat goes up. The relatively high market that might prevail in the spring was never available to the average farmer because he sold his wheat at a low price in the fall.
As we got into the period of world war II and set up the Canadian wheat board, we got an entirely new conception. We had the wheat pools trying to do this before. The Saskatchewan wheat pool got into a great deal of trouble in trying to finance the Saskatchewan crop. Then during the war, with the Canadian wheat board we got into a position where the Dominion of Canada was prepared to finance the wheat crop, and that was much more satisfactory to the farmers than the condition we had had before. We sold wheat, millions and millions of bushels of it, on the world wheat market at a fair high price.
In Saskatchewan and in western Canada as a whole, if we want to exist we have to sell a large volume of wheat. Wheat is the best commodity for us to produce. It is durable; it is easy to handle; it is cheap to ship, and it is the ideal commodity for us to grow. We should continue to stress that volume is the main thing we are after in the handling of this foodstuff.
We in western Canada normally grow some 350 million bushels of wheat every year. In 1952 we grew some 600 million
Position of Agricultural Industry bushels of wheat. At the present time the amount in store in the world is as follows. In Canada we have some 550 million bushels of wheat. In the United States they have nearly 750 million bushels. In Australia and the Argentine they have another few hundred million bushels. This makes a total on the world market at the present time of something over 1,400 million bushels of wheat.
At the present time we have our representatives sitting down in Washington trying to get another world wheat agreement. The people who are buying this wheat, especially the British, know perfectly well that this overhang on the world market is there. It cannot be explained away. The figures are right out in the open, and they know it is there. The British feel that, if we have no further wheat agreement, we might get back to the old system under which, if they bought wheat at the proper time, they would get it at a good cheap price; and a goodly number of the other importing countries know the same thing.
As long as we retain our wheat board and other selling countries deal in bulk, we have a certain advantage. The people of these various countries are financing the carryover of this wheat. But we can push that advantage just so far. The people of Canada are certainly not going to maintain a carryover of 550 million bushels of wheat in Canada for X number of years, and finance it. We have to put that wheat on the market.
So we come to dealing in price. I am a farmer and I certainly would like to see the highest possible price we can get. But on the other hand, as a farmer I certainly do not want to go back to the position of the thirties, where we demand a price that the importing countries are not prepared to pay and we keep our wheat in our elevators. That is no good to anybody. We are not even doing our duty because all over the world there are hungry mouths that want to eat wheat and wheat flour. It is our duty as a nation to see that we put that wheat in those peoples' mouths, at prices they can afford to pay. I certainly would not be a party to saying that we have to have $2.05, as was suggested here once this afternoon, or $2.17 or some other price, and that if we did not get it we would not sign the wheat agreement and we would not put wheat on the world market; because by doing so we would get ourselves caught in exactly the same trap in which we got ourselves caught in the thirties.
I have heard plenty of people say that the farmers of western Canada have lost millions and millions of dollars, or hundreds of
3216	HOUSE OF
Position of Agricultural Industry millions of dollars. Then they have compared our position to the United States position. The Americans eat 80 per cent of the wheat they grow; we have to sell 80 per cent of ours on the world market, and we have to be amenable to the conditions of the world market at the time.
I know perfectly well from the correspondence I get and from information I have received that the farmers in my constituency want to retain the wheat board. They have not been impressed by the arguments we have heard in the house and in other places against that board.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Where did you hear it?


Frederick Hugo Larson: From not very far away. The farmers also know that if we are going to retain the wheat board and if the people of Canada are going to continue to support it, then we are going to have to do it by getting a world wheat agreement. And we have to get that world wheat agreement at a price that importing nations are prepared to pay. I am certainly in favour of getting the highest possible price; but on the other hand I, as the member for Kindersley, would certainly not be prepared to take the responsibility for setting prices on our wheat at a point where we could not get the wheat agreement, or could not retain the wheat board.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, hon. members who have spoken so far in this debate have emphasized the contention that agricultural conditions and prices ought to be discussed at this particular time. I do not know just why they have conceived that idea all at once, particularly in view of the intimation by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair), who spoke a few moments ago on behalf of the Social Credit party, that this was the third time he had made a similar speech this session.


Robert Fair: Just a minute. I said I got up three times.


James Arthur Ross: Three times this afternoon.


An hon. Member:: That is worse.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; that is even worse than I thought it was.


Robert Fair: There was a little obstruction, that is all.


James Garfield Gardiner: Nevertheless, it is about the third time similar speeches have been made by hon. members at this session. Therefore I cannot conceive of any good reason why it should be done again today, particularly
(Mr. Larson.1

in view of the fact that it is only a short time until we must have two occasions upon which we can discuss agricultural prices, and do so without interfering in any way with the general desire of the house to get along with the business.
One of those occasions is when the supplementary estimates for this year will be under consideration. A very considerable part of those estimates relate to agriculture, and have to do with this particular matter of prices. Another occasion will be when the estimates for the department are being considered. And if it requires even a third occasion, in all probability there will be further supplementary estimates for the coming year.
In other words we do not expect to be in session all summer. As a matter of fact I think it is anticipated by most hon. members that we will not be in session very long. And since we have three opportunities between now and the end of the session to discuss agricultural matters, I cannot conceive of any good reason why we ought to be discussing such matters at this time. So if hon. members had not been in the frame of mind where they thought it necessary to say some of the things they have said, I would not be making a speech this evening on this question.
Then again, I noticed that during the afternoon the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) was very busy, I presume organizing the debate for the afternoon and evening; because as each one on the other side of the house was interviewed he seemed to think it was necessary to make a speech, and got up and made one. The hon. member is free to do that if he so desires; but the thing that surprises me is that I have in my hand a letter he sent to his constituents. It was sent to me by a gentleman from out there who seems to think I ought to be informed as to what the hon. member is sending to his constituents. As a matter of fact I was familiar with some of this information before, because he has discussed some of these matters in the house. However, his letter contains some statements which have a bearing upon what we are discussing this evening. He says:
Dear Friend:
Saskatchewan's representation has been reduced from 20 to 17 members of parliament: but when Saskatchewan has only 17 members out of a total of 265 it is more essential than ever that each of those 17 members be a spokesman for the west.
I believe as a western member it is my duty to fight with courage, vigour and persistence, on your behalf. In carrying out this conviction some members have said "You talk too much" but let me tell you that as long as I am your member I will take second place to no one as a strong champion of the west.

And then his next paragraph:
I am enclosing information on farm income tax, and also a record of how the members voted on a number of motions of great importance to the people of Saskatchewan. While these motions did not receive the support that I suggested they deserved, nevertheless by pressing for better agricultural policies we have obtained some important concessions from the government.
For example, final payments for wheat, oats and barley are now being made a few months after the close of each crop year. We have also secured the continuance of the wheat board as the marketing agency for wheat and coarse grains.
If we are to achieve stability in livestock marketing we need a livestock board, a board of livestock commissioners and new trade policies to regain the British market. If a handful of members fighting for the west are able to secure valuable stability in grain marketing, a larger number of such members will be the best guarantee that stability will be obtained for the livestock industry.
Well, my hon. friend seems to think he has done such a good job in promoting the welfare of agriculture that I can hardly conceive of a good reason why he should have been so busy this afternoon working to organize a debate in which it is suggested that farmers are not doing very well. I am inclined to agree pretty well with what the letter says, in so far as stating the position in relation to agriculture is concerned; but I am not in agreement with the hon. member when he says that he has accomplished all these things.


Hazen Robert Argue: I did not say that.


James Garfield Gardiner: And I am quite sure that even the gentleman who sent this letter in to me and who happens to be a voter in his constituency, did not agree with it either. I will probably find that a great many others are in much the same classification.
I listened this afternoon to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). He quoted from a speech which I made in 1945. I might take up the time of the house in order to quote from some speeches which he made.


An hon. Member:: Oh, don't do that.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I am not going to do that. If I were in the mood to do so I might quote speeches that have been made by some C.C.F. members, or probably I should say by those who used to be C.C.F. members in this house. The reason that speech was made in 1945 was that we were having an election, and the reason the other speeches were made in 1945 was the same.
I was suggesting to farmers at the time that they had not done too badly under a Liberal government from the time the war had started down to 1945. As a matter of fact I said to them what has been suggested by hon. members on a number of occasions,
Position of Agricultural Industry that if after putting us in they found that by the end of the four or five-year period it was proved to them that the statements made by our opponents to the effect that prices were going to go down and down were not wrong, I probably would not be a candidate four years later.
You know what happened in Saskatchewan. We had 19 out of 21 members ejected at that time in opposition to the government. Then we had four years' experience with the speech which I made and the speeches which my friends opposite made; at the end of that time we had 20 members instead of 21 from the province, and we elected 14 of them. Why? Because the farmers and others in Saskatchewan realized that the statements made in 1945 by us were correct, that every year from 1945 to 1949 there was a continuous increase in the prices obtained for farm products and not the reductions that had been prophesied by those of the opposition who were making speeches at that time.
I have no doubt that the prices of farm products will go up and come down from time to time. It will be possible to take different years when they are down and compare them with other years, just as it is possible to say that prices were down in 1952 as compared with 1951 and that they are probably down slightly again on some products in 1953 as compared with 1952. But when one takes the prices of farm products over a period of years and considers what is happening in relation to them it is absolutely impossible to show from any set of statistics that agricultural prices have been going down in the years since the war.
That is not the case. Agricultural prices for any period of years up to three that one wishes to take and compare with the last three years, let us say, of the war or the first three years after the war, have been going higher and higher in each period. It is just as true to say that the prices of everything else have been going higher and higher.
I am quite sure that if that were not right there would be a lot more people kicking in this country than there are at the present time. The fact of the matter is that what is needed in this or any other country is a set of returns for labour, for primary products and for food products which compare favourably. If one set of prices is rising it is good to have the other prices rising at the same time. If they rise comparably there is not very much to kick about.
All of us will be getting along fairly well. The only time the farmer can get along fairly well is when we have a condition vice versa to what has been described this afternoon by every speaker. Everyone who has got up

Position of Agricultural Industry has said that if we are going to have good times in this country, the farmer must be doing well. I am going to reverse that and say that if the farmer is going to be able to do well, everybody else has to be doing well. After all, what the farmer does is produce food and clothing for people. If the people are able to feed themselves reasonably well and clothe themselves reasonably well, if they can pay for the food and clothing that they eat and wear, then the farmers are going to do all right. As the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Her-ridge) who started this debate this afternoon said, we are all interdependent in a country like Canada; we depend upon one another for the prosperity which we have. If those who are producing food products are going to be prosperous we must have the other people in the country doing fairly well on the wages they get.
I agree with the hon. member when he says that there is a great deal in common between labouring and farm people. If one group is going to be able to get along well the other must be able to get along well. Most of the people who live in Canada are either farmers or labouring people. All of them eat food. We can only have reasonably good prices for our farm products when the greater part of our population is able to pay reasonably good prices.
But our friends opposite seem to think that the principal method by which you can check whether prices are good or bad is on what they call a parity basis. The only objection I have to the word "parity" is that I seldom know what people mean when they use it.


An hon. Member:: They don't, either.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not understand what they are really talking about when they use the word. When I am discussing it I try to use terms which are a little different. As someone said this evening, I have said that I do not like the word "parity". I think it was the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) who said that. When I am explaining what I am speaking about I prefer to say that prices bear a reasonable relationship to the cost of the commodity.
In a few words that is what is meant; but even if we do take the word which my friends like to use, I would say that this evening and at other times they spend the greater part of their time in contending that we should have parity prices and then arguing that it should be the same as they have in the United States. Parity prices are always based upon some particular period of time. The United States took 1909-14 and they considered the conditions in the United States,

not in Canada or in Great Britain or somewhere else. They figured out their parity upon that basis.
At the time of a farm meeting in Niagara Falls three or four years ago we had a long discussion on this matter. One of the experts on matters of this kind who were there was Dr. Hope. There was present another expert on the same line from the United States; I think his name was Galbraith. There were others as well. Finally they all agreed that a parity based upon 1943, 1944 and 1945 would be much more in the interests of farmers in both countries than a parity based upon 1909 to 1914.
Our support prices and the price levels which result from the fact that we have support prices are based upon 1943, 1944 and 1945, as hon. members know and understand. Taking those and dealing with them in the same way the Americans do, United States support is 90 per cent of parity based upon 1909-14. Parity based upon 1943-45 would be much more helpful to farmers in that country and this country. One of the difficulties that some people find in connection with the matters is that they look at our price support and say that it is lower than United States price support. They say ours has not as high a parity value. As a matter of fact that is not what the experts say about it and it is not what they think about it, either.
Therefore I should like to point out what the position is in Canada, taking 90 per cent of parity based upon the three years I have mentioned with reference to Canadian prices and applying it to the last three years. The support price of butter was 58 cents a pound, No. 1, Montreal. The price obtained for butter was 61-6 cents a pound. Ninety per cent of parity would have been 56 cents. In other words, over the last three years the farm population has had a price 5 [DOT] 6 cents above parity worked out on the same basis in Canada, taking 1943, 1944 and 1945 as the basis.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if I might ask the minister a question. In his calculation of the parity price, has his 1943-45 base been adjusted upward to take care of the 60 point increase in the dominion bureau of statistics cost of production index?


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, all that is considered in arriving at any parity figure, and I assume our experts in Canada are just as good figurers as the same type of men in the United States. As a matter of fact the gentleman I spoke of a few moments ago was hired in Canada by the Americans and taken down there because they considered him a little better than anything they had at home. Therefore

I think our men probably do the figuring all right and take all the facts into consideration. When I say parity, it covers the same factors as in the United States.


Hazen Robert Argue: If I might ask another question, what increase was taken into account in the new parity price for butter because of the increased cost of production?


James Garfield Gardiner: We put the officials to work on it for us and this is the result of their work.


Hazen Robert Argue: There was no consideration given.


Mr. Sinnott:: Another false statement.


James Garfield Gardiner: The support price on hogs was $26 to $27 a hundredweight. The actual price received over the three years was $30.60 a hundredweight. Ninety per cent of parity would have been $23. There was no support price on cattle in those three years, 1949, 1950 and 1951, but there was in 1952. It was $25 a hundredweight at Toronto. The price received in those three years averaged $26.45 a hundredweight. Ninety per cent of parity would have been $15.20 a hundredweight. The support price for wheat in 1949, 1950 and 1951 was $1.40 a bushel. That was the initial payment. The actual price in the basic years averaged $1.53. The actual price received in 1949, 1950 and 1951 was $1.84 a bushel, basis No. 1 northern, Fort William.
I give these figures in order to indicate that we are not in a bad position in Canada even on a parity basis as related to people in other countries. So I would say that we are not doing ourselves or the country in general any particular good by shouting to the world all the time that this is really a bad country in which to be farming. This has not been a bad country in which to be farming during the last ten or twelve years. There were times when we experienced great difficulty, but we have not been experiencing as great difficulty in recent years. Every farmer in the house knows that. He is not fooling even himself when he gets up here and makes statements to the contrary.
As a matter of fact I was in the city of Regina about a week ago and addressed the most representative group of farmers that ever meets in Saskatchewan. The same type of farmer meets in other provinces. I refer to the municipal associations. The municipal association of Saskatchewan is an association representing over 300 municipalities, and those municipalities are all rural. There were 1,200 delegates from those municipalities, and I had the privilege of speaking to them. I made a statement to them that I am going to make here now, and all I got from them
Position of Agricultural Industry when I made it was applause. I said to them: Every one of you men, all of whom are levying and collecting taxes, knows that the farmers of this province are in a better position to pay their taxes at present than they ever were at any previous time. I am quite sure that all the people who were at the gathering were not Liberals, but so far as I could see they practically all applauded; and I do not know any reason why members of the opposition should not applaud now, because that is the fact. Not only in Saskatchewan but in every part of Canada farmers are in a better position at present to pay their taxes than ever before.
You know, the letter of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) which I quoted has a very amusing table on the back of it. It has to do with taxes, and it arrives at some conclusions by a very peculiar method.


An hon. Member:: A devious method.


James Garfield Gardiner: It takes a province like Saskatchewan, where 17 to 18 per cent of the farmers are able to pay income tax, figures out how much income tax they did pay, divides the farming population into the income tax they paid, and shows that on the average the farmers pay such and such. Then it takes the province of Quebec. Anybody who has ever travelled through the province of Quebec and through the province of Saskatchewan knows that by no stretch of the imagination could anything like the same percentage of farmers pay income tax in Quebec as do in Saskatchewan.
That is not saying anything which is detrimental to either Saskatchewan or Quebec. As I understand it, the average size farm in the province of Quebec is 65 acres. The average size farm in Saskatchewan is something approaching 300 acres. It is not the kind of farm that is talked about by some people in the house when they are discussing the west. They talk about the west as though we all lived on farms of anywhere from two sections up to ten sections. People are continuously talking that way, but as a matter of fact I believe that only about 1J per cent of the farmers of Saskatchewan live on farms that are two sections or more. We nearly all live on half-section farms, a half-section being 320 acres, and most of us who do not live on half-section farms live on three-quarter section farms. There are a great many fewer living on three-quarter section farms and, in any case, on an average the cultivated acreage of farms in Saskatchewan is something under 300 acres.
The greater number of those who pay the income tax that is spoken of are the com-
3220	HOUSE OF
Position of Agricultural Industry paratively few who live on the greater acreages. I would say that the comparison which ought to be made between Saskatchewan and Quebec is the comparison between the farmer who lives on a half section in the west and the farmer who lives on 3 100-acre farm in the province of Quebec. I think the same kind of comparison would be absolutely fair as between the farmer living in Ontario and the farmer living in the western part of Canada.
If one really wanted to make out a table which would indicate what the relationships are as between the farmers of the east and the farmers of the west, I think one would be able to show that about 90 per cent of the farmers in the eastern part of Canada do not make enough to pay income tax at all. I think it would also be found, as far as those in western Canada are concerned, that on an average not more than 15 per cent of the western farmers have sufficient income to be able to pay income tax.


Mr. Wrighi:: I thought you said the farmers were prosperous.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend will have a chance to prove whether my statements are correct when he and I meet in the election campaign.


James Arthur Ross: They won't have 14 members back from Saskatchewan.


James Garfield Gardiner: There will be enough to make it quite interesting for you; and we will get some help from Manitoba, too, following the next campaign.
I was saying that, in so far as the west is concerned, if the percentages were taken I think it would be found that there is not as great a difference between the incomes of people living in the west and people living in the east as some members try to make out.
At the risk of having what I say repeated to my own constituents by my friend from Melfort (Mr. Wright) when he comes down to visit my people, as he does occasionally-


James Arthur Ross: When he represents them.


James Garfield Gardiner: -I am going to take a chance and say here what I have said all over my constituency anyway, so he cannot give them any information from what I am saying now.
In my first session here in the house I was listening to members on the other side talking about all the things that were being done for the west and how the new Minister of Agriculture from the west was asking the government to do this, and asking the government to do that, and getting a lot of it


done. The suggestion then was that there was nothing being done for the east. Well, I thought I would settle those fellows in short order, so I went over to the department and asked them to dig out all the statistics which would indicate the amount of income of farmers in eastern Canada as compared with the income of farmers in western Canada. Remember, too, that this' was in the worst depression years, the worst years we ever had in western Canada. It was in the midst of the thirties, when we were handing out relief here, there and everywhere.
Well, I had the figures sent to me. I was sitting just a few feet from my present seat, but I did not use the figures. The reason I did not use them was that they did not prove what I thought they would prove. On the contrary, they showed that western farmers, man for man and woman for woman, were getting more income in the worst of the depression years than farmers in other parts of Canada were getting. I found it difficult to believe at that time, but I have been following the figures ever since and I am still prepared to say that farmers who live in the prairie provinces are doing at least as well as farmers in any other part of Canada. There are some reasons why that is so, and some of those reasons are emphasized by statements made here this afternoon but which are not fully understood.
One after another, members have been saying that we have been losing markets. Well, on an average in each of the last three years we produced five million tons more food than was produced on our farms in each of the last three years of the war. Food production is the highest in our experience. The reason for the increase is to be found in the fact that the only part of the Dominion of Canada that produces more food than it can eat is the prairie provinces. The maritime provinces produce more potatoes and apples than they can eat, but that is about all. The province of British Columbia produces more apples and in some years more eggs than it can consume. The province of Ontario eats its own staple products and the greater part of its special products. Tobacco is a special product which is not consumed at home, much of it being shipped out of Canada. The greater part of their other products, if not all of them, on balance, are consumed within the province. One product that in the past was not consumed in the province was cheese but in the last year Ontario ate practically all the cheese it produced too. They do not eat quite all of it; they ship some of it west and

we help them to eat it; but certainly it can all be consumed in Canada and consumed easily.
Generally speaking, the two central provinces are not able to produce enough staple products for their market; at least they do not do so, though maybe they could if no one else produced those products for them. Therefore one of the best markets that we have from the prairies for farm products is Montreal. Another is Toronto, and other markets are to be found in the smaller cities scattered here and there over those two great provinces. When there is not a sufficient market here in Ontario and Quebec we go eastward to Halifax and sell those people the things they require, mainly butter and meat. If we cannot find sufficient markets in those eastern provinces we then go westward into British Columbia and supply the markets which are there.
My friends are fond of saying that we have lost the British market. Well, I said earlier that I do not think we lost it. Somebody just cancelled us out of it, and I am not going into that question again. However, we have not been selling much in that market since 1948, as mentioned this afternoon by my hon. friend from Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he spoke about the marketing of bacon. Since that time we have not been marketing food products in Britain because Britain told us in so many words that she was not going to buy from us.
There is no use arguing about the question. Go ask any top official of the Department of Finance, the Department of Agriculture, or the Department of Trade and Commerce, and I think they will all feel more or less free to answer your question. Go and ask any one of them what the British told us in 1947 with regard to buying food in this country. I am not going to be critical of the British because they told us-


John George Diefenbaker: What did they say?


James Garfield Gardiner: They said they did not want any of our food products except wheat.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Because they did not have the dollars to pay for them.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not talking about the reason. That is what they said.


James Arthur Ross: It is quite a factor.


James Garfield Gardiner: My friend says it is quite a factor. How much does he think it amounts to?


Mr. Sluder:: He would not know.


James Garfield Gardiner: In the year in which the British were cutting the amount down so low, reducing what we had been marketing to
Position of Agricultural Industry almost nothing, by cutting it as much as we could we said it would cost $30 million for the whole thing. They were inclined to agree that perhaps they might do that. When we got it worked out and got the whole transaction completed, it would have cost them only $15 million to have done the job for one more year. They did not think it was advisable to spend the $15 million for another year. That is not much money to a nation as big as Britain, but Britain had a policy which she was following and which she is still following. It was not our business whether or not she was going to take food, other than that we did not like it and we thought we would like to go on marketing food there. When she said no, we said all right; we will try to develop markets which will take care of any difficulties we experience as a result of the fact that Britain is not going to take that kind of food from us.


John George Diefenbaker: What were the products in the $15 million?


James Garfield Gardiner: There was some bacon, some cheese and some apples, that was about the limit at the time. However, that is an indication of how really small it was. At that time, in order to take care of any products we had, we thought it was advisable, just as members of the opposition thought it would have been advisable, to get products into the market and have the British accustomed to using them. We were told quite frankly that they preferred not to have them.
We started out to do a job under the conditions which existed, and in doing that job we developed the Canadian market as much as we could. It was developed in ways which were not particularly designed to increase the market. We would have paid family allowances no matter what market conditions had been. We would have paid old age pensions no matter what conditions had been. The fact that that kind of payments were made, however, did help in this market. Then the fact that our population has increased by 2 million since the end of the war has helped provide markets for farm products within this country.
Then, too, we had a rather favourable condition which developed when the United States took all the surplus beef we had. It did not matter how much it was, they were prepared to take it. I think members opposite might have emphasized a little more why we had any difficulties in connection with beef or pork during the past year. Any difficulties we did have were due to the fact that we had foot-and-mouth disease. The feature which comes out of that, and to which none of the members on the opposition side seem to pay any attention whatever, is that we went through twelve months of combating

Position of Agricultural Industry foot-and-mouth disease and the difficulty that resulted from an embargo being placed against our products in our best markets, and after we had that foot-and-mouth disease for a full year the prices of the cattle were higher in Canada than they were in the United States. We had foot-and-mouth disease, and they did not have foot-and-mouth disease. Their price was 5 cents higher than ours when the disease started, and at the end of the year we were getting so much for our beef in Canada that some people thought it would be a good thing to ship United States cattle in here to take the place of Canadian cattle.
I am going to say that, to the credit of the trade, this practice did not continue for more than one week. This indicates to me that there are people in the packing industry, and in the trade generally, who think pretty much in the same terms as the farmer. After that practice had been followed for a few days it was discontinued. So far as I know, it has not been renewed during the last week or ten days. I repeat that that indicates it is not only dollars and cents that men are thinking about. There may be a few who take that attitude, but apparently the majority finally ruled. As you look at the newspapers from day to day, you find that if there is any difference between the price on the United States side and the price on this side, the price is a little better on this side.
I just say once more that that is something worth remembering when we are talking about conditions that have developed in this country in relation to agriculture during the last year. It does indicate, Mr. Speaker, that the support prices we have had in this country have been effective. They have produced the results which we were hoping they would. This afternoon when my friend said that back in 1945 I had told the farmers that certain things happened at the end of the first war, he did not repeat all the speech I made. Perhaps there was a reason for that. It would have taken him too long.


John George Diefenbaker: Are you referring to me?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not refer to any statement made after the first war. I referred to a statement in regard to the fall of wheat prices in 1932.


James Garfield Gardiner: The statement was made that I said that during the campaign in 1945.


John George Diefenbaker: It was in 1945, but not during the campaign.


James Garfield Gardiner: But the speech was made the first time during the campaign. It may

have been made after as well, but there was not very much of 1945 left after the war was over. I spent a considerable part of the time over in Europe, so most of the speeches I made in 1945 were during the election campaign. In that speech I did call attention to the fact that we had difficulties at the end of the first war, and I noted that many of us, as farmers, were actually either put off our farms or put in a position where we did not overcome the debts we incurred until we were into the next war. The farmers listened to that. As my friend knows, they did not vote for us in 1945 but they looked on for another four years. Then they realized that we had not allowed the thing to happen after this war that happened after the previous war. They had gone on for four years, and in every one of those four years they got better returns than in the previous year.
By 1948, which was the year before the next election campaign, we had twice as much cash income on our farms in Canada as we had in 1944, which was the year before I was making the speech to which my hon. friend referred. Those facts are known all across Canada. It is known that agriculture has improved in this country over the years, and no amount of talking by members of the opposition is going to convince the farmer otherwise. He knows his position is better. All he has to do is take a look at his accounts. As Sir Wilfrid used to say when he was speaking in this house, "All they need to do in order to find the difference is to put their hands in their pockets". Any farmer in any part of Canada today can prove what I have been saying in the last few minutes by simply putting his hand in his pocket and remembering at the same time where he was back in the early part of the thirties before this government came into power.


Gordon Graydon: He will find Mr. Abbott is there ahead of him.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; he will find Mr. Abbott is there. But when a man can allow another man to put his hand in his pocket and still have considerable left after he has had it in, he feels a great deal better than when there is nothing there at all. It is no doubt true that we are collecting more taxes at the present time. So long as you can collect them and so long as the money is there to get them from, there is not the same kind of difficulty in the country as there was when we went out and tried to collect taxes when the farmer did not have anything to pay them with. And when the farmer did not have anything to pay them with, just as my friend the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) said, the businessman did not have much to pay his taxes with either.

The reason we are all in a better position today is that the farmer is getting better returns. Well, perhaps I should not say that is the whole reason, because the fisherman is getting better returns, as is the miner, the lumberman and the man who is working on the railway. Someone on the opposite side of the house this afternoon said that the man who is working on the railway is getting 100 per cent more than he got a few years ago. Someone else said the freight rates are up 100 per cent as compared with what they were a few years ago. Mr. Speaker, if we are able to pay the bill as we go along, all that means is that this country is more prosperous at present than it ever was before. Everyone who lives in it knows that is true.
As far as farmers are concerned, someone said something about what farmers are getting from meat prices, and how much better off we would be if we had the conditions that obtain in some other country in order to market meat. May I say that we have the best meat prices in the world. A little while ago we had to exempt the United States from that statement, but now we do not even have to do that. What other kind of system we could have in this country that would give us any better prices than are in existence anywhere else, I do not know. It certainly could not be wider markets, because if you had to take the prices they are getting in other parts of the world for the commodity, then you would not have a better price than you have at present in Canada.
When I have made that statement on past occasions my hon. friends opposite have read only part of what I have had to say. I have already said what I am going to say to them now, but I am sure not half of them understood it, so I am going to repeat it. I have said that the place where you produce -surpluses is in western Canada. During the war when you wanted more pork, you got it in western Canada. When you wanted more beef, you got it in western Canada. The other suppliers in other parts of Canada supplied the home population or, if they sent anything out to the outside world, they took more of the western product into their part of Canada and consumed it. So when we came down to the end of the war and we were told by Britain that they did not want those products any more, we naturally asked them what they did want. They said, "We still want your wheat". We said, "All right. We will switch over from hogs to wheat."
During wartime we had increased our hog production until it was three times as high in Saskatchewan as it was prior to the war, and in Alberta I think it was twice as high as it was prior to the war. At the same time we cut down our wheat acreage by
Position of Agricultural Industry ten million acres. Now the war is over. We have been carrying on for the seven years since the war and have been attempting to escape the same kind of thing that happened to us at the end of the first war. We have been able to market the products I have been speaking of, with the exception of cattle, in Canada. A small percentage of the cattle have been marketed in the United States. The others have been marketed in Canada. Then we took all the surplus of food that we could market generally throughout the world and put it into one basket, and that one basket is wheat.
When my friend this afternoon quoted the cash returns for 1952 and compared them with the cash returns for the year before, and said that we got $38 million less last year than we got the year before, he forgot that you can drive through western Canada today, as I did ten days ago, and still see the piles of wheat out in the fields and still see bins without any roofs on them, filled up and piled up. You can still see practically every bin the farmers have on their farms filled with wheat. In other words the farmer has practically a whole crop still to market. If he had it all marketed, there would not be any comparison between the year 1952 and the other years, in so far as cash returns are concerned.
The Canadian farmer is producing more. Even of the amount that has come to market he has had, as I said a few moments ago, five million tons-not five million bushels and not five million bags but five million tons

 more food to send out to the world, because of growing surpluses, than he had on other occasions. That is the answer to these people who say: What are you going to send to India? What are you going to send to China? What are you going to send to Ceylon? Or what are you going to send somewhere else? You certainly could not send cattle to some of those countries because the people will not eat them. There are a few countries, as my hon. friend behind me knows, to which you cannot send pork; the people will not eat it. But I do not know of any country that will not eat wheat. They do not seem to have any qualms of conscience or any other reasons associated with climate for not eating wheat. You can sell wheat anywhere in the world to which you can ship it; and if you cannot sell it, you can give it away to people and they will eat it. Hence nothing is being lost to the world by the fact that farmers have been producing wheat instead of pork, beef or cheese.
The amount of food that we have to send out to other countries is greater than it ever
3224	HOUSE OF
Position of Agricultural Industry was before; and because it is greater than it ever was before, the kind of appeal which has been made in this house is a useless one to make to farmers or to anyone else in this country. They all know better, even if the members of this house do not.
I recall what was said by a chap out in western Canada who has become quite a good friend of mine. They used to call him a red or say that he was a communist, and I also used to think maybe he was. But I met him on one occasion out in Edmonton and he started to tell me a story. He said, "You are a farmer and so am I; and you know that farmers cannot produce hogs and make money by selling them at present prices." I said, "Yes; I heard you say so on the radio last night." "Well," he said, "am I right?" I said, "I do not know whether you are right in that statement or not; but you made another statement that I know you are not right in." He said "What is that?" I said, "You said it cost 41 cents a pound to produce pork. That is not correct." He said, "How do you know it is not correct?" I said, "Because I have fed hogs." I said, "Another reason I know it is not correct is that farmers all across this country have built good homesi, good barns and have drained farms. They have built fences and established themselves, and many of them have no debt on their farms at all." Up to that time I did not know of a farmer who ever got 41 cents for pork; most of them built those buildings on 4J-cent or 5-cent pork, not on 41-cent pork. "Well," I said to him, "if I were you I would not make those statements." He said, "Why not?" I said, "Because the farmer knows better, and he will not believe you in anything else you say, if you tell him that kind of thing." He looked at me for a while and finally smiled and said, "Well, I guess maybe you are right."
As I say, that man had been coming to farm meetings. I met him when he was down here last week with a delegation. He does not make that kind of statement any more; and it would be better for members of the opposition if they did not make them, either.
The farmer is really the wisest man I meet as I go around the country looking for votes.
I go out and talk to the farmer, and I find that if I get a little bit off the track in connection with matters having to do with the farm, or the marketing of farm commodities, the farmer will put me straight quicker than anybody else I meet, whether it is on the Winnipeg grain exchange or anywhere else. He knows his affairs. One of

the good things about farming is that if you have a background to build it on, you have time. Don't go out and say what the Canadian Press says when I make statements like that. They say they have the right to interpret my statements. They say they are not obliged to say what I say, that they have the right to interpret what I say.
Now, when I say a farmer has more time to do his thinking than some other people have, I do not mean that he is not doing anything, any more than when I said he was getting more money for producing cattle and hogs now, even though he produced less of them, I was saying that the farmer was not working as hard as he used to work. Of course I did not say the farmer was not working as hard as he used to, and I am not saying now that he is not doing something all the time. When a farmer is riding on a farm implement from one end to the other of a field a mile long, and he has not got to sit and listen to some fellow talking at him all the time, he can think sounder and straighter than those of us who have to sit in the House of Commons and listen to some people try to tell us what the situation is throughout the country. And we have been listening to a considerable amount of that this afternoon.
I think a lot of that time was really wasted. We would have been better discussing what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) was trying to suggest we ought to be discussing. After all there is nothing to prevent all this kind of thing being said two or three times. When my estimates are up is the time to talk about farm matters, and we will be here with all the evidence with regard to every one of those estimates. We will be able to tell you what the price of beef was every day of the year, if you want to know. We will be able to tell you what the price was in the United States. We will be able to tell you what you will get for beef and pork and eggs and butter over in Great Britain, if you think that is where you ought to be selling it. And when you hear it all, I am not sure whether you will think you ought to be selling it there at all. You will be thinking that as long as you can get the prices you are now getting in the United States and Canada you had better stick to the market you have.
I am quite sure of this, that when the British want to buy any of our food in this country they will not be at all backward about telling us so. I have never found the British backward in telling you anything at all. When they come to the point where they want to buy our bacon, they will tell us so. We will say to them, "Well, if you really

want our bacon you will probably have to pay us a certain price for it." And if they are prepared to pay that price we will sell it to them.
We may not always be in a position to sell bacon at the price we can now. We may not always be in a position to sell cattle as we can now; I do not know. And I venture to say there is no one else in this House of Commons who does know. We undertook to do a job back in 1944. It will be ten years next year since we started to do it; and I venture to say there was not a single man in this House of Commons, sitting on either side of the house, who thought prices would be as high, ten years hence, as they are at this time. Yet they are away higher today than they were at that time.
I am not going to try to guess what they will be ten years from now, but I am going to make the statement that so long as this government is in power, and so long as the policy we have been following throughout the last ten years is continued, prices will go down less than they would under any other kind of policy that could be established in this country by any other government.
So, feeling that way about it, we on this side of the house are not going to agree with the statements that are made from the opposite side, that everything is going to rack and ruin in Canada. We are not even going to agree that if we got out of the job the situation would be any better than now when we are doing it. We are going to go right on doing it in the best way we know how; and I think we will be able to prove all the way through that we are doing a better job than anyone else will be able to demonstrate they could do, if they were doing the job. And until they are able to demonstrate that they can do the job better, I am satisfied they will continue to be sitting over on the opposite side of the house.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, as I have listened to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) for more than an hour-


James Garfield Gardiner: Less than an hour since I started.


James Arthur Ross: More than an hour by the clock. I was interested in his discussion about acreage and methods of operation in Saskatchewan as compared with those in Quebec. I think he might have gone farther in talking about the prosperity of those farmers, and the income tax they pay, and told us the number of inspectors employed in the eastern area as compared with those employed in the prairie provinces, as well as their methods of operation. And if there was any argument about it I might call as a
Position of Agricultural Industry witness my good friend the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Smith) and the splendid speech he delivered in the budget debate with respect to income tax.


Mr. McCann:: Lots of reason for that, too.


James Arthur Ross: I realize that some supporters of this government might be inclined to view his opinions with suspicion.
I wish also to make some reference to the statements made by my good friend the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Larson), when he implied that his party is solidly behind the Canadian wheat board, in contrast with the position he suggests is taken by some others in the House of Commons who, he says, oppose the board.
Since I have been here I cannot recall anyone making a statement from this side of the house against the Canadian wheat board as such. I presume my arguments were referred to when he said that those who were pointing out the great losses taken by the producers were condemning the wheat board. I am probably as guilty as anyone else in that respect, because I have pointed out repeatedly the difference in the price of class II wheat the farmers have actually received which, over the last five-year wheat pool, amounted to many hundreds of millions of dollars.
According to the last report of the Canadian wheat board, that for 1951-52, which was tabled in the house, the international wheat agreement and subsidies cost the producers $140 million for that one year, or at a rate of 48 and a fraction cents a bushel. Those are the wheat board's own figures. If that is condemning the wheat board, then I am agreed. I have always prefaced my remarks by stating that I am a supporter of the Canadian wheat board. I want to state publicly that the Canadian wheat board was instituted by a Conservative government in 1935.
I want to point out further, because there is considerable misunderstanding in this country, that the Canadian wheat board is not responsible for the United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreements or the international wheat agreement. Those were matters of government policy. Ministers of this government negotiated those deals and contracts. The criticism I have had has not been of the Canadian wheat board; it has been of government policy in negotiating those deals.
We are now in the fourth year of the international wheat agreement. I have found some fault with that agreement because every year since it was negotiated the cost of producing wheat and other agricultural products has steadily increased. There was no
3226	HOUSE OF
Position of Agricultural Industry provision in that agreement by way of an escalator clause, and the cost of production was not taken into account. That is the reason why it was pointed out that the western farmers want another international wheat agreement. In general terms I agree with that, but I do not agree that they want it at a sacrifice price.


An hon. Member:: What is your price?


James Arthur Ross: I have pointed out that the price asked by organized agriculture is $2.35, basis Fort William.


An hon. Member:: What volume?


James Arthur Ross: They want to get rid of all the wheat they can. I agree with the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) in his remarks about this agreement. We must take into consideration the fact that the agreement has been under negotiation at Washington since January 30, or for almost seven weeks. We in this House of Commons are entitled to some information about those negotiations. He and other hon. members have asked what the situation is at Washington and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), the minister responsible, has stated that he has a great deal of information but is going to keep it to himself at this stage and not let the people's representatives have the benefit of those discussions and negotiations.


Mr. Ward:: Of what value would that be to us with 44 nations meeting to determine the price?


Mr. Knight:: Many countries are hungry and they will eat plenty if we ship it to them.


James Arthur Ross: There is a great demand for this wheat in the world. The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) represents wheat producers. They are anxious to know what is being done in connection with this agreement, whether it is possible to have an agreement.


James Garfield Gardiner: Are any of the other 44 countries giving out information?


James Arthur Ross: I do not know whether they are, but I have read in the newspapers where representatives of Australia and other nations have expressed opinions on this matter. All we have had is what we read in the newspapers. I cannot definitely answer the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and say that is authentic, but it is what we read in the press.


An hon. Member:: It has not been denied.


James Arthur Ross: It has not been denied anyway.


James Garfield Gardiner: Even that is not detailed information.


James Arthur Ross: That is the situation. I say again I am hopeful that a satisfactory wheat agreement will be negotiated.


An hon. Member:: So are we all.


William John Ward: Are not we all?


James Arthur Ross: Certainly, I suppose you are. The hon. member can make his own speech in this house; I am making mine. I am taking issue with some of the implications raised by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Larson) that we were attacking the Canadian wheat board. The hon. member for Dauphin is privileged to rise and say anything he wishes. An election is coming along this year, and there is a great deal of propaganda and rumours floating around.


An hon. Member:: By the opposition.


James Arthur Ross: I come now to the real issue. Wheat is handled by the Department of Trade and Commerce, something which I have never been able to understand. With all due respect to the Minister of Agriculture, I submit that his department should be responsible for the handling of wheat and other agricultural products. That is not the case. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is responsible for marketing our wheat-


James Garfield Gardiner: And always has been.


James Arthur Ross: -and other agricultural products are handled by the Department of Agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: Wheat never has been.


James Arthur Ross: I said other agricultural products. In 1949 we had placed on the statute books the Agricultural Products Marketing Act. We now have the acknowledgment that that is approved by this government. I do not agree with some of the statements made by the Minister of Agriculture that the farmers of this country, especially in the west and in his own province, are so satisfied as he would have us believe. I know a great many of them are terribly worried about their immediate future.


Irvin William Studer: You make them worry.


James Arthur Ross: I am one of them and I am also worried. I think the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) will admit that he is rather worried about his economic future as well.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Let us have a look at your fat bank account.


James Arthur Ross: The Minister of Agriculture talked about the period 1943 to 1945.
I want to tell you that since 1945 the cost

of production has increased a great deal. The hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) pointed out that the cost of farm machinery had almost doubled during that time. I think one of our greatest concerns in the west are these repeated increases in freight rates. As I have often stated in this house, everything the western farmer buys is plus freight from the manufacturing centres, while every bit of agricultural produce he sells is paid for less freight. That is their great burden.
When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) introduced his budget this year he stated that the government had definitely stopped inflation in this country, that they had met it and checked it. Yet when we asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) to prevent the immediate application of the 7 per cent increase awarded by the board of transport commissioners he admitted candidly that that increase would be inflationary. Those increases are very inflationary, both with respect to the cost of production for the farmers of this country and for the consumers as well.
According to government statistics, during the first war period the farmers of this country received 29 per cent of the national income. I have not the percentage of population on the farms during that time. During the second world war they received 18 per cent of the national income, and again I have not the percentage of population on the farms. According to the 1951 census, 20 and a fraction per cent of our population were located on the farms and received 13 and a fraction per cent of the national income. I think those figures show that there is great room for improvement in connection with our farming population.


Irvin William Studer: Those are not the correct figures.


James Arthur Ross: They are government figures. I cannot tell you whether they are right or not.


Irvin William Studer: It depends on how you interpret them.


James Arthur Ross: I shall be glad to hear my good friend the hon. member for Maple Creek get up and tell us how prosperous his farmers are, how satisfied they are under present conditions, and whether they have any concern for the immediate future.


Irvin William Studer: They still appreciate correct figures.


James Arthur Ross: They are government figures and I cannot vouch for them. There is another great problem in this country which affects the eastern farmer particularly. A great deal of money has been spent over the past years on freight assistance on feed
Position of Agricultural Industry grain coming east for use by eastern feeders. The taxpayer is paying that. There is great dissatisfaction among these eastern feeders over the cost of these feed grains at the present time, and the grades they are able to obtain.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Are you in favour of paying that subsidy?


An hon. Member:: Make your own speech.


James Arthur Ross: I should like to hear the new independent Liberal member for Springfield make a speech on behalf of the farmers whom he may be representing in the next parliament.
I am not able to find out where the trouble is in connection with this feed grain proposition, but I submit that the chairman of the committee on agriculture and colonization should call the committee together and have the officials of the Canadian wheat board before it so we can try to get to the root of this difficulty. There is something radically wrong, and I am not able to put my finger on the difficulty. I am satisfied that the spread between the cost to the eastern feeder and what the western producer receives is altogether too great. I am not sure whether we could obtain the necessary information from the officials of the Canadian wheat board, but I think the government owes it both to the producers and the eastern feeders to try to find out what is the cause of the great disparity and to seek a solution for this most vexing problem. Despite the cost to the taxpayers of the country, the situation is most unsatisfactory at the present time.
I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) if he would refer the 1951-52 Canadian wheat board report to the committee on agriculture and colonization, and he stated that he would do so if it was the desire of the committee. You will realize, Mr. Speaker, that all our committees have a large majority of supporters of the government; and interpreting his answer as I find it in Hansard I presume it will depend on whether or not the majority on the committee on agriculture wish to do that. In fairness to feeders and producers alike I think it should be done. I do not know of any better approach at this time, and I sincerely ask that this at least should be done.
I think the production of hogs in this country has been done an injustice, because many people have gone out of hog production. My good friend the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth (Mr. Charlton) had a question on the order paper the other day about canned pork. I have not all the facts before me, but I can say that it was pointed out that since March, 1952 the government had
3228	HOUSE OF
Position of Agricultural Industry bought some 94 million pounds of pork for canning, had sold some 21 million pounds, and was still holding a surplus of approximately 73 million pounds at the present time.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Who got the subsidy?


James Arthur Ross: So far as beef is concerned, the minister pointed out that the Canadian market is still very good, but there was a reduction during the past year of 37 and a fraction per cent in the price of cattle.
I am not stating that prices had not been very high previously.
In general the farm producer is very fearful of the immediate future so far as the products he has to sell are concerned, whether it be dairy products, fruit, vegetables, meat or cereals, because he is going to be asked to take less than he has been getting for them while his costs are going up in every respect and are likely to go up for some time. The estimates of the agricultural division of the bureau of statistics for the coming year indicate that in all likelihood the cost of production for the farm producer will increase and that in general he will be asked to take less for his products.
So far as floor prices for agricultural products are concerned, it was announced as the policy of this party some years ago that we were in favour of floor prices. I presume that is still our policy. Therefore I support

the amendment to the motion to go into supply. I am satisfied that the vast majority of agricultural producers from coast to coast want some assurance as to what their situation will be in the year ahead. That is particularly important in the case of our prairie farmers, who will now be making arrangements for their spring production.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: The public will never swallow that bait.
On motion of Mr. Wright the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Tomorrow we will consider the resolution respecting the Emergency Powers Act; Bill No. 105, respecting the liability of the crown for torts and civil salvage; Bill No. 110, to establish the historic sites and monuments board of Canada; Bill No. 109, to authorize the grant of assistance to a province for the conservation of water resources, and Bill No. 230, to provide for the government of the Yukon Territory. If we have time we will take up Bill No. 37, to amend the Indian Act.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 9.57 p.m.

Tuesday, March 24, 1953