1954-04-30

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Last Tuesday, Mr. Speaker, in reply to a question by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), I said I would shortly be in a position to make a full statement to the house concerning the government's legislative program for the remainder of this session. I should like now to make that statement.
In addition to the measures arising out of the two resolutions, of which notice was given in yesterday's Votes and Proceedings, and the measures arising out of the budget resolutions which involve amendments to the Excise Act, Excise Tax Act, the Income Tax Act, the Customs Tariff and possibly the Customs Act, definite plans have now been made for the introduction of the following twelve bills before the end of the session. These bills are: Amendment to the Veterans Land Act; a new measure concerning inventions by members of the public service; further amendment to the Post Office Act; the usual Canadian National financing and guarantee bill; a bill to round out the superannuation act by providing a system of contributory death benefits for civil servants and members of the regular forces and to discontinue the issuing of individual policies under the Civil Service Insurance Act; amendments to the Judges Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, the Department of Transport Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Radio Act, the International Rapids Power Development Act, and the Canadian Citizenship Act.
These two last bills are small bills that are being introduced in the Senate. In addition to the measures above, the government may wish to introduce, before the end of the session, legislation regarding the National Physical Fitness Act and a bill to authorize the establishment of a national park in Newfoundland. Furthermore, as hon. members no doubt know, this week the Minister of Transport had discussions with representatives of the various provincial governments concerning
the control and regulation of interprovincial and international highway transport. The federal and provincial governments are now considering the proposals made during the course of these discussions, and it is possible that following such consideration a bill on this subject may be introduced during the course of the session.
That is, Mr. Speaker, the government's legislative program as presently contemplated for the balance of this session. Many of the measures I have mentioned are of relatively little importance and should not, I believe, take much time in the house. It is possible, of course, that between now and the end of the session, because of circumstances now not foreseen, the government may And it necessary to introduce measures that have not been mentioned here. Should that happen, there should be very few and they should not substantially alter the program as I have outlined it. Hon. members know that there are still a number of committees sitting and their reports will in due course be submitted to the house for consideration.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Will the Prime Minister indicate the nature of the amendments to the Judges Act that are contemplated?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. While I was listening to the outline of the legislative program I was asking myself what I would do if a question were put as to the nature of these various measures. If I allow the question put by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), where do I stand so far as the other questions which might be asked by members about all the measures the Prime Minister has outlined are concerned? Should we not refrain from being too curious at this time, and wait until those measures are presented?
I should like to submit this to the house. It seems to me to be the logical course for us to follow at this moment to wait until these measures are introduced in the proper fashion. Under our rules no one will be caught by surprise because notice has to be given. Let us follow the proper procedure.


George Alexander Drew: I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that unless the Prime Minister has some reason for not answering this-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.
427G

Inquiries of the Ministry


George Alexander Drew: I am addressing my remarks to the recognized Speaker in the house. I was submitting to you, Mr. Speaker, that unless the Prime Minister had any objection to giving that explanation, it might easily dispose of other discussions that might be prompted by members' thoughts on this subject. I should think it would be very helpful to the members and facilitate the consideration of these subjects if, in the case of an act of this kind, the Prime Minister would indicate to us the nature of the amendments proposed.


Mr. Speaker:: May I perhaps clarify the remarks I made a moment ago. The Leader of the Opposition was quite right, on the orders of the day, to ask a question of the Prime Minister as to the legislative program to come. Now, the Prime Minister indicated that he would make that reply, and he has done so today. The question is now asked as to what is to be done with respect to one particular piece of legislation to come before the house.
If I allowed this question, then I would have to allow at this period questions pertaining to the subject matter of any other legislation which the Prime Minister has announced, if hon. members chose to ask those questions.
At this time we must ask questions concerning matters of urgency. My ruling is that we should not deal with the various subject matters contained in the legislation the Prime Minister has announced. See Journals, Monday, July 15, 1940, ruling of Mr. Speaker Glen, last paragraph, page 218.



PROCEDURE IN REGARD TO QUESTIONS AND NOTICES OF MOTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['The\nPrime Minister has not mentioned the possibility of a bill dealing with supplementary estimates. In the light of the press report of a speech he made in Toronto on Wednesday night, may I ask him if the government intends to propose an increase in economic aid along the lines of the Colombo plan to nations of the commonwealth in Asia?\nRight Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime\nMinister): No such decision has been reached by the government up to the present time.']
Mr. P. T. Hellyer (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I hope we have not established the practice that questions to the ministry are to have precedence over members' questions, government notices of motions and government orders on Fridays.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is putting his question to me I will have, much to my regret, to tell him that it is not customary for hon. members to put questions to the Speaker from the floor. If the hon. member wishes to have an explanation upon that subject I shall be glad to see him later in the day. See Beauchesne, third edition, citation 302 and citation 114, also ruling of Mr. Speaker Macdonald, May 21, 1951, Hansard.
(Mr. Drew.]



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the house if it is the intention of the government to consider revision of judges' salaries during the present session?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, that is a matter which could not be dealt with without a resolution which, before it was brought to the house, would have to be submitted to and receive the approval of the Governor General.


George Alexander Drew: That is the kind of information we get.


WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he has not forgotten to bring in an amendment to the War Veterans Allowance Act. I am sure there will be great disappointment if no amendments to that act are brought in at this session.
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): I have stated a complete list of the government's program for the remainder of the session.


EMERGENCY POWERS ACT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, in view of the announcement made yesterday by the Prime Minister that no legislation will be introduced extending the Emergency Powers Act, will he tell the house whether the government has reached any decision as to what it intends to do about the matter covered in what is known as the secret order in council.
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): I have already stated in the house that if the emergency legislation was not extended, the secret order in council would expire with the legal existence of that act.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: The
Prime Minister has not mentioned the possibility of a bill dealing with supplementary estimates. In the light of the press report of a speech he made in Toronto on Wednesday night, may I ask him if the government intends to propose an increase in economic aid along the lines of the Colombo plan to nations of the commonwealth in Asia?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): No such decision has been reached by the government up to the present time.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. Has any minister of the government of British Columbia discussed with the minister the question of steamship service on the Arrow lakes? If so, in view of the great concern of some three thousand of my constituents, and many others in British Columbia, over the present situation, can the minister inform the house of the result?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to speak to me yesterday afternoon about this matter, and to indicate that he would ask his question. I did discuss with the minister of public works in the government of British Columbia the matter of a subvention for the Arrow lakes steamship service. I am unable at this time to add anything to what I have already said on the subject in this house.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Associate Minister of National Defence. Is he prepared to make any statement on the disappearance of army stores at Camp Ipperwash? If so, can he indicate the extent of the losses involved? Is it the intention of the department to institute an independent investigation, apart from that being conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. R. O. Campney (Associate Minister of National Defence):: I thank the hon. member for having given notice of his question. In answer to the first two parts of the hon. member's question, I may say that a few months ago, during a routine ordnance audit at Camp Ipperwash, some- discrepancies were found in clothing accounts, as a result of which a further audit and a stocktaking check were initiated, and the R.C.M.P. were asked to investigate. These checks and investigations are still continuing.
The investigations thus far would indicate that the losses involved are substantially less than the $15,000 suggested in press reports which I have seen but obviously I cannot make a definite statement in that connection until all the relevant facts have been established, and such steps taken as those facts may appear to warrant.
The answer to the third part of this question is no.



CUSTOMS TARIFF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the tariff board's ruling, dated April 28, to the effect that mixed fruit is not peaches, will provision be made for rebate of the excess duties paid on the importation of canned mixed fruit during the period that the higher rate of duty has been charged?
Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National
Revenue): No consideration will be given to the question of refund until the matter is finally determined. As the hon. member is no doubt aware, decisions of the tariff board are subject to an appeal to the exchequer court upon any question of law, within thirty days from the date of the decision.
Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question, arising out of the mixed fruit case, which was heard recently by the tariff board. May I ask if the government intends to continue using the Department of Justice to represent the Department of National Revenue in hearings before the tariff board?


Mr. McCann:: The answer is yes.

Inquiries of the Ministry ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE



SEA ISLAND STATION-LOSS FROM FIRE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, will the Associate Minister of National Defence give the house a report on the disastrous fire which took place yesterday at the R.C.A.F. hangar at the Vancouver airport at Sea Island?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. From such information as I have at hand, it appears that late last evening hangar No. 3 at the Royal Canadian Air Force station at Sea Island, British Columbia, was completely destroyed by fire, together with its contents. No lives were lost, I am glad to say, and no person was injured.
The hangar housed a number of smaller units, among them a search and rescue flight, a land search station, and several administration details. Destroyed in the fire were six aircraft consisting of one Lancaster, two Expeditors, two Otters, and one helicopter.
The station fire department was on the ground in a matter of moments and was later assisted by the Richmond fire department, the Vancouver fire department, and fire equipment of the Department of Transport. Nevertheless, because of the nature of the fire, and the extent, it was not found possible to control it. The loss, while not yet accurately determined, will be substantial. The cause of the fire is as yet unknown, but a board of inquiry was appointed immediately to investigate the possible cause.


Howard Charles Green: A supplementary question: Was the fire equipment from the city of Vancouver able to get across the Marpole bridge?


Ralph Osborne Campney: So far as I know, there was no delay.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnelt (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries if he can give us the particulars concerning an agreement which has been reached between Canada, the United States and Japan in relation to the exchange of scientific information about fisheries, according to a statement which I see in today's issue of the Toronto Globe and Mail.


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: The reference is to the first report of the international commission for the north

Pacific fisheries, a report covering the inaugural meetings held in Washington in the month of February. This commission was set up as a result of a treaty signed last year by Canada, the United States and Japan for the conservation and the protection of fisheries of the north Pacific.
The headquarters of the new commission will be at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.
Meanwhile the scientists of the three countries will be meeting together to set out the research program and to co-ordinate the research work of Canada, Japan and the United States in the north Pacific. Since the hon. member is interested, I shall make a copy of the report available to him.



DISABLED PERSONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we are all grateful that the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: -is bringing in a resolution or legislation at this time-


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: -for the benefit of the handicapped.



INQUIRY AS TO AGREEMENTS WITH PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister now completed agreements with all of the Canadian provinces in connection with proposed pensions for disabled persons?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: If I understood the
question correctly, my hon. friend asks me whether we have agreements with all of the provinces regarding the proposed scheme for a nation-wide system of disability allowances. I think my hon. friend is under a misapprehension as to the precise requirements in this regard. As he knows, we did have a conference with all of the provinces, when the general principles and the general intentions of the government's legislation were outlined to the provinces. That conference was not predicated on the necessity of having any agreement with the provinces, although understandings were naturally reached with them.

The formal agreements will follow once the legislation has been introduced in this house and passed by parliament. Then, to make the measure effective in the country as a whole, it will require agreements with each province.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister when it is intended that this legislation, notice of which the minister has now given, will come into effect?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Just as quickly as possible, Mr. Speaker.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $432,490.
The Chairman:: Hon. members will find the vote on page 4 of the blue book and the details on page 76. Shall the resolution carry?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Chairman, it is not customary for the Department of Agriculture to remain undiscussed until such a late period in the session. I presume one of the reasons for that was that I was absent early in the session and later in the session was not in a position to deal with my estimates. However, I want to thank hon. members of the committee for the very kind references which have been made from time to time to the changed condition in relation to myself, which makes it possible for me to be here at this time.
The estimates which are being placed before the committee are for about $1,700,000 more than last year. I only wish to make that reference to them at this stage and then to deal with more general matters, as has been the custom at this stage in the consideration of the estimates.
In the first place, I should like to deal with farm production, showing the relationship between farm production east and west during the past years, and in making that comparison to indicate what our position is at the present moment in relation to surpluses and other matters related to the question of agricultural production.
It has been our practice in the past to give the complete figures in connection with production from year to year, and in doing so to speak in a general way of the position of agriculture. But on this occasion I should like to make a division as between east and west on the ground that most of our production in 83276-2701
Supply-Agriculture
the eastern part of Canada, from which farmers receive their return, is in the form of livestock, livestock products and many specialties that do not add largely to the income, but do produce results which are very beneficial or otherwise to small groups of people. Then, so far as the west is concerned, by far the greater part of our production is in cereals; but nevertheless there is a considerable production of livestock products, particularly cattle and hogs.
The figures which I have before me with regard to the matter indicate a number of facts, which I think it is well for us to consider at this time. These facts are related to production east and west, but before dealing with them I think I should refer to the further fact that there are more farmers in the eastern part of Canada than there are in the western part; that is, if you just count heads, there are more people engaged in agriculture east of the great lakes than west of the great lakes. Because of that fact, when one gives the figures, it is not sufficient just to divide by the number of people and then say there is so much production per head in eastern Canada and so much in western Canada and leave it at that. There are a number of facts that ought to be considered along with these statements.
The first is that while there are more farmers in eastern Canada, many of them are engaged in such activities as producing on small areas fruit and vegetables which go to market, and producing on other small farm units to an extent which is perhaps not so great as the production on some of the western farms which run into hundreds of acres.
In dealing with the matters having to do with agriculture from that point of view, I want to emphasize the position which does exist in relation to agricultural products in general. I am going to deal with production east and west on a cash basis. I know that when I speak of cash returns for farm products some people are going to say to me: that is not the entire return. But I think in so far as the individual farmer is concerned, he is more interested in the dollars that he is getting from day to day in relation to a question like this than he is in the questions that we sometimes refer to when we object to cash returns as against the returns which are considered from other points of view in certain publications which are put out from time to time. But I am going to confine myself at this time to the cash returns which the farmers have, the amount which they receive from day to day, from week to week and from month to month, and see if we cannot arrive at some conclusions which may be helpful to us.

Supply-Agriculture
I have in my hand a summary table, "cash income from the sale of farm products and from supplementary payments over the years, from 1942 down to the present". I have had those years following 1942 divided into three-year periods; my reason being that we have considered, in arriving at conclusions, that it is not advisable just to take one year and compare it with other years before or after. It is much better to take three-year periods and compare one three-year period with a like three-year period. From 1943 to 1945 we had income from farm products in the east amounting to $655 million the first year, $703 million the second year and $770 million the third year, or a total of $2,128,562,000. Following the same plan, in the next three-year period we had in the east $2,871,173,000. But I think it probably would be better if I were to take east and west side by side rather than to go through one list and then the other. Therefore going back to the first three-year period, income from farm products amounted to $2,128,562,000 in the east and $2,858,770,000 in the west. In the next three-year period the figures are $2,871,173,000 in the east and $3,348,716,000 in the west. In the third period, from 1949 to 1951, the figures are $3,605,406,000 in the east and $3,952,669,000 in the west. So far as the last period is concerned, we have only gone through two years of it and the figures are $2,444,668,000 in the east and $3,129,903,000 in the west.
I have made an estimate of what the amount is likely to be over the three-year period, and at this time I will read the total amounts for all Canada in each of the three-year periods. They are: From 1943 to 1945,	$4,987,332,000; from 1946 to
1948,	$6,219,889,000; from 1949 to 1951,
$7,558,075,000, and for the last period of two years $5,574,571,000. If I were to add to the last figure the estimate for the present year that total would be $8,200 million worth in cash for farm products.
I give the figures in order to say that over the period from 1942 down to the present there has been a constant increase in the annual returns for agriculture each three-year period. If one were to take the annual returns year by year there would be some years in which we would drop down and there would be others in which we would come up again. I am simply giving the figures in this form in order that we may be able to take the rises and falls as they come and conclude that for each three-year period there have been considerable increases in agricultural production in this country over the preceding three years. Cash income has risen from $4,987 million in the first three-year period to $8,200 million in the last


period, so there has been an increase of a very considerable amount over that period of time.
The next point with which I wish to deal in connection with these matters is that there are more farmers in the east than there are in the west.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Before the minister goes on, would he mind giving us net figures in line with the cash figures he has given?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not want to take too much time at this stage in going into all the details with respect to these matters. I have the figures here and could do so, but I do not want to take too long. As we go through the estimates we can discuss these different details.
The next point I wish to make is that we have a very considerable production of dairy products in Canada. Those dairy products are made up largely of butter and cheese. A similar review of the price situation in relation to them would indicate that there have been increases from time to time. There have been along the way years in which we have dropped -back but we have come up within a year or two, and there have been increases in these products from time to time.
In recent weeks we have had some discussion of the butter situation in Canada, and I should like to point out to the committee that we are selling our butter under a plan which has not been applied to other farm products. Over the years we were obtaining butter in some surplus during the summer months, and quite often in the winter months we were called upon to import butter from elsewhere. The present position is that it is being suggested to us that under the plan we have been following we are accumulating a surplus of butter in Canada. Today is the end of the butter year, so to speak, and the board has the largest surplus of butter under their control that they have ever had. I am not altogether certain that I would be right in saying that there is much more butter in Canada today than there was at some other times at the end of the dairy year, as these figures would indicate, but nevertheless there is a considerable amount. A round figure which can be stated is that we have about 33 million pounds of butter under the control of the board, and that butter will be placed on the market from time to time as the months go by.
In so far as cheese is concerned, we are in the position where practically all of our cheese has been sold or is in position to be sold, and it can be said that we have very little, if any, surplus of cheese. So far as

butter is concerned, I would also say that it is not really established that we have any considerable surplus of butter. It could disappear over a few months' time or we could accumulate more, and as the months go by we will be dealing with that particular question.
I should like to deal next for a few moments with the marketing of cattle and hogs. Under the plans that are being followed we have very considerable numbers of cattle and hogs produced from year to year. At one time we had considerable trouble marketing the cattle and hogs that were produced, but I am pleased to be able to say that this year there has been no great difficulty in marketing the cattle and hogs that have been produced. We are marketing by far the greater part of our hogs in Canada. Some shipments are being made to the United States but the greater part of our hogs are being marketed in Canada. In preceding years we had some difficulties in marketing our cattle in the United States because of the disease that afflicted them, but again we are back into the position where we are marketing practically all of our surplus cattle in the United States in the form of beef and live cattle. There is very little hanging over the market at the present time. To complete the picture with regard to beef I would like to say that there have been representations made to the effect that we should set a floor price for cattle in Canada. We have replied to that by saying that we do not believe it is necessary. Our surplus beef all goes to the United States and the U.S. price is the highest in the world. Our price is secondary only to theirs and we obtain prices for our cattle in the United States based upon the market price which is established there, less the duty we have to pay in order to get our cattle there. Therefore, we do not consider that it is necessary to have a floor price under cattle. We believe that the market as it at present operates provides very good support for the cattle industry in this country.
In so far as hogs are concerned we have not had surpluses in recent years. At one time we had a production of hogs which made it necessary for us to look for markets, but at the present time we are marketing nearly all our hogs in the Dominion of Canada. The production is not sufficiently great to have presented us with any great marketing problem in connection with hogs. As regards any of the cuts we find it necessary to sell because we have not a sufficient market for them here, we have been able to sell at a very good price in the United States, and therefore we have not been trying to beat our way into the British or any other market
Supply-Agriculture
simply because of the fact that our product is going on the market at better prices than we would be able to obtain anywhere else.
I think I should say a few words with regard to potatoes. There has been a situation in Canada recently which is quite different from that to which we have been accustomed. We are finding it more difficult to sell our potatoes in Canada than we have done for some little time. We had to sell our potatoes at the level which has been set under the measures we took from time to time to establish floor prices. We had to establish a price in relation to potatoes grown in the maritime provinces part of which are exported, and we have not been able to hold that price at the level which was established earlier, with the result that there is a possibility that the government may have to take some loss in connection with potatoes this year. As hon. members know, our objective is to attempt to set a floor price under our farm products which will be beneficial to the farmer and which at the same time will result in products being sold at a price which will not necessitate a subsidy being paid. It appears at the moment, though, that we might require to pay some subsidy on potatoes.
However, in connection with that I would like to say that our sales to the United States amounted to $60 million over the last ten years, and our purchases amounted to $30 million. In other words we have sold about double what we purchased from the United States as regards potatoes. At the same time I think I should say that we have not been so fortunate in the sale of table potatoes as we have been in the case of seed potatoes. Our seed potatoes have gone to the United States in considerable quantity and have been sold there, but we got just about the same number of table potatoes back into Canada as we sold in the United States. There is a very good reason for that but it can be discussed when we come to deal with that particular product.
I would like to say a few words with regard to wheat acreage. Questions have been asked from time to time as to our position in regard to wheat. Well, the present position is that we have approximately one year's crop of wheat on hand. It has been necessary to announce in this house that we have not been able to make many sales in relation to last year's crop, and therefore we have practically a full crop on hand. The reason for that is largely the fact that we have had such good crops. A few years ago one was inclined to say that we could not grow too much wheat over a five or six year period, and probably that is still true; but for the

Supply-Agriculture
first time we have had the experience of growing three very good crops in a row. These crops have yielded quantities of wheat very much greater than the usual amounts. I would like to add in that regard that because of that high production our marketing difficulties have arisen in spite of the fact that our sales have been the same as those experienced in past years. It is not a case of our marketing less wheat year by year. It is a case of our having grown very much more wheat than usual during the last three years, and that tends to produce an accumulation of wheat. I would like to add, however, that we should not be misled by that fact. A market can be found for that wheat, in part at least, over the years that lie ahead, but we have no assurance that if we have the same crop this year we would be able to lower the surplus which is being carried at the present time. But I do not know that that is a very great hardship for the farmers at the present time. In past years we have gone through the experience of reducing production from year to year with the result that we had not very much to sell some years as compared with others, even though the price was fairly good. At present the price is fairly good compared with other years and we have a very large amount of wheat in storage in the Dominion of Canada.
The mere fact of that wheat being in storage makes it possible for us to take advantage of any market which is available, and we have been selling regularly up to a recent date, the result being that if you compare sales this year with sales in the past it will be found there is not a great deal of difference, though the fact that we have produced so much wheat leaves us with a considerable surplus.
The peak of our storage is perhaps as high now as it has been at any time and those hon. members who come from the western part of Canada will know that storage there is practically at capacity level and it will not be very long before we enter another crop year.
I just wish to point out these facts in relation to the wheat position in Canada at the present time, and I would like to add that if you take the year at the beginning of our difficulties as 100, that is the year 1928-29, our average acreage today would be at the figure of 101 compared with the figure of 117 in the United States. Our peak acreage was 114 and the peak in the United States was 125; our lowest acreage was 67, while the United States low was 79. That is not taking actual acreage figures, but is taking figures based on the 1929 acreage as representing 100; that is not in bushels but is in figures

which represent the index position in relation to other years. Our present position is that we have a considerable amount of wheat in storage in Canada, possibly more than at any other time, certainly more than at any other time unless it be in the years 1943 or 1944 when we had our peak in storage during the war years. This wheat will be marketed from time to time and we expect it will bring a price which will be favourable to the farmers where that wheat is grown.
There are two matters with regard to which I want to say a few words at this stage. One of them is the fact that I made a trip to Rome last fall in order to attend the FAO meeting which is held every second year in order to discuss farm problems across the world. While I was there I took the opportunity to go down to Israel and to visit that country, my reason being that many of the policies which we follow on this continent had their origin many years ago over in that section of the Asiatic continent. Many of our ideals and ideas have been imported from there. In our setting up of many of our activities in relation to the sale of food products, we have made a study of what has happened over in that section of the world at some time or another, and then we have more or less followed the ideas which they developed away back in the early years.
When I was down there this time I was greatly surprised to have recalled to my mind many of the things we have discussed in this country, and particularly in the western part of Canada, over the years that I have been associated with government. We quite often ask ourselves the question as to where we got the idea about this and where we got the idea about that. Since being down to Israel I have concluded that we obtained many of the ideas we have through reading what we call the Bible, the story of these people back in that country. My reason for saying that is that when I was over there this time I found that they were following much the same policy or the same plan as that which we are trying to persuade the people to follow in western Canada-both areas are comparatively dry areas-or practically the same plan as was followed by the early settlers in what we call Israel back in the early years, and we go back to those areas today in order to get the basis for some of the things we are doing in the western part of Canada particularly and even right down across this country.
When I got over there I was surprised to find that they were digging out the dugouts they had down in the southern part of the new Israel-that is they were digging the sand out of them-and they were able to tell us at this late time that they were dug in

the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. At that time they had dugouts, but those dugouts differ from ours in that they are dug in limestone. The dugouts were filled up with water just as ours fill up with water, and they utilize the water for the same purpose. History indicates that on different occasions these dugouts have been destroyed by the invasion of others who did not see the use of them. But at this time the people who are settled in Israel are going back, cleaning out these dugouts and allowing the water to run down from the hills alongside of them and fill the dugouts up again. In an area where there is a little bit more than four inches of rainfall in a year, they are going back to produce livestock just as they did in the days of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the years that we read about in our biblical stories.
As one goes through that country and visits the different areas there, one is struck by the fact that many of the things we are doing in this country were done there many generations ago, some of them back a thousand or more years before the birth of Christ. Hence it is interesting to go there. It is interesting to see these old structures-which were brought into being away back in the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob-resurrected by those with modern thought and modern means of doing so. It is interesting to see functioning in that area of Israel the same kind of equipment as that which we use throughout Canada in order to dig dugouts or to build roads or do all of that kind of thing, repeating what was done there many hundreds of years ago or, as a matter of fact, many thousands of years ago.
When one pictures the results they are getting now and compares them with the results obtained in that time, one is really moved to think that we do not have developed in these days all of the things which are helpful to mankind. As a matter of fact while I was there I was compelled to conclude that about the only thing that is different now is that we have the internal combustion engine-and probably I should say we even have the steam engine-which is different from what they had. It was more a matter of using manpower in those days to do the things which we are doing now by mechanical power. I only wish to say at this stage that I found the trip over to Israel at the end of last year to be most helpful in arriving at conclusions as to how we might proceed, particularly in connection with the developments in western Canada having to do with drought.
I want to say a word also about irrigation in our own western area. I have noted in the press some references to my recent trip to Saskatchewan. I have here in my hand one
Supply-Agriculture
editorial which was written yesterday, or at least which appeared in the paper yesterday. I do not know just when it was written. I suppose it appears because my estimates were coming before the committee today. In any case it appeared there. The heading is "Mr. Gardiner On His Own?". They put a question mark after that. I do not know just why they put the question mark there. Most people in reading that would say "Mr. Gardiner On His Own" and pretty well leave it at that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He does not do badly on his own.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; he does not do badly on his own.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On his own what?


James Garfield Gardiner: If they had put "is" at the beginning of it and had put the question mark at the end of it, it might have served the purpose just as well. What I wanted to say in relation to it is that the editorial goes on to say that I have been doing something which the rest of the government apparently has not been committed to.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would not agree with that.


James Garfield Gardiner: My friend says that he would not agree with that. I am quite sure he would not. But the fact is that the gentleman who wrote this editorial-I do not know that you can always be sure that it is the editor of the paper who writes the editorials -was not in possession of quite all the facts because he suggests that I took some position here which I was taking on my own and he is wondering whether the government would agree with what I had said. What did I say? I said this out in Saskatchewan when I was discussing these questions with a delegation who appeared before me in the hotel in the city of Saskatoon. They wanted to ask me something about the possibilities of there being a development of the South Saskatchewan river dam. I intimated to them that it is a question that is still under consideration, and a question that I was going to discuss with the provincial government the next day or two days later when I returned to Regina.
In discussing that question, I indicated to them that there had been a certain amount of money set aside for the purpose of further investigating the possibilities of the South Saskatchewan river dam. I indicated that in having these discussions we had some time ago ceased to pay too much attention to what had been in the report we received two years ago, and that we would probably now be willing to consider the representations that were being made by Saskatchewan and to

Supply-Agriculture
which we were listening each time we made a trip to that area. I indicated that in so tar as the reports which had appeared were concerned, it was just possible they did not cover everything which should be covered in connection with the discussion of the question.
The point raised by the editorial is something to the effect that I had said we were going to go ahead and do certain things. This assertion is based on a statement which I shall read from the editorial. The article speaks first about a classic story concerning Melbourne in the British house, and another story concerning Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Israel Tarte.


Mr. Harkness:: What editorial is this?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is an editorial that appeared in the Ottawa Journal of April 29, and it states:
All this comes to mind upon our reading an interview which Mr. James Gardiner, Minister of Agriculture, gave last week to the Saskatchewan Star-Phoenix. Mr. Gardiner told that newspaper that the government "has forgotten all about the report of the royal commission on the South Saskatchewan river", proceeded to make clear that he did not share in this lamentable lapse of memory. Mr. Gardiner, in other words, was disagreeing publicly with his cabinet colleagues on a matter of major policy-voicing dissatisfaction with their conduct.
I suppose I could leave the answer to that to my colleagues in the government. I am quite sure they will agree with what I am going to say now. Anything that I have done in connection with the Saskatchewan river dam has had the endorsation of the government of Canada, and the same is true of any discussions I have had with anyone who is concerned with it.
The story told here, I presume, was believed to have been a little wrong by someone out west because the press got in touch with me and asked me if I had really said what was in the report. I said, well, if you leave out the things that are put in between the quotation marks and put in something a little different and add what I really did say before the quotation marks were used, I would say, "yes, there is not anything particularly wrong with it." They questioned me some more, and here is what they wrote following that:
Commenting on a statement made to the press in Saskatoon Thursday when he was quoted as saying the federal government has forgotten all about the report of the royal commission on the South Saskatchewan river dam, Mr. Gardiner said he explained the $250 million figure mentioned in the report represented, in addition to the dam, cost of irrigation and other expenditures.
"This cost might pile up over a number of years," he said. "The federal government has nothing to do with much of this expenditure. When

the dam has been constructed-if the federal government decides to proceed with it-all that is left for the government to do is to maintain the dam at the lake."
"The rest would be up either to the provincial governments or the individual farmers who would pay for these additional costs", Mr. Gardiner said.
The agriculture minister said that as far as these phases are concerned the federal government has forgotten all about them.
And I might add, the criticisms that have been made in connection with them.
"Now, we are dealing with the provincial governments concerning the building of the dam."
That is to say, we are not dealing with the installation of an irrigation system all over that part of western Canada. These figures are not concerned with other matters that are only indirectly related to the building of the dam. A figure has been arrived at that we think will cover the cost of the dam, and the province is inclined to agree. You will recall that in the beginning the province took strong exception to the suggestion that this particular plan which they have had in mind over many years would cost $250 million. They said the plan as outlined would not cost $250 million, and we have been in agreement with them that in so far as the project just spoken of is concerned, and upon which we would give assistance, if proceeded with, it would not cost that amount of money. We agreed, therefore, to undertake further discussions with the government of Saskatchewan on the question.
I want to make it plain from the beginning that we have not committed this government, nor has the government of Saskatchewan committed itself, to any particular line of procedure. We had further discussions in Saskatchewan last Saturday while I was in the province. I am looking forward day by day to having further suggestions come to us from the government of Saskatchewan. In the meantime I am not in a position to make any further announcement about it than was made a year ago. We have not given any undertaking to anybody to do anything with the money of the people of Canada that has not been discussed fully here, and discussed fully elsewhere.
As a matter of fact, the sum of money that you will find in these estimates for this particular project is only $500,000. The item is still there, and as you know it is a project that will cost somewhere from $60 million up. The provincial government will assume some of it and the federal government will assume some of it, if it is ever done. At the moment there is no agreement between the province and this government, but the question is still being considered. The representations made by the government while I

was there were representations that would help in arriving at a final decision in connection with the matter.
In so far as the article that appeared in the western papers is concerned, and which was copied in the eastern papers, the proposals made are very clear to one who has sat in on all the discussions, as I have. However, they are not so clear when one reads what is contained in the article. I would just ask you when you are reading the article-we can discuss the pros and cons of the statements as we go along with estimates-to note that about half the sentence will be in quotation marks and the other half will not. If the sentences had all been put in quotation marks, and only the things which were said could be put in quotation marks were printed, the story would have quite a different appearance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Were the commas in the right place?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not all of them. Most of them were, but some were not.
The fact is that the matter is still under consideration. No one has turned the project down. It is still being considered; and any discussions which take place in connection with this debate should be associated with the fact that it is still being considered. I have a great deal of information with regard to it which, I think, can be brought out as we go along with the estimates.
I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more at the present time than to indicate that the plan has not been discarded. The plan has not yet been fully considered by the provincial government along with the federal government; and when it is, an announcement will be made by this government and, I presume, by the other government as well, as to what decision has been reached. I am not in a position to say today that we are going to build the dam in Saskatchewan, and I am not in a position to say that it is not going to be built. It is still under consideration, and it is being given the most careful consideration we can give to it.
With those remarks I am going to content myself with waiting until I hear some of the discussion which I presume will come from both sides of the house in relation to the present position of agriculture. I think, to state it mildly, that agriculture is in a better condition today throughout the Dominion of Canada than it has been at any other period in my experience. And when I say that, I do not mean only my experience in the government, but I mean as well my 83276-271
Supply-Agriculture
experience in farming. I think farmers all realize that they are in a better position today than they have been at any other time. I am not going to say that the government of Canada is entirely responsible for that; but I am going to say this, that we have not done anything to prevent it. And the situation has been improving from time to time.
As we discuss the estimates we will be able to go into the different points which concern us in relation to those matters having to do with agriculture. I want to thank hon. members for the extent to which they have denied themselves the privilege of saying all the things they might have liked to say until the estimates have come before the house. As we go along with the consideration of those estimates we will try to make whatever explanations are necessary.


Mr. Charlton:: Mr. Chairman, let me assure the minister that we are glad to see him back in the house in his usual good form- and I use the expression "his usual good form". I have noticed this time that the figures used are mainly cash figures. The strange thing, you know, is just how figures and tactics can change in a very few years. I can remember well that it was only a few years ago, when cash returns were not so good, during the war years, and when the farmers were taking less than the value of their products, it was always talk about volume-volume, volume, volume: everything was volume. Cash figures were never mentioned to any extent.
Then, only a year or so ago, the same condition was true with the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Then the Minister of Agriculture comes before us today and changes the situation. When we have a condition when things are a little tougher than they were in 1951, he does not take the figures for one year. Oh no; he takes a three-year average. If the past year had been a good one, he would not take a three-year average; but because it is bad this year he goes back and grabs a year, three years ago, to try to make up for the bad year this year.
However, I am sincere when I say that we are glad to see him back in the house, in good form and in comparatively good health. He has said that we have approximately 33 million pounds of butter, which is not a surplus. Of course, if that were all the butter in Canada, probably it would not amount to a surplus; but I do not think anyone will agree with the minister when he says there is no surplus of butter in Canada.

Supply

Agriculture
It is true when he says that there is no large surplus of cheese.
I am not going into a discussion of the South Saskatchewan river project at this time, but most certainly I can see a good deal of debate in future along those lines.
There is no doubt about the position of agriculture in Canada today. Even though the Minister of Agriculture and others who support the government are making light of the present situation, the farmers of Canada know what that situation is. They are going to think what they like, regardless of what is said here in the House of Commons. They know how much money they have in their pockets. They know how much they will have left after they buy the necessities they have to buy. And, with the farmers, those are the figures that count.
One can readily understand why the minister took the average for the last three years. However, I have before me figures circulated by the dominion bureau of statistics which show index figures of farm prices for the last three years. This is the No. 1 issue for 1954, and the information is given in monthly and annual form.
The annual index figure for 1951, according to this publication, was 296.8; that for 1952 was 274.5; and for 1953 it was 247.5. Then I find here three other figures, namely those for January 1954, December 1953 and January 1953. The figure for January 1954 is 233.2. I take it the Minister of Agriculture will agree that these figures are correct. They indicate a reduction to the extent of 21.4 per cent in the prices of farm products since 1951. We will let the people decide for themselves whether there is any difference in the position of agriculture today from what it was a few years ago.
On the other hand, in that same period the prices of goods purchased by farmers has gone up by four per cent. It is clear therefore that while the gross income of farmers is down by 21.4 per cent the net income is further reduced by the fact that the goods the farmer has to purchase have increased in that same period to the extent of four per cent. That is the net position of the farmer today.
In the House of Commons for the past few years we have fought consistently for the retention and extension of trade with the United Kingdom. This government has just as consistently dropped trade with the United Kingdom and favoured the United States market. It is true that the market in the United States has given us a little better price. But while the price is better, I contend that the United States market has been so

unstable that the average position is poorer than it would have been if we had taken a little less money and sold in the market we were sure of.
Would it not have been better to face squarely the price factor involved in trading with the United Kingdom than to be subject to the unpredictable quotas of the United States? We never know when there will be a quota on this or a quota on that-and this has been proven in the matter of dairy products and oats and, more recently, rye. In the case of oats, it is bad enough having the United States government imposing a quota, but when our own government officials agree to restrict the export of those oats, thereby allowing the United States government to get off the hook, then it is showing a pretty weak-kneed attitude, I would think.
What can we expect from the United States at the present moment? As near as I can find out from the latest figures available, the amount of farm produce the United States is holding, and is owned by the United States government today, is $6-75 billion worth. Farm produce to the amount of $6 * 75 billion worth is owned and held by the United States government. In the face of that, can we expect to sell them very much farm produce? It is true that a little beef has been going over to the United States in the last couple of weeks.
Within the last few months the United States has changed its policy, and according to the press the new plan is to be based, instead of on the price from 1907 to 1914, on the previous ten-year period to the year with which they are dealing. That is, if they are dealing with 1954 it will be taken from 1953 back to 1943 or 1944, the previous ten years from the year they are dealing with.
Another thing is that the latitude in determining the percentage of parity is to have much more elasticity, and they are going to be able to change it from one percentage to the other a great deal more than they have done heretofore. The other thing is, they are going to freeze excess commodity reserves. They are going to isolate them from the market. They will not be put on the domestic market to lower prices.
With the huge surpluses in the United States, as I said before, we cannot expect United States farmers to sit down and say nothing and allow our products to come in and be sold in that country. It is not necessary for me, really, to go back over this government's policy during the war years. Everyone knows about it, the farmers best of all. The farmers realize how much less they were forced to take for their products

during the war. They were told that the markets would be retained for them after the war and that the reduction in prices would be made up to them to take care of the losses they took during the war years. What has happened is that since the war, when the markets got a little tough and it was not as easy to sell the products as it used to be, and production had gone up a little, the government more or less ditched the marketing of agricultural products and threw it back on the shoulders of the farmers and the provinces to deal with.
The Ontario cheese producers have accepted the ball. They were thrown a challenge last fall by this government that refused to help them in any way with respect to the surplus of cheese that they had on their hands. Therefore they did something themselves, and I want to commend the cheese producers of Ontario for doing it and probably leading the way in future marketing patterns.
As I said before, they found themselves with a surplus of cheese. That surplus was going to depress the domestic market so much that they felt it was better to take a small loss on some of this surplus and get rid of it, get it off the market. In doing so, I do not want anybody to say that it is dumping of cheese, because it is not. They were merely competing with the price at which England could buy cheese elsewhere. Do not let anyone say that that is dumping of cheese on the English market. They were merely taking a price that was competitive with other countries for the surplus of cheese and making it up to the producers by holding the price of domestic cheese to the point where our people could well afford to buy it, and which will pay the farmers a decent price for their cheese. They need to be congratulated on that which they thought at the time and still think was a good idea, namely, to get rid of the surplus cheese. In getting rid of that surplus cheese they not only helped themselves as cheese producers but they helped the entire dairy industry across Canada, and I think the dairy industry realizes that, as has been said on many occasions since that time. It was mentioned here, at the dominion-provincial conference, by the president of the dairy farmers of Canada. That is the position in which the farmers apparently find themselves in today.
What about the hog situation? The minister said there has been very little export of pork in the last year. There is a story behind the pork situation. As we all recall, in 1952 we had an outbreak of disease which we do not like to mention in this House of Commons, or any place else. But we know that in 1952 83276-2714
Supply-Agriculture
there was a terrific drop in the price of livestock products; so much so, that the government set a floor price on hogs of 23 cents. Although the price of hogs never did reach quite that low, it did have a definite effect on the number of hogs sent to the market. It is now having the opposite effect, and there is a scarcity of hogs in the country. I contend that the floor price of 23 cents is directly responsible for the shortage of hogs that we have today and the price of $36.50.
Fewer gilts are coming onto the market now than for quite some time, indicating that more hogs are being bred and of course we all know the inevitable result. In another year probably, or from six months to a year, more hogs will be coming to the market and the price will tumble. What is the government going to do when that happens? Have they any policy; have they any floor price? Have they any idea what the floor price might be? If they have, I have never heard anything mentioned along those lines, so I can only suppose that they have none, or if they have, probably they are not letting it be known at the moment. Although the minister said there was not much export of pork last year, I notice from the figures of the dominion bureau of statistics that last year we exported 55,320,000 pounds of pork, and of canned meat, of which I do not know the percentage of pork, but I would imagine it would be rather high in view of the fact that the government was holding quite a bit of canned pork at the time, there is another 30 million pounds. So that in all last year we exported 55,320,000 pounds of pork itself and then 30,255,000 pounds of canned meat, of which a moderate percentage would be canned pork.
As I say, the beef situation is quite a bit different. The price of beef is much less than pork at the present time and people are eating more beef. Certainly no pork to any extent is being canned now at today's prices. Then, as I said before, a little beef is now travelling across the border. When more pork comes on the market this fall the price of pork will no doubt go down. What will happen to beef at that time no one of course can say, but we can speculate that people will be eating a little less beef and a little more pork and that the amount of beef in storage may possibly rise.
With the exception of butter it is true that there is not much surplus of dairy products, but we should not overlook the surplus of breeding stock and the potential productivity of the dairy industry. Unless we have a very dry year and poor pasture it is evident that a tremendous amount of milk will be produced because of the surplus of dairy

Supply-Agriculture
stock across the nation. There is no doubt about it that the livestock producers have been hit the hardest of any, so far as the price drop is concerned. With the average drop being 21A per cent, I would venture a guess that in the case of the livestock producer 30 per cent would be a conservative figure at which to place the reduction.
I am going to leave it to my colleagues to discuss the subject of the grain farmers of the west more thoroughly. However, even though government officials and government members have said that the surplus of wheat is a good thing, grain in storage, as I said the other night in the budget debate, will not buy the products that are necessary on the farm. It must be sold and the cash received before western farmers can buy the necessities of life, and until it is sold there is not much that the farmers can do in order to help to maintain employment in the cities. When farmers have money they are by far the greatest purchasers of manufactured goods and, as I also said the other night, I am glad to see that the labour unions are now realizing that fact. They are realizing more every day that the buying power of farmers means very much to them as labourers in industry in Canada.
During the last year the mixed farmers of eastern Canada may have made up on hogs what they lost on cattle, but nevertheless their purchasing power is reduced not only because they have fewer dollars in their pockets but also by the fact that they are fearful as to what prices they are going to receive tomorrow and they do not want to part with the dollar they have today, even for necessities. They are fearful because they remember what happened before. They are hanging on to the dollars they received yesterday instead of parting with them, because they are fearful as to what they are going to get for the products they sell tomorrow and in the future. Cheap food and a high level of employment certainly do not go together. Any drop in the net income of farmers will undoubtedly be felt by industry and labour alike.
The spread in prices from the producer to the consumer has always been a very important part of our debates and will probably continue to be. With people demanding more service and a nicer looking package, it is going to cost them more money. If the consumers of this country want to pay that kind of money for paper it is up to them. That is what they are doing today. They are paying a very high price for the wrapping around produce they are buying from farms across Canada. However, apparently that is what they want.

If the government at this time is going to throw the ball to the farmers to look after themselves, which is rather obvious, then we as farmers, with the assistance of our producer organizations, must be prepared to accept it. However, if that is the policy of the government then let them make sure that producers have adequate representation on all boards having to do with the sale of farm products.
Apparently the old idea of building up a nest egg for a rainy day period has been destroyed by the government through its taxation policies. In the budget debate a few nights ago I had something to say about income tax and I want to say something more now. It used to be that practically every farmer in the nation took pride in the fact that if he worked hard during his lifetime and saved his money he would have enough on which to retire in his old age. Taking good days and bad, ordinarily that would be true, but what has happened in the last twenty years has destroyed that theory.
In the good years from 1920 to 1929 farmers made money and paid off their mortgages, but in the thirties they had to remortgage. Then we came to the second world war and the government put a ceiling price on farm products preventing the farmers from getting any more for them. The result was that our farmers did not have the opportunity to make up what they had lost by way of depletion of their capital in the 1930's. They did not have a chance to do so in the last ten years because the income tax inspectors came along and took it away from them. The farmer has not been able to build up a surplus for a rainy day. If something goes wrong now he turns to the government. There is nothing else he can do because the government, through its taxation policies, has prevented our farmers from competing in export markets just as much as they have in the case of industry.
There is no doubt that taxation is the greatest single factor in the cost of production. I repeat that taxation is the greatest single factor in the cost of production for both industry and farmers, and as long as the government maintains the high taxation policy it has maintained the farmer is going to come to the government for assistance because he has not had a chance to build up a surplus to carry him over a bad period. The taxes on labour, component parts and finally on the manufacturer's price for the finished product spiral and spiral until the product reaches the consumer. As I said before, if the government refuses to reduce taxes, then the responsibility is thrown directly back on the manufacturer and

farmer to try to compete with other people who are not burdened with that kind of taxation or high cost.
It is rather odd to find in the estimates that the amounts for postage, telegraph and telephones have gone up considerably in practically every item. The total amount may appear very trivial, but so far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned the amount for postage has increased by $16,810.
That figure may sound trivial after the discussion we have heard here in the house concerning millions upon millions of dollars. But in addition there has been an increase in telephone and telegraphs of $21,842. I mention that, Mr. Chairman, because, as I have pointed out on previous occasions, this government has advised industry and farmers in particular to go out and cut costs which they say are the main reason why we cannot compete with other countries. But has this government made any attempt whatever to reduce the costs of administration? There was an increase of $38,652 in postage, telephone and telegraphs. What is the reason for that increase this year? That is what I want to know and it is what, I believe, many people want to know, because even though it may sound ridiculous to mention that figure in the same breath as the large item now before us in these estimates, it is still a figure which could be cut down. Unless this government in some way makes it evident to the people of Canada that they are attempting in some way to cut down administration costs, then I do not think they should urge the agricultural industry of this country to cut down their costs.
It is always wise to check back on the records of the past and look sideways once in a while in order to anticipate attacks coming from some other direction. In that regard I would say this to the government. Let them take off the coloured glasses long enough to get the true picture and see the danger signals looming up on the horizon.


Mr. Knight:: Mr. Chairman, the minister gave us an interesting view of the agricultural picture in this country in which I myself am very much interested. I was interested in his remarks in regard to Israel and what he had seen there as regards ditches and irrigation. I do not come from an agricultural district and I have, since redistribution, lost a good many of my farmer supporters and I therefore have to rely very largely upon the people of my own city either to elect or to reject me, but I am interested in how irrigation might affect our city.
I notice the minister spent a great deal of his time in the course of his remarks on the question I raised during the budget speech,
Supply-Agriculture
and I do not blame him, for the minister is very adroit, and must very well know that someone would certainly challenge him on the remarks he made in my own city and which were conveyed to the public through the medium of the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix which, incidentally, is a pretty reliable newspaper. The minister dealt with the fact that some of his remarks were made in addresses to the S.R.D. association, and I notice that one interview was given to a reporter. I presume the minister sat down, as I have done upon occasion, and gave a considered statement to that reporter. I have some difficulty in understanding the speech which the minister has just completed and I would submit that that is not completely due to lack of intelligence on my own part, for the minister before now has mystified us on this question.
However, as I said the other day during my speech on the budget, I am glad to see the minister so well. In this regard I would like to endorse the remarks made by the hon. member who spoke first. Personally I have nothing against the Minister of Agriculture. Indeed I am very happy to see him here and, I might even say, altogether like his old self again. But that, of course, does not mean that I am not compelled to differ with him politically, particularly on this issue which means so much to my own city.
I am not going to go into the whole history of this thing. I will not go into the history of the project, nor the reasons why we require irrigation, but I think it would be perhaps as well to give one or two of the reasons why I find myself interested in it, because, as everyone knows, cities in our part of western Canada are completely dependent upon the prosperity of the farmers who live in the surrounding districts. If you reach the stage where the farmers through adverse circumstances can no longer live in that district, then, of course, you cannot expect prosperity in that city. As I have pointed out before, the irrigation of those prairie plains is the one thing which would bring about an increase in rural population. It would also bring about a diversification of farming, and bring about stability to the extent where the farmers would have insurance against the onslaught of drought. Therefore I make no apology for demanding that the dominion government should proceed forthwith with the construction of that dam.
At this point I would like to deal with something of the story of these press reports which the minister, I notice, was particularly careful to explain and about which I have no doubt he must feel some degree of sensitivity. I know I would if I were in his

Supply-Agriculture position. A cabinet minister who, after all, must speak for the government, whether he wishes to or not, cannot just go running around the country saying these things and not expect to be challenged in regard to them in the House of Commons.
The minister in his speech today said some rather peculiar things. I am not going to quote them. But as I remember it he said he had not undertaken to do anything which he had not undertaken. I cannot make head or tail of that particular statement. He did say that he is not in a position to say the dam is going to be built. I quite realize that, but I want to go back to the quotations from the various interviews the minister granted in my own province, and some of them in my own city. Apparently the minister had a busy week. I will not go into his political activities, but we were told here that he did not attend the conference called by the S.F.U. and that he was closeted with Dr. Partridge of the Liberal association. But that is small potatoes. Let us get on to the main issue. I notice the first quotation here is from a clipping in which it is stated that the outlook for the dam was never better. That is the opinion expressed by one of the officials of the Saskatchewan river dam association after he came away from a meeting with the very persuasive minister.
As I said the other day, I am amazed how good the minister is at that sort of thing. Here we have a man completely convinced that the outlook for the dam was never better just because, forsooth, the minister gave a little talk. I have heard the minister talking for what must be close to thirty years, but on this occasion I propose to put on the record some of the things the minister has said. However, there it is. "The outlook for the dam was never better", says the Star-Phoenix in a headline on April 22. The minister said today, and I do not blame him at all, that he objects to these quotation marks. If I were the minister I would prefer never to have what I said put in quotation marks, because after all these quotation marks are rather difficult to wriggle away from. They put them around what you actually have said and you have difficulty saying that that is not what you said, or not what you meant to say. Without these quotation marks there could be a good deal of paraphrasing by the minister and by other people who happen to read the speech. But I want to draw attention to the quotation marks to which the minister objects, and in this case this is not a speech which might be made on the spur of the moment by a man who is either optimistic or irresponsible.
fMr. Knight.]

This is an interview. By the way, let us have the headlines first. They are rather large; I think they can be seen all over the house. The headline is, "Ottawa Ignoring Commission's Report on Dam, says Gardiner." A minister is speaking, a minister of a responsible government. Then I thought back and I said to myself, "Does the cabinet know what the minister is saying?" Does Mr. St. Laurent know what he is saying? He was on the same platform as the minister and on a not too far distant occasion. At any rate the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister were on the same platform at Regina. I think it was before the election. There the Prime Minister gave a rather categorical statement that under the circumstances of the adverse report the dam would not be proceeded with. Now we have the minister apparently speaking for his colleagues and this is what he said within these objectionable quotation marks:
The federal government-[DOT]
And then the quotation marks start.
-"has forgotten all about the report of the royal commission on the South Saskatchewan river dam," . . .
The cabinet either knows about that statement or it does not know about that statement. If it knows about that statement, then it meant it to be made. I wonder what the Prime Minister's comment would be at this moment in view of that particular situation where previously he gave the categorical statement that the dam under the circumstances of that adverse report would not be proceeded with. I think that is a fair question. I do not think that I am going to go into the rest of this article. As a matter of fact, the minister picked out from it those parts which, I presume, in his opinion were on his side of the argument and took, as it were, my feet from under me somewhat by advancing them first. That is an old trick and a perfectly legitimate one.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is not a trick.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The minister knows all about tricks. In case the record would not get it, the minister of-what is it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member should be interested enough to know that.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: It is the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and as to him may I say that I will stick with Shakespeare and say that there are no tricks in plain and simple faith. There is no one who knows more about tricks than does the Minister of National Health and Welfare and there is no one who can get up here and do a better job of twisting things a little bit and making them look a

little bit different. I would not say whether he or the Minister of Agriculture is more adroit at that particular feat.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a compliment that I take with great satisfaction.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Personally I much prefer the method of the Minister of Agriculture who is accustomed to use a club. Faced with the choice between the club of the Minister of Agriculture and {he stiletto of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I will take the club of the Minister of Agriculture.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member is partial because he comes from Saskatchewan.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Let the minister make his own speech. If he is going to justify this thing about the Saskatchewan dam, I shall be pleased to hear from him in due course.
It is interesting that the Ottawa Journal would pick up these particular quotations from statements of the minister, or alleged statements, if that phrase suits the minister, as they appeared in the Star-Phoenix.
All this comes to mind upon our reading an interview which Mr. James Gardiner,-
He might have called him Hon. James Gardiner.
-the Minister of Agriculture, gave last week to the Saskatchewan Star-Phoenix. Mr. Gardiner told that newspaper that the government "has forgotten all about the report of the royal commission on the South Saskatchewan river", . . .


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, just to keep the record straight, may I say that I did not say any such thing.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: It is here. I have these little quotation marks. These things in quotation marks are here. The minister does not like them. However, what we find here is this:
Mr. Gardiner told that newspaper that the government "has forgotten all about the report of the royal commission on the South Saskatchewan river", proceeded to make clear that he did not share in this lamentable lapse of memory. Mr. Gardiner, in other words, was disagreeing publicly with his cabinet colleagues on a matter of major policy-voicing dissatisfaction with their conduct.
I myself do not agree with that. I think he went too far. The editorial continues:
Whether Mr. Gardiner is right in remembering or his colleagues right in forgetting, is not here the point. The relevant thing is:	What about collective cabinet responsibility? Has it been thrown into the discard, looked upon as a useless relic of the days of Melbourne and Laurier?
That is pretty well the extent of the minister's statement at Saskatoon. If the minister with his usual agility can wiggle himself off that hook, I shall be interested to see him do it. There is no one who is better equipped to do it, but I doubt if even he can.
Supply-Agriculture
There are so many things one could say about this matter that one does not know where to begin. The minister says the dam has not been promised. He says now that he is in full agreement. He said today that the members of the cabinet were in full agreement with this statement. He did not say that they knew he was going to make it. But he certainly did say that with regard to anything he was doing or saying about this dam, his colleagues knew about it. That is something new. That is a bit of a change from a year ago.
I have in my hand Hansard of February 9, 1953 and I am going to take the liberty of quoting a word or two from what the minister said on that particular occasion. I would point out that the occasion is different; and when the occasion is different the minister's statement becomes different. Here we go. It is the matter of making adjustments and balances. At page 1740 of Hansard of February 9, 1953 I find the minister reported as saying this, and he is speaking about the government of Saskatchewan and the government of Alberta:
But neither one of those governments has any undertaking, either from myself or from the government of Canada, that we are going to go ahead with those projects.
The reference was to certain irrigation projects in which there was included the building of the South Saskatchewan dam. I now come to the next page, 1741, where I find the minister is reported as saying this:
Well, I am going to tell you this: I do not know any more about who is supporting and who is opposing the project in the government of Canada than you do, and I am going to tell you why. It has never yet been discussed before the government of Canada,-
That was the question of the Saskatchewan dam. Now today I am congratulating the minister on having reached the point where we have got a bit of this collective responsibility and that he has now reached the point where he takes his colleagues in the cabinet into his confidence and says, "As to what I do, they know what I am doing". I am glad that the minister has now committed himself to the idea that the government and, I presume, the Prime Minister, is prepared to go ahead and do something about this construction.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say what my hon. friend has just stated.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: May I say quite frankly that I am prepared to accept a statement when I hear it from the Prime Minister of Canada.

Supply-Agriculture
I now come to another quotation on the same page, 1741. There the minister says this:
Therefore I come back to the point that the building of the dam never was discussed in council-
I presume that is the cabinet.
-before the 30th day of May or since.
We do make advances with the dam, for it is thirty years since it was first discussed, and in another thirty we may get something out of it. The minister is asked some questions here. The hon. member for Prince Albert was amazed when the minister said that the cabinet did not know anything about this. I am quoting the minister now, as reported at page 1744:
We have not yet discussed it with the province of Saskatchewan since the report is out, and until it is discussed we are not in position to proceed.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Or with the cabinet?


James Garfield Gardiner: Or with the cabinet.
So it had not been discussed with the cabinet and it had not been discussed with Saskatchewan. But today we are in the assured position-we are all ready for another election-that the cabinet is unanimous and no doubt they will be doing something about the building of this dam. The Leader of the Opposition addressed a question to the minister and he obtained the same answer. This is at page 1747 of Hansard. I have one other little place marked. I did not know that I had these passages marked until I found this old Hansard report and it is tremendously useful to me today. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre got into the discussion at that point. I quote:


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister mean the members of the government with whom he has not discussed the matter?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think I know them as well as my hon. friend does.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the minister says he has not discussed the question with them at all.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have a pretty good idea what they think about most of the matters I am talking about in spite of the fact we have not discussed them.
On that occasion the minister said he thinks he knows what they think about it. I am glad that now we have got a little farther because he said today that he knows not only what they think about it but what they say about it and they are all in agreement about it. Away we go to the races for another year, and the next election.
I could go on, of course, because this subject has been discussed for so long and so much has been put on the record. I have accused the minister, I have indicted him for making contradictory statements, and probably in that case it is my responsibility to prove I am right in my assertion. I am going to give

you a quotation from one more speech that the minister made at Southey, Saskatchewan. The press report reads:
Agriculture minister Gardiner told an election meeting last night . . . etc.
I really need to read only the relative part.
This work for irrigation could be started as soon as the need for employment arose after the war.
Here we are today with more than 500,000 men out of work, and no public works shelf. We heard about a public works shelf back in 1945, but the goods have gone off the shelf now. There is not any shelf. This work for irrigation could be started as soon as the need ior employment arose after the war, says the minister.
In addition the minister told of a large program for which the plans were only partly drawn, costing $110 million in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. It would involve a dam on the Saskatchewan river near Outlook, Saskatchewan.
I might have said that speech was made at a political meeting in 1945. The Leader-Post commented on that speech in an editorial as follows-I am sorry but I cannot say what the minister said. All I can do is stress these quotation marks that are here. The editorial says:
All in all, it was a valuable as well as a provocative speech which Mr. Gardiner made. What he told the three provinces and the people of the three provinces in a word was that the federal government does not need any more urging. It already has both the intention and the authority to go ahead on the four major water conservation projects named.
May I point out in that regard, too, that one of those things was the Outlook dam. There is a lot more of it. Here is something a Liberal M.P. said speaking at Kindersley. The press report states:
He stated that he had secured assurances-
I would not know where.
-that one hundred and eleven million dollars would be available for the proposed scheme.
Then, the Leader-Post of April 27, 1946, under the title "Saskatchewan dam assured", carried the following article. I shall read only the third paragraph.
The dominion government thus did not need the endorsation of the South Saskatchewan river development association to begin work on the South Saskatchewan river. It had already decided to go through with it.
I will give you another one. This one is a speech made by Mr. Gordon Ross, and perhaps we cannot hold the minister responsible for what he said. The press report states:
Tenders will be called shortly for the much discussed South Saskatchewan irrigation scheme, J. Gordon Ross, Moose Jaw, intimated at a Liberal nominating meeting here Wednesday.

As a comment I would say that would be a likely place for such a statement to be made. The date is May 23, 1946. The article continues with the following in quotation marks:
"The scheme has been worked out; much of the engineering has been done and before long some contracts will De allowed", Mr. Ross said, "and a start will be made as soon as men and equipment are available."
Well, that is that. As for the expenditure, I noticed that in his speech today the minister emphasized that this was not largely an expenditure by the dominion government, but after all the provincial government was going to pay for a lot of it. The federal government would only have to build the dam and then look after maintenance. There was not a word of that before 1951. In all those old election speeches that I recall there was not a word about it. The minister never said anything about Saskatchewan participation when he spoke in the Technical school in Saskatoon back in 1944 at the time of the provincial election. He said, "We will build this dam", and he mentioned the sum of $110 million. I see the minister is ready to get up and tell me that some of that was for Alberta.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will not bother you.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Thank you.


James Garfield Gardiner: You are doing yourself
enough harm; I do not need to bother.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: When I made a speech in 1952 similar to this before the election the minister told me to keep right on going because I was hanging myself. The minister said that in the city of Saskatoon he had a lot of friends and I would be doing myself a lot of harm. Well, sir, I took that risk and the Minister of Agriculture was one of the five cabinet ministers who came to my city before the election. May I point out to him that I am back here now and returning his kindly visit.


Mr. Nicholson:: With a bigger majority than ever.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Never mind the majority, but it is a larger one and one that shows a one to one correspondence in thousands to the numbers of cabinet ministers who visited our city.
It was only in 1951 that we were astonished to find, after we came back after the election, that Saskatchewan would have to help finance this scheme. The figure the minister mentioned then was the sum of $33 million for the province and that has been increasing since. It was boosted to $45 million, and at the moment I do not know where it is, but
Supply-Agriculture
the Saskatchewan government is going to have plenty of responsibility in regard to the building of that particular project.
Now, our people are getting a bit angry about this. I do not know whether the failure of this government to do anything about the project had anything to do with the results of the last dominion and provincial elections in Saskatchewan. I believe the minister would at least admit that in those elections his party was none too successful. I believe I shall leave it at that. After a while you get tired of being promised these things. You get tired of these deviations and these twistings. Even the Star-Phoenix, which is a good newspaper and usually leans quite heavily on the Liberal side, does not like these things.
Here is a clipping from the Star-Phoenix of April 29, 1953. It is headed "New Deal on the Dam", and reads:
Mr. Gardiner's suggestion for a new deal on the South Saskatchewan river dam cannot be taken seriously.
Have we got to the point where the senior Liberal member and cabinet minister for Saskatchewan cannot be taken seriously? If so, I think it is too bad. I should like to be able to take seriously the words of any cabinet minister. This article goes on:
He has been making speeches about the dam throughout the country ever since 1946.
I could correct that, for it was a lot earlier than that. I am not going to go into this matter any more, but the article concludes by saying:
Mr. Gardiner cannot escape announcing a federal
policy-
That is all they know about it, they underestimate the minister.
-for the South Saskatchewan river by raising additional questions. The reception which the people of Saskatchewan gave to the report of the royal commission should have been enough to tip him off that the people of this province are in earnest about getting some irrigation developments started long enough before the next drought to do some good. Moreover, the Saskatchewan River Development Association is not leading a delegation to Ottawa this week to be confronted with a new set of conundrums-
That is not my word.
-designed to get Mr. Gardiner or the federal government off the hook. We want to know what the federal government proposes to do about the Outlook dam.
And I want to know; and I think everybody else does, and particularly everybody else who lives in that particular section of the country.
Well, sir, I did not intend to say nearly as much as I have said; but maybe it is a good

Supply-Agriculture
thing that someone should draw attention to these statements. The minister goes out to the west and makes statements. Then he comes back and, in his usual manner, he explains them away in the house-"I meant this" or "I did not mean this" or "the reporter put a comma in"- the last time it was a comma. Do you remember the famous comma? Today it is quotation marks he objects to. And let me say if I were accused of making that statement, I would object to the quotation marks too.
I think we should have some forthright statement. I give the minister credit for wanting to have the dam. I believe he does want it. But let us know what the state of affairs really is. The Prime Minister says one thing at a meeting in Regina and the Minister of Agriculture says something else at Saskatoon. Then he comes here and says something which I, at least, interpret as being different.
Either we should drop this thing as a political dodge or we should build it. Preferably, I am in favour of building it. Meantime, if you cannot build it, then be honest about it and say so. The minister will say, of course, "I was honest and said so". He has already quoted passages to that effect. Well, what are we to take from these quotations? The minister goes out and makes these statements. They are given to us in quotation marks. If it is true that this cabinet has now decided to ignore the commission's report on the dam, then that is a cabinet decision. What is that cabinet decision? Is the cabinet decision that the dam is to be proceeded with? If it is to be proceeded with, is it to be proceeded with forthwith? Let us know.
Let me finish this speech by saying, as I said to my friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare: There are no tricks in plain and simple faith.


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Chairman, although I am an enthusiastic supporter of irrigation and a supporter of the Saskatchewan irrigation scheme-when it is finally determined just what is the best scheme, and who is going to pay for it-I do not propose to follow the previous speaker in respect of his general theme.
I would like to join with those who have already spoken in expressing our rejoicing that the minister is back, and that he is rapidly recovering his old fighting form which, I am sure, all hon. members have greatly enjoyed, even though at times they may not have rejoiced over the things he was saying or what he was doing. But we do want to have him back and in a condition to say those things.

There is another reason I am glad the minister is not going to be eased out of the house by the hospital route, and that is this, that of all the men in the cabinet who have spoken in respect of the question, the Minister of Agriculture has manifested the greatest degree of forward looking in the matter of the disposal of our surpluses-getting them out of the country. The minister will correct me if I paraphrase inaccurately what I believe he said on one of his trips. As I recall it he said, in effect, that if we cannot devise means whereby we can get our surpluses into the hands of those who need them, then that fact must indicate that we are deficient or lacking in ideas.
The minister indicated clearly to me, and I believe to those to whom he was speaking, that in his opinion it was possible for us to get our surpluses into the hands of those who need them, regardless of whether or not they had anything to pay in return. And I would gather there was an implication in the minister's remarks that an obligation was imposed upon us to exert ourselves in an effort to solve that problem.
It was almost like a spring in the desert to find those words coming from the Minister of Agriculture, a minister in a Liberal cabinet at Ottawa. I am glad to see him back. I would encourage him to go straight along that line, and he will find me right behind him when he does.
I enjoyed the minister's review of the position up to the present time, although he did not tell us a great deal. He did give a few facts. I am not sure however that they were related generally to our whole problem. They did not give us any definite idea as to what we could expect in the future in relation to the stability of agricultural conditions in our country

and that is something we are all looking for, including the minister. I think it is fitting that we should lay down for ourselves some general principles in agriculture upon which we can go forward.
No one in the house needs to be told that the backbone of this nation is agriculture. If we allow our farmers to be impaired in their efficiency and in their effort to produce the needs of life, we shall seriously weaken the whole economic fabric of Canada, right from the foundation. We shall destroy the confidence which in these days of great anxiety is of much importance. To illustrate, all we have to do is to remember what happened to farmers a few years ago in the matter of hog production. They were preparing themselves to produce hogs to fill further orders, and suddenly the bottom fell right out of the market, and all the producers

of hogs in the west were, as they have expressed it, burned. Most farmers sternly resolved, in most emphatic language, that they would never touch hogs again.
We do not want that kind of condition to develop again in the west in connection with any agricultural product, because by the time the farmers recover their confidence it may be too late. As everyone knows we are in dangerous times.
Now, the principles in which Social Creditors believe are, I believe, the same as those in which all other people believe, so far as farming is concerned. The first of these is that the price of farm products to farmers must not be permitted to fall, except in accordance with a general corresponding fall in the prices of all items entering into their costs of production. For hundreds of years economies and governments have succeeded in making farmers take the rap when an endeavour was made to bring prices down in a country. I hope that we are too enlightened in this age to attempt to do that any more.
I have said on the floor of this house that prices of certain commodities had to come down. I did not mean they should come down while the cost of production stayed up. That is the first general principle. We should like to know whether the minister agrees with that and whether his department is to be guided by that principle and whether there is to be one hundred per cent backing of him and his department in the cabinet at Ottawa in the advocacy of that principle. If there is, we shall support it, the minister, his department and the government in respect of agricultural prices, and so will the people.
The second great principle is this-I am not sure everyone will agree with this, but the minister will come somewhere near agreeing with it I believe. We should have capacity production of all non-perishable foods, capacity both in respect of variety and of quantity. This is no time to begin to cut our production in reference to any of the needs of life. I believe every hon. member agrees in that respect. Well, if every hon. member agrees in that respect, let us put pressure on our government to see that they live up to it-and we can do it. The Liberal members can do it and they will have the opposition behind them in that wholesome endeavour.
The third principle is that all of the nonperishable foods ought to be stored on the farms in storage facilities accepted by government inspectors. There is altogether too much danger in this world today to have our great storehouses of food built in places like
Supply-A griculture
Fort William where a lucky bomb could blow the whole of a season's supplies right out of existence.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: It is a great place in which to live.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, it is a great place to see everything blown to the sky. I noticed that as I was coming by, just the other morning. They have even made those great elevators white so the enemy can locate with greater ease. I ask any hon. member whether he thinks it is safe to have this nation storing food all in such conspicuous and readily accessible concentrations as that. No one will say it is any longer safe.
There is another important matter, and that is as regards the elevators in which we store grain all over the piairies-it is easy to detect and destroy them. As a matter of fact, as the hon. member for Peace river says, they are landmarks. Imagine what a merry time a flotilla of bombers that happened to get over our guard coming in from the north would have just utterly demolishing every one of those concentrations of elevators at every important point clear down Alberta's length and breadth, from the Peace river to the United States border. Similarly with the Saskatchewan elevators; with just one blow they could knock down seven, eight, nine or ten elevators all in a row. Think of what likewise could be done in Manitoba. It is easy enough for us to be supercilious about this matter and smile, but there will be no smiles if the thing happens. There would be nothing but dismay. Let us remember that that thing could happen to you and me within the next year. What are we going to do about this? Are we to be just sitting ducks inviting the enemy to come, or are we going to do something about it? All of this indicates, in my judgment, that we should adopt forthwith a policy of storage on the farm.
The fourth principle which I think is very important is this. Let us expand our production in purposeful teamwork with the British commonwealth and the United States. I do not know what has happened to the British people and the United States people within the last ten or twelve years. We seem to have got the idea that there is no security, there is no validity in anything British or Anglo-Saxon any more. It has got to be international, or it has no virtue. Let me warn hon. members that in my opinion we shall live to see, and we shall not have to live very long, the United Nations crumble as we saw the league of nations crumble.
4296	HOUSE OF
Private Bills-Divorce


Mr. Ellis:: You will help them.


John Horne Blackmore: I am not going to help them. Let us have a little sense. I am just warning that this thing could occur.


Mr. Hollingworih:: Does the hon. member who is speaking think that the methods of Senator McCarthy conform to Anglo-Saxon traditions?


John Horne Blackmore: If the hon. member will bring his question up in an appropriate place where we can deal with it then I shall deal with him until he wishes he had never brought it up. It has nothing in the world to do with what we are discussing at the present time, and anybody who brings it up is just plain cheap. He is not thinking about the big problems in the country at all. Any person in this house who would be cheap in these times is just not fit to be here. That is my opinion, and I will maintain it right to the limit, and I think the hon. member will when he gets outside and thinks it over.
Let me say once more that we should develop in co-operation with the British commonwealth. You can count on the members of the British commonwealth; you can count on Britain. We have always been able to count on her, and I would ask you, what other countries can we count on, outside of the United States? Let us be realistic and pay a little more attention to the British commonwealth.


The Deputy Chairman:: It being five o'clock the house will proceed with the consideration of private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Apple whaite):: There are several divorce bills on the order paper, Bills Nos. 423 to 440, inclusive. Is it the consent of the house that they should be taken in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill No. 423, for the relief of Mary Joy Thomson Asselin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 424, for the relief of Ronald Arthur Leslie.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 425, for the relief of Lucienne Saint-Laurent Calve.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 426, for the relief of Roberta Barbara Shvemar Feigelman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 427, for the relief of Pearl Marie Neil Lane.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 428, for the relief of Marjorie May Price Amory.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 429, for the relief of Marie Jeannette Laure Lafreniere Lucas.-Mr. Hunter.


Bill No. 430, for the relief of Frances Goldberg Glegg.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 431, for the relief of Thelma Nellie McKeage Patrick.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 432, for the relief of Madeleine Roy Julien.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 433, for the relief of Louis Tothe. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 434, for the relief of Joseph Delphis Guillaume Delorme.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 435, for the relief of Nicolas Joseph Ladislas Barath.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 436, for the relief of Ferencz Gyula Babinszki.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 437, for the relief of Beatrice Alexandra Duff Sheppard.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 438, for the relief of Remi Char-bonneau.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 439, for the relief of Kathleen Florence Pippy Hayward.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 440, for the relief of Fred Skiffing-ton.-Mr. Hunter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Apple whaite):: The
business under private and public bills having been exhausted, the house will revert to the consideration of the business interrupted at five o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $432,490.
John Horne Blackmore: I had been dealing with four principles that I had laid down as being desirable in respect of our agriculture. I was urging that we keep our eyes on the British commonwealth and the United States. If others then wish to fall in line, very well, but if they do not, our foundations are not going to crumble because they fall out of line. We can be great and powerful and accomplish the mission that the Lord intended us to accomplish without having any serious complications with peoples other than our own and I do not intend any offence to anybody else.
In my judgment the fifth principle is this: Let us aim to produce for our own adequately, and then some for our neighbours. Let us be conscious of that all the time. If it is flax, if it is sugar, if it is wheat, if it is any one of all the essentials of life, let us produce adequately for our own, make ourselves as nearly self-supporting as possible, and then produce some for our needy neighbours. They are going to need all we can give them.

I have in my hand a letter dated April 23, 1954 that I have just received from the North American regional office of the food and agriculture organization of the United Nations. There are passages in it which I believe we should contemplate once more and see if we cannot do something about the situation. Speaking of the food supply, here are some of the words:
However, global estimates tend to give a favourable impression, obscuring the fact that because of great differences in production between regions and countries, people in many areas have still less to eat than before the war, especially in the Far East.
Speaking of the 1953 report which has just come out, the letter has this to say:
This report gives two outstanding features of the current world food situation. One, the vital necessity of raising productivity, per man and per hectare, in the underdeveloped areas. The other, nothing less than the sheer magnitude of the world food problem as a whole, still not properly appreciated in many countries. Whatever standards are taken, some 70 per cent of the world's people are living below the present average world diet. To raise their diet to that average, itself far below the best fed countries' level, would take an additional food supply equal to the total 1952-53 production of North America and Oceania combined.
In the light of that I ask any member in the house: Can you conceive of its being a sensible thing for us to limit our production of grains and non-perishable foods like beans, corn, flax and so on? The letter continues with this quotation from the report:
"Compared with the real human needs of the deficit countries, as distinct from what they can afford to buy, food stocks now accumulating shrink into insignificance. Whatever supplies are shipped to those countries, whether in the normal way of commerce or as gifts or loans, can do no more than alleviate their real needs. A basic improvement", the report says, "in their food supply, must come primarily from a steady increase in their own production. To help forward this improvement is the main task of FAO."
I offer this comment on the letter. I have had the impression ever since we began forming these FAO's and all the rest of them that there has been an unreality about their performance. FAO, for example, is designed to supply surpluses from one country to another, but somehow or other it never enters into the minds of those in the organization concerned with planning and operating that the money has to come from somewhere. Money is the thing that counts in these matters. The result is that FAO has been just about as valuable as a fifth wheel as far as actually getting anything done in the world is concerned.
They tell me that the world still has fourteen hundred million people going to bed hungry every night. While FAO is all right as an ornament, it might just as well be written off unless we supplement it in a way
Supply-Agriculture
that will really make it able to do its job. I believe the men in charge want to do the job.
There is another quotation further on in the letter which I think it is important for us to have. It reads as follows:
. . . and the task of finding some solution to the problem of distribution is one of primary importance.
Of course it is, but I ask hon. members how many times they have heard anyone in this house suggest a means of increasing distribution. Outside of the Social Credit group, who has suggested any means that could increase distribution? I ask them to read the newspapers, the big wise, know-it-all newspapers like the Ottawa Journal, the Toronto Globe and Mail, the Windsor Star, the Montreal Star and all the others that can tell us all about how to run everything.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do not forget the Winnipeg Free Press.


John Horne Blackmore: Oh yes. When have they ever said one single word about how to improve distribution? When have they ever done anything except to attack and assail those who did try to offer suggestions? That is a serious matter. I did not name all the offending newspapers, but the pathetic thing is that throughout the nation from coast to coast and throughout the United States this matter of distribution is the one great problem we all recognize but never try to do anything about. Somebody has got to do something about it. And may I suggest that we cannot do something about it if we use only the old measures which have been tried and tried and proved wanting ad nauseam.
Here is another short quotation. The letter writer has been telling about how FAO had referred this particular problem of distribution to a working party-noble little working party; Canada is a member of it! A bright lot of information it will get from Canada, especially if Canada sends the Minister of Finance because he has never offered a suggestion in his long life about how to increase distribution. He will not even listen to suggestions of any kind. I say that right to his face, and I do not blame him for not answering, because I know he cannot answer that point. Neither he nor any other member of the Liberal party has ever made any effective suggestion to this house as to how to deal with the problem of distribution. All they talk about is free trade, but free trade has been tried for thousands of years and has never succeeded yet.


Mr. Abbott:: Higher and higher protection.


John Horne Blackmore: That is just as foolish.

Supply-Agriculture


Stanley Howard Knowles: Everybody is stupid but our John.


John Horne Blackmore: Everybody likes to get
away from the heat, but you don't have to go to the point of freezing. What you want to do is to find the proper place in between- the middle road.
Now this is what it says about this working party which has been working away something like the group of brilliant Canadian men who went to the Bretton Woods conference and signed an agreement. They sat around and listened to a lot of communist spies telling them stories and selling them a bill of goods. They then came back and pretended they had achieved something wonderful. But all they had was a gold brick. But here is what this writer says about this working party:
The	working	party was	in	no position tofind a	complete	solution to	this	question of surpluses,	but they	did review	and	draw up recommendations for	several types of	special arrangements for surplus disposal, at least in line with existing supplies and to prevent the accumulation of new surpluses.
Now, is that not a bombastic way of saying they did nothing? It is a most effective way of telling people that the working party could do nothing and never will do anything as long as such parties are composed of people who cannot look into the future as the Minister of Agriculture was evidently endeavouring to do when he suggested that if we could not find a means of getting surplus goods into the hands of those who need them there must be in us a deficiency of ideas. Let us get the ideas. They are around and they can be found. Back in 1915 our fathers had the ideas as to how this thing of distributing could be done, and they did it under the finance acts of 1914 and 1923, as I indicated on April 28 in my talk.
And so, there are five things that need to be said about this question of agriculture. First, let us see to it that we do not force our primary producers to take the rap in our endeavours to bring down the cost of living in this country. Everyone knows that the cost of living should be brought down. As I have already indicated, however, we should not force the farmers to bring it down and crush them under the burden, without bringing about a corresponding reduction in their costs which now are becoming so onerous. To suggest that the farmers should carry this burden is an improvident and most fallacious proposal. Secondly, we should work for the greatest possible degree of production of every kind of which this country is capable, and we should concentrate on the production of goods which will not perish such as beans, peas, corn, all the grains,

sugar, and the like. Third, we must store these commodities on the farm and provide adequate storage facilities. Fourth, in all our efforts we must work in co-operation with the British commonwealth and the United States. And fifth, we must produce as far as we possibly can all the things we need ourselves and some which are needed by our neighbours, and then see to it that those neighbours get those goods.
The question might be raised as to how we are going to finance all this. Well, I have already said enough about that. In my speech on November 17 I went into that question in detail and I also dealt with it in my remarks on April 28, and I challenge any man in or outside of this house to find any flaw in the suggestions I made. I do not care who he is.
To say that we cannot take from the Bank of Canada money to provide the storage facilities is simply to talk nonsense. If we cannot take that money out of the Bank of Canada then we had better replace the Bank of Canada with the Finance Act of 1923, because under that act they were able to do it. To say that we cannot take the money out of the Bank of Canada to pay the farmers for their grain after it is put into storage is once more to be unrealistic. To say that we cannot take money out of the Bank of Canada to pay the farmer for the storage of the grain while he takes care of it on his farm is once more to be unrealistic. And to pretend that taking money out of the Bank of Canada would cost the taxpayer anything is thoroughly unrealistic. This would apply to all that is required in storing all the different kinds of non-perishable goods which Canada can produce over the next ten or fifteen years. Let anyone who thinks he can answer those statements get up right now and try.
Now, Mr. Chairman, these are the Social Credit proposals in regard to the problems facing our agricultural industry. If we adopt these proposals, and back the Minister of Agriculture in his endeavours to make the agricultural industry of Canada greater and greater in the years ahead, I will guarantee that with his leadership it shall be done.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the minister in his speech this afternoon contended that the farmers in Canada are now in a better position than at any other time in their history. That is a contention with which I think he will find the farmers of this country cannot agree, and certainly the statistics do not bear it out. In spite of that, however, the minister devoted almost all of his speech to an attempt to prove that that statement was true, except for that part which he

devoted to the South Saskatchewan dam. I am not going to deal with that matter.
However, with the aid of a few statistics available to me in the house at the moment, I would like to demonstrate that the group of figures which the minister put on record covering the cash income of the farmers during the period from 1943 to the present time, and which he used with the evident idea of trying to persuade the house and, of course, farmers throughout Canada that they are better off now than ever before, do not prove that at all. As a matter of fact, there are other figures which show that the reverse is the case. The minister dealt with the cash income of farmers over three-year periods and, as I have already pointed out, he did that evidently for his own purpose because if he had put them on the record on a year to year basis it would have given us a much better indication of the amount of income, cash or otherwise, the farmer earned during the past 11 years.
The minister stated that the farmers' cash income for the last two years amounted to $5,574 million. The estimate, including the third year-which would be the year 1954, he must mean-would bring this up to $8,200 million. That means that he has estimated the cash income for farmers for this year, 1954, as $2,626 million. On what basis he has estimated that figure, goodness only knows. Certainly the budget figures that were produced will not bear out any estimate of that kind. In other words, he has estimated about the same cash income as the average for the two years preceding, namely 1952 and 1953; and 1952 was the top year which we have ever had as far as the farmer's income is concerned. Nevertheless, the minister is estimating just about as much as the average of those two years. What they were separately, I do not know. I do not think for a minute that that estimate can be taken very seriously.
When the minister was attempting to do this same thing last year he did not use the figures of cash income. I have here a copy of Hansard of April 27, 1953, and this is what he said then as reported at page 4440. He dealt then with the net income of farmers:
Net income to farmers from the sale of farm products reached a peak of $2-2 billion in 1951. Estimates for the net income received in 1952 are placed at just under $2 billion. There is some indication that this present satisfactory position may be maintained.
In view of that statement, it is interesting to look at the figures produced by the Minister of Finance as to what the net income of farmers was during these past few years. As a matter of fact, the minister was not even accurate in the figures he gave to the house
Supply-Agriculture
last year; that is, if the Minister of Finance is accurate in the budget papers he has produced, and I am giving the Minister of Finance credit for being accurate in those budget papers.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Thank you.


Mr. Rowe:: Maybe they were both wrong.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In this year's budget papers at page 3760 we find set out in table 1 the national income and gross national product. There we find the net income of farm operators from farm production in 1950, and that figure is given as $1,503 million; in 1951 it was $2,106 million. That is the year in which the minister said it was $2,200 million. In 1952 it was $1,934 million and then in 1953 it was $1,667 million. It is getting on toward $300 million less in 1953 than it was in 1952.
I do not think there is anybody here who will maintain that prices are not still falling, that they have not fallen so far this year, that they are not less than they were in a similar period last year, namely, 1953, or that there is not the prospect of their falling, particularly those of grain, from the levels that were secured last year. The chances of the prices being less are great; in fact, prices are almost certain to be less. In view of that consideration, I find it difficult to understand the minister's trying to sell the idea that the farmers are better off than they have ever been before. As far as cash income is concerned, they are less well off or they were less well off in 1953 by the difference between $1,667 million and $2,106 million or in other words approximately $400 million less well off.
In view of these figures which show what the net income position of the farmers is, it is quite certain that the estimate that the minister made of what their cash income is going to be, namely $2,600 million, just is not correct and cannot be correct as far as this coming year is concerned.
In addition to that, of course we have to relate the income that farmers have received to the prices that they have to pay for the goods they buy. They have not heard that there has been any great reduction in the price of farm machinery, fertilizer, binder twine, insecticides or any of the other materials which farmers have to purchase in order to carry on their business. In other words, the cost of carrying on farming operations is just about the same as it has been or has declined very little, whereas farm income has declined considerably.
The statistics which my colleague the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand was using a while ago from the bureau of statistics with regard to the index numbers of farm prices

Supply-Agriculture
for agricultural products of course show clearly in another way what is shown by this table about the net cash income. Looking at the figures from year to year, we find it is rather noteworthy that the high point was reached back in 1951 when the index for the price of farm products was 296-8 and that it has now declined, as of January of this year, to 233-2. That is a very serious decline. During the same period, as I say, the prices of the things farmers have to buy have not declined.
A little comparison with regard to farm prices and the cost of the things farmers have to buy is given in the Searle Grain Company's weekly report of October 7, 1953. It states:
The current index number, compiled by the dominion bureau of statistics, of the costs of the things prairie farmers have to buy for their living and production now stands at 226-4 compared with 100 in 1935-39. This means that it takes $2.26 in the hands of prairie farmers to have the same purchasing power today that $1.00 had before the last war. This, therefore, means that the total payment on wheat so far to be made of $1.72 a bushel has a purchasing power equal to 76 cents in 1935-39. This is for No. 1 Nor. Fort William, but this $1.72 equals only $1.54 to farmers at the average country point, which $1.54 has a purchasing power equal to only 70 cents in 1935-39. The initial payment of $1.40 for 1 Nor., but which at the average country point equals $1.22, has a purchasing power equal to only 54 cents in 1935-39.
In other words when you relate to the actual amount the purchasing power of the money received by western farmers for their grain-for their wheat, particularly-you see that the price that they are receiving for the wheat is a low price. It is not a high price at all. That, of course, has served greatly to confuse the issue so far as farmers are concerned and so far as the people of the rest of this country are concerned. When they see farmers getting $1.78 a bushel for their wheat-if that is the price of wheat- they say that that is a high price. But as I pointed out today, actually what the farmer on the farm is getting is about 70 cents a bushel in terms of the purchasing power of 1935-40 money, and it is therefore looked upon as a low price for wheat.
The Minister of Agriculture went on to deal with certain specific products in an effort to bolster up his contention that farmers are better off now than they were before, and he had something to say about cattle. If we look at the price range of cattle during the past two years we find that, by and large, cattle prices are about half what they were two or three years ago, that is taking all grades of cattle into consideration because the price drop in some of the poorer grades has been greater than that of the quality steers. However, just paying attention

to the price of good quality steers, 1,050 pounds, on the Toronto market in 1951, we find they reached a price of $34 per hundred. They remained at $34 a hundred or right around that figure for the most of 1951 and particularly the latter half of it. Then the price dropped and has continued to drop until in today's Globe and Mail I noticed they are quoted at $18 to $19 per hundred. The price has been almost cut in half. This is a very serious drop, especially when you take into consideration the lower grades of cattle. We find the price is very little more than half of what it was in 1951.
In spite of this the minister says the farmers are better off under those circumstances. How could a cattleman be better off? He is certainly worse off. In fact, a considerable number of cattlemen have experienced a lot of trouble, particularly those who bought cattle at the high prices that prevailed in 1951, and have had to sell those cattle at these lower prices.
The minister dealt with the question of hogs. He professed himself as quite satisfied with the cattle picture, and said we had better markets at home and in the United States than we could get anywhere else in the world, so everything was all right. The fact that we may have better markets at home or receive bigger prices at the moment for what we are producing now than we would receive anywhere else in the world, is perhaps a matter for some satisfaction. Nevertheless it is not much satisfaction to the man who is only getting half as much as he did two or three years ago. Certainly, that man is not nearly so well off.
When we come to the question of hogs, we find the price is quite high now and has been for the most of the past year. The reason for the high price of hogs is to be found in the machinations of this government. The policy of this government that led to maintaining grain prices at unduly high levels is partly responsible, as is the announcement that the floor price would be cut off. This encouraged the farmer to get rid of hogs as fast as he could. As a result there was a cleaning out of hogs about a year and a half ago at a time when they were selling for around $20 or $21 a hundred. They are now up to $34 or $35 a hundred.
At that time many people got rid of sows which were due to farrow, so an artificial scarcity of hogs was created. This artificial scarcity is a direct result of the policies pursued by this government. The minister expressed great pleasure over the fact we were not producing more pork than we could consume in Canada. The inference is that we do not need the large overseas market for

bacon and pork products that we enjoyed for many years. We can eat everything we produce. The only reason we can eat everything we produce in the way of pork is that the policies followed by this government have created a scarcity. We could produce a great deal more pork than we are producing.
If we were doing so we would not have the difficulty we are having now with the large surplus of grain. The destruction of the hog industry in this country, as a result of the policies pursued by this government, is responsible for quite a bit of the surplus grain we have. If we had maintained our overseas markets for these pork products, particularly for bacon in Great Britain, we would be producing a great deal more pork and the hogs would have eaten up a great deal of this grain. In other words, the policies this government has followed have aggravated and aggravated these various farm situations.
Now the minister had something to say about the butter situation. He believed there was nothing to worry about, but I would think there is likely to be quite a bit to worry about. I notice that the National Dairy Council of Canada is getting quite worried. Every week or two they send me a lot of literature in connection with the matter, pointing out the very large surplus of butter we have on hand at this time as compared with other years. This particular circular is dated April 30, 1954, and it shows the stocks of butter on hand as of that date. There were 45-6 million pounds on hand, and the circular lists the stocks of butter on hand as at that date during the years from 1932 to 1954. The stocks this year are the highest we ever had. In 1950 there were 28-4 million pounds and last year there were 27 million pounds. The other years are down to 5, 11, 6, 12, 9, 11, 6, and so on. That was all the surplus butter there was at that date. We are holding this large amount of butter at a time when we are just entering the butter producing season.
The minister believes there will be no difficulty about it, but I do not know. He said the government might suffer a small loss. So far as I can see the only way they are going to get clear of this surplus is to sell it at practically give-away prices. If that is done the people of this country will probably have to add a considerable amount of money to the government fund.
The minister devoted a certain amount of time to the wheat situation. He stated that the marketing this past year has been close to usual. I do not know just what that means, but certainly if the figures on the disappearance of grain mean anything-and I think that
Supply-Agriculture
is the only thing we can look at-then the disappearance for this past year has been quite small in comparison with other years. I have not the figures here, but I looked at them yesterday and the disappearance for this past six months has been considerably below normal. If the minister is talking about the whole year 1953, that is a different matter.
So far as the past six months are concerned there has been a considerable slowing up in the sales of grain. The minister went on to say that the large amount of wheat we had on hand was due to the large crop we had during the past three years. He said that we now have a year's crop on hand. As a matter of fact we have on hand considerably more than a year's crop. The biggest crop we ever had was two years ago when we had 664 million bushels. We now have on hand, according to the best estimates I can secure, about 741 million bushels. The minister said that if the sales of wheat continue about the way they have in normal years and we have a normal disappearance, everything will be all right.
Well, everything will not be all right. As a matter of fact, if we did not grow one bushel of grain next year, and just the normal disappearance took place, we would still have a very large amount of wheat on hand-far too big a carryover. If we grow only a small crop next year, then by this fall again we will have an enormous carryover. As a matter of fact, if we grow another good crop-and if one may judge from the present weather conditions there is every prospect of another good crop this year-we are going to be in an almost hopeless situation so far as storage facilities for grain are concerned. We will be in a position where there will not be room in the elevators for anything like the amount of last year's crop, and there will be no room whatsoever for this year's crop. Therefore I presume there would be no opportunity to deliver any of the new crop.
So the wheat situation in Canada, particularly from the point of view of making delivery of the wheat stored or on hand, is extremely serious. I do not think the minister is doing the farmers in this country any service when he attempts to minimize that situation. Instead of that, the minister and other members of the cabinet should be making plans right now for the handling of next year's crop, so far as storage is concerned.
Many farmers will not be in a position to buy lumber to build granaries, and there should be some payments to the farmers who have grown the crops so they can carry on their farming operations. These are extraordinarily pressing problems, and the government should be taking steps right now to

Supply-Agriculture
meet them, instead of sitting with folded hands hoping that the best will happen, or probably that there will be a crop failure, or something of that kind. Because, unless the government is hoping for a crop failure, there can be no logic whatever in just sitting and doing nothing.
There is no use closing our eyes or attempting to deceive ourselves by blinking at the truth, because the general situation is considerably poorer than it has been for a number of years. It is just the exact opposite of the picture the minister tried to give us today. For several years he was in a very happy position, because every year prices were going up. That happened for some time after the war, although there was a setback in 1950. But, apart from that, prices went up year after year; and year after year he came into the house and said that things were better this year than last year, that there was more money in the farmers' pockets, and so on. There had been some recession last year from the high of 1951; but this year it is certainly ridiculous to say that the condition is better, or to attempt to fool the House of Commons and the farmers of this country.
Instead of that the minister should face the situation, because it is a serious one. On behalf of the government he should state what they are prepared to do to solve some of these problems.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the statement made this afternoon by the minister regarding the South Saskatchewan dam. However, I must confess to some disappointment in what he said. He left the impression with us that while he and the government had not done anything toward building the dam, since they had not done anything against it we should therefore be satisfied. I am afraid that proposition will not find general acceptance among the many people of Canada who are looking forward to the commencement of work on that project.
Like the hon. member for Saskatoon, I am particularly interested in the South Saskatchewan development because I represent a city which over the last few years has grown by many thousands in population. It is a city that is vitally dependent upon the agricultural prosperity of the surrounding country. I realize that there is nothing that will contribute as greatly to the economic wellbeing of Saskatchewan as the building of the South Saskatchewan dam. The minister has pointed out on many occasions what this dam would mean not only to the farmers directly concerned but also to the hamlets, villages and cities of Saskatchewan.

I would like to feel that this is a matter of national importance. I suggest we should rid our minds of any thought that this is a project that will affect only a small part of the country because, after all, agriculture is the basic industry in Canada. I believe that in Saskatchewan we have almost forty per cent of the cultivated acreage of Canada. Certainly we do possess a great part of Canada's farming land. The welfare of any one part of Canada is reflected in the welfare of the country as a whole.
The Prime Minister has intimated the national importance of this particular project. On June 28, 1952, speaking about some of the projects then being considered in Canada, one of which is nearing completion -I am referring to the Canso causeway-and also referring to the St. Lawrence seaway project, he said, as reported at page 3945 of Hansard for that year:
The third project was the South Saskatchewan river project. This is of particular interest to the central prairies, but it is also of interest to the whole of Canada to have Canada developed in such a manner that there will be no depressed areas in this country.
We know that one of the projects to which he referred is now nearing completion. We have had repeated assurances that a start is going to be made on the St. Lawrence seaway project. And I want to say I am certain that members from all parts of Canada welcome the building of that seaway. I am certain all members from my own province are pleased to see works of public importance, whether they are being constructed in the maritime provinces, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia or anywhere else in Canada. We have to view this situation in a national sense and recognize, as the Prime Minister pointed out, that the South Saskatchewan river dam project is something that is not just primarily for the benefit of the people living in that geographical area, but something which will contribute greatly to the economic well-being of Canada.
It is not my intention to go into the detailed history of this project. In previous years the matter has been dealt with by various members when speaking in the house. But I do remind hon. members that the project will accomplish two purposes: First of all it will offer some insurance against conditions which existed in my province only a few years ago, a period of time during which a good percentage of our people were on relief. We suffered from practically every unfortunate occurrence nature could inflict upon us-[DOT] drought, soil drifting and weed infestation. We know during that time the serious condition that existed in the livestock industry. We know many animals were lost, while some

were shipped to community pastures. We know about the great quantities of hay that were moved into Saskatchewan.
All that is history. But we should remember that these conditions could very well return. As a matter of fact we know that in 1945, 1947, 1948 and 1949 hay was shipped to Saskatchewan from points in Alberta and Manitoba, in some cases at a cost of $10 a ton. We know those conditions have occurred in recent years; and we have no guarantee that nature is going to smile on us in the future so far as rainfall is concerned, or that we will be spared the disastrous drought conditions that are being experienced in certain states of the union to the south of us. There is no greater method of protecting and insuring against a national calamity in the particular area such as that than by the building of that dam.
Apart from the negative aspects of the building of the dam, a great contribution of the building of the dam would be to Canada, not just to the geographic area of which Saskatchewan is a part, but to the dominion as a whole. Without going into any unnecessary detail, Mr. Chairman, I just want to summarize as briefly as I can and suggest that this project, as the hon. member for Saskatoon has pointed out, was initially a federal project. I recall the minister making statements.
I always enjoy listening to the minister at a political gathering. If he is speaking at a meeting within a reasonable distance I usually make an effort to go to hear him, and I recall his speaking in glowing terms of what the construction of this dam would mean to Saskatchewan and to Canada as a whole. I recall that all during that time there was no suggestion at all that this was to be a joint project; it was going to be a project built by the federal government. Then, after many promises had been made during the 1945 campaign and in 1949, which the hon. member for Saskatoon quoted. In 1953 we heard similar statements. The Regina Leader-Post of June 23, 1949 is reported as quoting the minister as saying, as may be found in Hansard of February 9, 1953 at page 1769, as follows:
The South Saskatchewan project would provide power and encourage building of industries in small towns, provide an incentive for young people to stay in this province. "I think we have made a fairly good start now," said Mr. Gardiner; "send us back to complete the job."
In the last campaign we had similar assurances given on behalf of the minister. I hold in my hand a clipping which appeared
Supply-Agriculture
in the Regina Leader-Post of July 14 last headed: "Liberals certain to construct dam." The article continues:
Agriculture Minister J. G. Gardiner said Monday night that he was sure the South Saskatchewan river dam would be built by a Liberal government if the government were left in power long enough to permit the usefulness of the dam project to be proven by its advocates.
I realize that the minister couched his language perhaps a little more cautiously than the statements he previously made, but the inference was definitely left. In particular the inference was given in the heading of this news story: "Liberals certain to construct the dam". I suppose we have ourselves to blame to some extent. We ought to know that when Liberals promise to do something-


James Garfield Gardiner: It will be done.


Alfred Claude Ellis: -it may go on for twenty or thirty years, just as we have waited for health insurance since 1919. I do not think we should be too optimistic, but I do feel the minister gave the assurance to our people repeatedly that this dam would be built and suggested at the outset that it was to be a federal project. It had nothing to do with the province at all. This was to be a work to be done by the federal government.
We do know the project was definitely promised. I do not think that any member of the government can argue that the Liberal party has not committed itself to the building of this dam over the years. Indeed moneys have been set aside from year to year to carry on the preparatory work of this project. I am not sure what the exact amount is, but I think $2 million or $3 million has already been spent laying the foundations of this project, and just when we felt reasonably sure that the project would be commenced we find the minister reversing the field and pointing out that we will have a dam built when the provincial government gets around to paying its share. That came as a distinct surprise and shock to people in our province.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sure my hon. friend
does not want to misrepresent. I have never said that with regard to a provincial government.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I do not believe the minister
would deny that press reports have been to that effect. Certainly since the time this dam was first promised back during the 1940's I have never been able to find reports of speeches made by the minister or by Liberal members of parliament or candidates that this dam was to be a joint provincial-dominion undertaking.

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: You have not read Hansard.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I have read Hansard. The hon. member for Saskatoon quoted quite extensively from the debate on this matter which was quite prominent on this whole question. I will agree that perhaps the minister may make statements which he later interprets in his own way, but I suggest that even though the minister may interpret the statement to mean one thing, the general impression given to the reading public is another thing. But suffice it to say that the general impression prevailed throughout the province that this was to be a federal undertaking.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not the point that I raised. My hon. friend said that I was laying blame on the provincial government for some things they were doing. I have not done that at any time.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I hope I was not exactly laying the blame. I do suggest that this was what was intimated: We are prepared to go ahead with it with the provincial government; we talked it over with the provincial government and they are prepared to state how much of the cost they will pay. That is using the most general terms. When the project was then put in a different light the provincial government moved quite swiftly to assure the federal officials that the provincial government was quite prepared to co-operate to any reasonable extent in the pursuance of this particular project.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. It is now just about a minute and a half to six o'clock. I understand that the Minister of Finance wishes to table a report which must be tabled today.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Alfred Claude Ellis: When the committee rose at six o'clock I was discussing the change in the nature of the proposed South Saskatchewan dam. I had pointed out that over a period of some years the dam had been promised by the minister and his followers in our province, and that at that time there had been no intimation whatsoever that this was to be a joint project between the federal and provincial governments. Then we were confronted with a new development when the minister made it known that the federal

government would be prepared to proceed with the dam if and when the provincial government was prepared to take some part in the building of the dam.
As I pointed out, this came as a distinct shock to people generally of all political parties because up until that time there had been no suggestion that the federal government considered it anything other than a strictly federal proposition. Not only did this change take place but the minister went the full circle last year because, when speaking at Indian Head just prior to the last election, he suggested during the course of his remarks that if the province wanted the dam built it should go ahead and build it and that it was primarily their responsibility.
Far from being a federal responsibility, it was first of all said to be a joint responsibility and then the minister went so far as to say that it was primarily a provincial responsibility. If he really believes that I would draw his attention to the fact that from 1934 to 1944 there was a Liberal provincial government in Saskatchewan and from 1935 on we have had a Liberal government at Ottawa and if the minister, as he suggested last July, felt that if the province wanted the dam it should go ahead and build it then I suggest he should have made that suggestion to Mr. Patterson who was premier of the province from 1935 to 1944.


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend will permit me, I am sure he does not want to misrepresent the matter at all. He will recall that it was not until 1946 that either the site of the dam or any other matters that made it possible to build it at Outlook were announced.


Alfred Claude Ellis: That is an interesting comment. I have not the information at hand but I think by going through the files I can find references to the dam prior to that time.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not saying there were not references to the dam. The dam was not promised by me but was advocated by me for many years prior to that. I did not promise the dam. I simply advocated that it ought to be located and built.


Alfred Claude Ellis: There is a fine distinction in words there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Very fine.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The minister says that he did not promise it but simply advocated it. The way the minister can advocate something makes it sound very much like a promise, and while the minister may have felt that he was advocating it I feel quite certain that his audiences were under the impression that he was promising it. This afternoon the

hon. member for Saskatoon was wondering whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Minister of Agriculture was more adept at skirting or avoiding a question or issue. The Minister of National Health and Welfare took that as a compliment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They both are.


Alfred Claude Ellis: When I suggest that the Minister of Agriculture is a past master at it perhaps he will take that as a compliment. It is a compliment in one sense when one is speaking about political sagacity and adroitness, but viewing the problem from the point of view of those who want to see the j ob done I do not think it is quite so complimentary.
Be that as it may, the minister interrupted me and said that he did not promise the dam at an earlier date but merely advocated it. I am quite certain, however, that the people were left under no illusion as to what the impression was that he sought to leave with his audiences. With respect to the project itself, may I say that I am speaking of the project as a whole. I assume that the storage of the water was and is even today considered a federal responsibility. Now when the people in the province of Saskatchewan found that the federal government was now going to require the provincial government to pay part of the cost they might well have felt that the Liberals had been kicking this football around for a great number of years, had been advocating the dam, if not promising it-I will use the word "advocate" -and that it was now up to them to put up. They might well have felt that the Liberals had been attempting to win elections on this promise long enough and that it was about time to deliver the goods.
But I am proud of the way in which the people of Saskatchewan viewed the matter. They did not view it from a political standpoint at all. The natural tendency would have been for the people to say that they had been tricked and fooled over the years by the federal authorities and that the federal government was now trying to welsh on their promise to the people. Instead the provincial government took, I think, a very co-operative attitude. They had been under the impression that it was a federal responsibility, but instead of harpings and recriminations, instead of denouncing the federal government the provincial authorities were extremely co-operative. When it was announced that the provincial government would be required to pay a part of the cost they stepped in right away and made an offer to the federal authorities on the basis of what they considered to be their fair share of the costs.
Supply-Agriculture
I have here copies of the correspondence which passed between the premier of the province and the Minister of Agriculture. I am not going to refer to it directly because I believe many of these letters were placed on Hansard last year by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. However, I think the correspondence indicates quite clearly that the provincial government stepped in immediately and said:	All right, we are disappointed that the federal government is not going to treat this as a federal responsibility but the main thing is we want the dam built and we are prepared to bear a share of the cost.
I think the minister will agree that in each successive stage of the protracted and apparently fruitless negotiations that have been carried on over the past several years between the provincial government and the federal government the provincial government has shown its good faith and willingness to co-operate in every detail. I think there can be no doubt on that score. Various objections have been raised from time to time, and I should like to refer to an editorial in the Star-Phoenix of July 9 last, under the heading "Blockage Upstream". It reads in part as follows:
. . . Mr. Gardiner outlined three requirements that would have to be met before the federal government could make a final decision on the project. The requirements were: 1. Interprovincial agreement on the use of the water required for the project.
2.	An offer from the Saskatchewan government which would remove any suspicion that the federal government was subsidizing the cost of the power development connected with the undertaking.
3.	A realistic estimate of the cost of the project, to settle the conflict between P.F.R.A. figures and those contained in the Hogg report.
With respect to the first point, an interprovincial agreement on the use of water was required for the project. It was very interesting last summer just prior to the voting to see the tremendous amount of space devoted in the press in the west to this whole question of getting the right to use water from the Alberta government. At that time, just prior to the election, Liberal speakers were able to go out and say that we could go ahead with the dam but the Alberta government was standing in the way. It was a very fine whipping boy to use just prior to the last federal election though, of course, we know that this has subsequently been cleared up by the announcement that there was no longer any obstacle in that connection. Therefore, point No. 1 has been removed as an obstacle to proceeding with this project.
Now, the second point was the offer from the Saskatchewan government which would

Supply-Agriculture
remove any suspicion that the federal government was subsidizing the cost of the power development connected with the project. Here again, the premier of the province in a number of letters to the Minister of Agriculture, and later publicly, announced the provincial government's willingness to pay for the hydro generating plant and pay for part of the cost of the project in order to remove any possibility that anyone in Canada might feel that this project was in any way subsidizing the power users in the province of Saskatchewan. In other words, I think any doubt that might be in hon. members' minds regarding any suspicion of fear that there might be a subsidization of power development has long since been removed.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, just on that point I think if hon. members follow the report which has been read to this house from that particular group they will find that in Saskatchewan last week I stated that the two matters had been settled to the satisfaction of this government, and the point with regard to the part of the cost which the provincial government will pay if the project is proceeded with is still under discussion.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I quite agree with that statement, Mr. Chairman, because I know that in the initial correspondence between the premier of the province and the minister the premier did set out the exact figures. The minister wrote back and suggested that what the federal authorities required was not a set of exact figures but some general agreement to share part of the costs. In other words, the province went so far as to be committed to a definite set of figures which the minister apparently felt was not necessary at that time. While that may be at present under negotiation I think that at no stage, at least up to the present, has there been any reluctance or any unwillingness on the part of the provincial authorities to meet the Department of Agriculture and come to some agreement in regard to sharing the cost. In other words, at no stage has there been any reluctance or unwillingness on the pari of the provincial government to share part of the cost in the construction of this dam.
With respect to the third point, a realistic estimate of the cost of the project to settle the conflict between the P.F.R.A. figures and those contained in the Hogg report, I am certain that when the decision to appoint a royal commission to investigate this matter was first announced it caused a great deal of consternation among people, particularly those who had not been following the development of this project. I believe the minister himself is on record as having said some very uncomplimentary things about this report.

I am not sure whether his comment was "silly dam report" or "dam silly report", but at any rate I have clippings here, though I do not wish to take up the time of the house in reading them, in regard to various Liberal members who also expressed themselves as being very sceptical or unconvinced as to the need for this commission in the first place.
I am not too sure as to the number of years, but I believe the P.F.R.A. has been interested and has investigated this project for nearly 16 years, and I think we can have confidence in our P.F.R.A. engineers. I do not think any hon. member has suggested that the government is lacking in qualified personnel. These people have been working over a good many years, very often in the field and covering the entire province, and they have a full understanding of irrigation problems within the prairie provinces. They have had considerable experience along these lines as the result of many, many years of research and they have arrived at an estimate of what the dam would cost.
I understand that the original estimate was $101 million, but in view of the intervening years one would have to add the increase in costs which has taken place and I believe this cost certainly would not exceed 30 per cent over that period of time. That would bring the cost of the dam up to about $135 or $140 million, but in any event the P.F.R.A. engineers on the ground who have done a tremendous amount of work in this connection presented the government with a set of figures. The government chose to disregard these figures and set up a royal commission which asked a private corporation, the Mannix corporation, to investigate and submit other estimates. We know that the report of the royal commission was not too kindly received by those who were interested in the project irrespective of their political beliefs, and I am sure the minister himself was not too pleased with the findings of the commission.
At that time the provincial government, presented a brief in reply to the royal commission in which it took each item of the report point by point and it makes what I think are critical observations of the royal commission report. I certainly do not intend to deal with this at this stage, but I do feeL the points raised by the royal commission have been quite effectively met, although I am suggesting that there might be some disagreement.
I think all those who are interested in the construction of this project will agree it is a fairly accurate estimate of the findings of that commission so that when I read in a newspaper a few days ago that the minister

had stated in Saskatchewan that the government was prepared to forget the report of the royal commission, and I heard the minister's explanation this afternoon in which he said he did not say these things or rather he put his own interpretation upon what he is reported to have said, then I was not at all surprised. The minister is always running into difficulties by saying something and afterwards having to explain what he did say and very often his explanation is at variance with what the average person who heard him in the first place would suggest he said.
Therefore, irrespective of the minister's footwork this afternoon in explaining what he meant in his statements in Saskatchewan, I suggest that the people out there hope that he meant precisely what he said, namely that the government has forgotten about the royal commission report. If that is the case, Mr. Chairman, then indeed the last of the obstacles has been removed. In other words the question of the water rights has been settled as it affects the province of Alberta, as has also the question of the provincial government offering to bear part of the cost. I have not heard any evidence to the contrary and judging from the correspondence between the provincial authorities and the Department of Agriculture that does not seem to be any great stumbling block. If the province is quite prepared to bear a share of that cost, and if the minister says that the government is prepared to forget the report of the royal commission then I suggest that the last obstacle towards the commencement of the project has been removed.
If that is the case then I feel that we should proceed immediately with the construction of that dam because the minister is on record as indicating how valuable a contribution that dam would make to the economy of the prairie provinces and of Canada generally. I think the Prime Minister is also on record. I have noted a couple of quotations in Hansard with respect to the debate last spring in which he seems to be quite satisfied that it is not a purely local matter at all but is a project to the general advantage of all Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: In order just to clear the air in connection with the matter we are now discussing, I think that I should say this. When I was here this afternoon I was not as fully informed as I am tonight. I met the provincial government last Saturday and discussed the only matter which is still waiting to be determined before it is again presented to the government here. We discussed there the proportion of the cost the provincial government should take on if the dam is proceeded with. I had a letter this afternoon
Supply-Agriculture
from the premier of Saskatchewan stating their position in relation to it. I still have to take that matter up with the government. That is a matter that is still standing in the way. I am not saying that the provincial government is responsible for it at all. It is just a matter for negotiation. It takes some time to determine the matter when you are going to spend $60 million or $100 million.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I realize that the minister has information that we do not possess. I mean that, after all, there are negotiations which are being carried on. What I suggested during the course of my remarks, Mr. Chairman, was that up until the present time-that is up to the point that we have knowledge of- the province made its offer right in the letter from the premier of the province. For example, on February 10, 1951, when the premier wrote to the Minister of Agriculture, he pointed out in part:
Our understanding is that the federal government is prepared to accept full responsibility for the construction of a dam. the estimated cost of which is to be in the neighbourhood of $68 million. It was further suggested that the distribution system at an estimated cost of $19 million and the cost of levelling the land for irrigation, which is estimated at $6 million, were to be the responsibility of the provincial government and the water users who will benefit by this project. It was also suggested that the installations for the generation of hydroelectric power at an estimated cost of $8 million were to be the exclusive responsibility of the provincial government. While this is not the allocation of costs which was suggested when this project was first proposed, if this is the only basis on which the federal government is prepared to proceed with the project, I do not see that we have any alternative than to base our discussions on the allocation which you outlined to us.
My colleagues and I are most anxious that the South Saskatchewan river development project shall be proceeded with at the earliest possible date. As soon as the federal government has announced its intention to proceed with this undertaking we are prepared to negotiate and sign an agreement on the basis of the allocation of costs outlined above.
In this letter the premier commits himself on behalf of the province of Saskatchewan to a definite undertaking in so far as the sharing of the cost is concerned. Here is my point, Mr. Chairman. At that time the federal government did not say, "Oh, we cannot go ahead with it because we are not satisfied with the proposition; we do not feel you are going to pay enough." That was not suggested at that time. Now the minister says that is one of the things that is holding it up. During the time of this correspondence and over these past several years the obstacles and impediments to proceeding with this project did not deal with the question of the allocation of costs-up until the present time at least. Other reasons have been thrown out but as far as I can see from

Supply-Agriculture
the correspondence, the question of the allocation of costs has not been the important point.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend has said that this should not be a political matter or should not be a political issue but that it is a business proposition and should be handled as such. All I am suggesting doing is this. If he reads my letter of April 24, 1953 to the government of the province of Saskatchewan he will find that there are four propositions made there. One is that the water rights would be cleared up. In Saskatoon last week I stated that the water rights are cleared up to the satisfaction of this government. Another proposition was that the provincial government was to give us an undertaking that when the water was once put into the dam, they would use it for some particular purposes. They have agreed to use it for the purposes which were outlined by the P.F.R.A. organization. That was the second point. The third one was that some provision had to be made which would warrant us in believing we knew what the cost was going to be. In Saskatchewan last week I stated that those three points had all been taken care of and that the one that is still left is this one we are now talking about, namely the part of the cost of the dam itself which will be paid by the province and the part which will be undertaken by the federal government if the project is undertaken.


An hon. Member:: Your halo still does not fit.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I am glad to hear that statement from the minister. I do not know whether we can take it from that statement that when this matter of the allocation of costs is settled we are going to see the commencement of the construction of the dam. I want to suggest that this matter has been dealt with before. We have had correspondence and we have had assurances on the part of the minister that when these matters were settled they would go ahead. But each time we just sort of got on a dead-end street and found that we were confronted with something else. I certainly hope that the minister's statement here indicates that when this matter has been cleared up as between the federal government and the provincial government, there will be a commencement.
I would draw to the attention of the minister the fact that when the premier of the province telegraphed the Prime Minister last spring with regard to this matter, he asked the Prime Minister for assurance on two points. I think I have the exact wording of the telegram. It reads in part as follows:

I am in receipt of letter from Mr. Gardiner asking provincial government to submit proposal for construction South Saskatchewan dam. Before submitting proposal or discussing agreement essential that we have from you categorical assurance on two points, first that you are now convinced that South Saskatchewan river project represents best use that can be made of water available, and secondly that federal government prepared to proceed with this undertaking if government of Saskatchewan assumes fair share of costs.
That was last spring. These negotiations have been going on for some time. When the provincial government made an offer initially and suggested an exact sum of money at that time as to what their share would be, the minister replied that that is not what they wanted; he indicated that they did not want a definite figure at all but that they just wanted something to kick around, something they could discuss.
I am quite certain that the minister is perhaps quite sincere in his assurances that perhaps something can be done, but I do not know just whether the minister's assurances are enough.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just to clear up the point
entirely, Mr. Chairman, may I say that there is not anyone who has yet said that the dam was going to be built. That fact should be absolutely understood. No one has said the dam is going to be built. However, the question of costs and all that are being considered as between this government and the provincial government. All I can say is that if agreement is reached as between the two governments with regard to all the points, there is a possibility that it will be proceeded with. But up to the present time on every occasion that the federal government have discussed the matter with the province they have said, "We are discussing it under the absolute understanding that no undertaking has yet been given that the dam will be built".


Alfred Claude Ellis: I do not know just what the minister means when he says that no undertaking was made by the government. If there was no undertaking by the government, may I say this. The people of Saskatchewan were certainly led to believe that there had been an undertaking by the government.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member just does not understand-


Alfred Claude Ellis: I do not want to make a political speech. If I did, I would be prepared to read-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alfred Claude Ellis: -quite a number of quotations from the speeches of prominent Liberals campaigning in the 1945 election campaign, the 1949 campaign and the last campaign. In

the Rosthern by-election the people were told that if they sent Makaroff to Ottawa, that would be tantamount to repudiation of this great scheme. How can you repudiate an undertaking that was never given? The minister now says no one ever promised to build the dam. When he was campaigning during the by-election in the constituency of Rosthern it was said that if anyone but a Liberal was elected it was a repudiation of this scheme. Now, it is suggested here that the government never really promised to build the dam.
Before six o'clock I suggested that we really perhaps never should accept at face value the statements that are made by Liberal politicians even when they are ministers of the crown, and especially when the statements are made just before an election. The minister now says no one promised to build the dam. I am quite sure that will come as a great shock and surprise to the people, whether in this house or outside. As I say, the record is quite clear on this point. The hon. member for Saskatoon this afternoon put several quotations on the record which made the point quite clear. Whether or not the Liberal government ever intended to build the dam might be a moot point, but there is one point that is quite clear. They certainly told the people it was going to be built.
I might say that not only during the Rosthern by-election but throughout many campaigns this has been a stock political football for the Liberal party. They have certainly made use of it in the last three federal elections. Just how effective it has been, I do not know, but certainly they have tried to use it as an effective political weapon. If the minister wants to say now they never promised the dam at all, then I shall leave it with the people of western Canada to accept or reject that particular statement. I am quite sure there are very few in Saskatchewan who will accept that statement at its face value. I shall grant you-


James Garfield Gardiner: You and your friends discussed it all during the last election in my constituency, and I was elected.


Alfred Claude Ellis: As I pointed out, Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Mang:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Does he recall the visit of the Prime Minister during the election campaign when he spoke at the armouries in Regina at which time it was made quite clear by the Prime Minister's statement that the dam would be built when the people of Canada were convinced and he was convinced it would be in the national interest to construct the dam? At that time does the hon. member 83276-272
S upply-A griculture
recall that comments were made as to the forthrightness of the Prime Minister in making that statement right in the city of Regina in the heart of Saskatchewan? He did not say it was going to be built or that it was not, and he was commended for his honesty.


Alfred Claude Ellis: After some of the comments that have been made here regarding what the government proposed to do, I am not quite sure that we are ever clear about what a minister of the crown says just before an election.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I recall the visit of the Prime Minister at that time, but I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps it is the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister who should get together to compare notes on this point. It is quite sufficient to say that over the years this has been used in several elections by the Liberal party-


An hon. Member:: And by the C.C.F. too.


Alfred Claude Ellis: They definitely promised us to build this dam as a federal responsibility. So far as the provincial government is concerned I would point out that they did not want to view this as a political matter. I believe that if you read through the correspondence sent by the premier of Saskatchewan-I believe the minister will agree- nowhere in this correspondence will you find any suggestion of the government looking at this from a political angle.


James Garfield Gardiner: I quite agree with that and I say again to my hon. friend that nowhere will he find there is anything in my letters either of a political nature.


Alfred Claude Ellis: That is just the trouble. The minister now tells us that after corresponding with the provincial governments for a number of years, there was nothing in his letters.


James Garfield Gardiner: Nothing political.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I do not know how one could expect to carry on negotiations between a senior and junior government when the minister admits he never had anything in his correspondence.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend says there is nothing political in the provincial letters, and I say there is nothing political in mine, either.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I was not suggesting there was anything political in the minister's letters, but I am certainly suggesting there was something very much political in the way he has handled this problem in the country.

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not going to tell the hon. member that if the dam ever is built, either by this government or any other government, I will be more responsible for it than anyone else.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I have intimated, Mr. Chairman, that I feel that this matter of the dam is something that affects all the people in the province. We do not like to look upon it as a political question at all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alfred Claude Ellis: It is something of benefit to the province and to the country. As I suggested at the outset of my remarks, any project that is of general advantage to Canada, any project that is going to increase the productivity of this great country of ours or that is going to assist this country in gaining a greater measure of economic stability, will be welcomed by us. So far as I am concerned, I am very happy to see such projects being carried out in different parts of Canada. Although I am from Saskatchewan, I am just as much in favour of the seaway project as anybody in this house. I am quite sure that-whether it is the Chignecto canal or the Canso causeway-anything that is for the benefit of this country, will find favour with us.
We also say this. When the minister has stated this is of advantage to Canada, when the Prime Minister himself has gone on record as suggesting this is something of benefit to Canada as a whole, then I think that after years of protracted negotiations, after the various points might have been cleared up as the minister has pointed out, I think the time has now come to commence the building of this dam.


Mr. Cardiff:: I do not want to be drawn into any argument about the Saskatchewan dam, but I should like to assure the hon. members from Saskatchewan that just before the next election, perhaps six months before, this dam will become a hot issue. It will come up again, just the same as the extension of mail routes comes up before every election. When I want to secure an extension to a mail route I say to my constituents, "You put in a petition about two or three months before the election and there is no doubt in the world but you will get that extension. I have obtained three or four of them before nearly every election.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: We will remember that the next time.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I might just say that there was an extension granted to three of my neighbours within a mile and a quarter of my farm at the time of the last election. I knew
nothing about it until it was announced. I believe the Liberals thought they would get those votes, but I doubt that they did.
After the election some people two and a half miles down the road put in a request for an extension of the mail route. They had more right to it than the extension granted to my neighbours. They wrote to the department in London and were informed that there was no chance in the world of obtaining that extension. These people sent a letter to me.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I wonder when the hon. member intends to discuss agriculture?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Right away, Mr. Chairman. I just want to finish that sentence. The three people I mentioned did get the mail route, and everybody is happy now.
I want to congratulate the minister upon his return to health. When he returned to Ottawa from overseas, I thought he had had it. He did not look very well. He had a faraway look in his eyes. When I saw the minister in such good form this afternoon, I could not help but think he had improved wonderfully. I hope it continues; I am serious when I say that. However, the minister did sound ridiculous this afternoon when he attempted to inform the house and country as to the buoyancy of the situation in regard to farmers, both east and west, in the matter of returns in the last ten years.
However, one thought did occur to me when he was speaking. I cannot tell the committee the difference in the number of farmers in the east as compared with the number in the west, but I venture to say that not more than a third of them are in the west.


James Garfield Gardiner: More than that.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Well, there might be half, although I do not think there are half of them in the west.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not half.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: In his figures this afternoon, regardless of the fact that not even half of the farmers are in the west, the amount given for the east was $2,128 million as compared with $2,258 million for the west. In the next three-year term the figure for the east was $2,871 million and for the west $3,348 million. The next figure given for the east was $3,605 million and for the west $3,952 million. The next figures the minister gave were $3,444 million for the east and $3,129 million for the west.


James Garfield Gardiner: The last figures were only for two years.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: The fact remains that the figure for the west was still high. And that brings me to this point, where I say that those of us in the east are not receiving as much consideration as are the farmers in the west. Certainly we are not making as much money, and we work a lot harder to get it.


James Garfield Gardiner: That brings up another point. That is the real reason why there is more income tax paid in Saskatchewan, per farm, than there is in Ontario. One does not need to look for another reason.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I grant you that, because of this fact. The cash return in the west is available; the tax collector can get the figures quite readily. And it is a pretty difficult matter to sidetrack the income tax branch. In the east the farmers do not have much in the way of income, because they do not make enough money to pay income tax. Very few farmers in the east are in the income tax brackets. The department has put forth an extra effort in the last year or two to collect more income tax from the eastern farmers and, while it may have been having some success, it is not having as much success as was expected when the drive was put on. However, I am not ready to discuss that subject in detail because I do not have the figures with me at the moment. I will discuss it before the estimates are completed, or perhaps I may have a chance in the discussion of the estimates of the Minister of Finance when the subject of income tax paid by farmers is before the committee. I say the farmers are not being dealt with fairly in that regard.
This afternoon the minister made reference to a three-year average. The farmers are given a chance to take a five-year average and if, in some cases, they have not made a return, they are put on a net worth basis and they are not permitted to consider the lean years with the good years. I think that is a mistake that should be corrected.
In the last few years the government has been very anxious to sell farm produce so long as there was a good market for it. But when the marketing situation got tough, then the responsibility was thrown back on the farmers themselves. That was what happened in connection with cheese. Anyone can sell on a buoyant market. There is no trouble in getting rid of products when everybody wants to buy them. It is when there is a surplus that there is difficulty in selling. The cheese people took the bit in their own teeth. The government cannot take credit for it. The cheese producers were able to dispose of their cheese, and we find a 83276-272i
Supply-Agriculture
position where the cheese industry is in a rather healthy state. This is due to the effort they put forth themselves.
And due to the fact that the cheese situation is somewhat better, the butter manufacturers have been placed in a better position, too. But it will be found before the next six months is up that the minister will have a lot more butter on his hands than he has now. When he cannot get his supply down to around 20 million pounds at this period of the year he certainly will not get it down farther between now and the period of flush production of milk.
I am going to say something now about the hog situation. A year or so ago when, under the minister's policy, the price of hogs was lowered to the extent of 3 cents, how long did it stay there?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is 23 cents today.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Did it ever get down to 23 cents?


James Garfield Gardiner: It went down close to that in the month of January; but it went right back up.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Yes, it went right back up. As a matter of fact, it went up to 28 cents inside of a month, and it has been going up ever since. But during that period of time- and this is the joker-when they were afraid they were not going to get paid for their hogs a good many hogs were marketed, including brood sows and every other kind of hogs, both little and big, many of which were not fit to go on the market. They were all shot out on the market, with the result that we were short of breeding stock. Then, of course it does not matter how high the price goes, if no one has anything to sell. The only reason now we are consuming all the pork we have is because we do not have the pork. But a year from now the minister will be saddled with a position in which he will find supplies of surplus pork to worry about.
This afternoon the minister said something about cattle. Let me give a concrete example of how much money we made out of cattle in the last few years. I shall describe my own experience, because I know exactly what I made-and I am no different from many other producers. As a matter of fact, I am in a much better position than many others were.
Anyone who bought heavy cattle or two-year-old cattle in 1951 took a decided loss. We all lost 10 per cent, right off the bat, at the time of the foot-and-mouth disease. Perhaps that was not the government's fault, or the fault of anybody else, but we took a 10

Supply-Agriculture
per cent drop right there, and the situation never righted itself. Stocker cattle were selling for as much as 36 cents a pound in 1951.
I happened to buy forty head at that time.
I felt there was going to be a drop in the price of cattle, and I bought small ones. Anyone who bought small cattle managed to get his money out of them, but those who bought the heavier cattle in 1952 not only lost their feed but they lost a considerable amount of money in addition to that. They had to sell them and they lost large amounts of money.
In my case I did not have to sell in 1952, because my cattle were not the proper size.
I could not get in 1952 what I paid for them, after feeding them for a year. The result was that I kept them another year. At the end of the second year-that is, last year-I sold them. At the end of the second year I got 18J cents a pound on cattle for which I paid 36 cents. I did not lose any money in dollars. As a matter of fact, I had $1,200 after feeding for those two years, but it did not pay for the chop they consumed. I am not the only farmer. I got off pretty lucky.
A lot of farmers who bought heavy cattle, or two-year-old cattle, in 1951, not only lost their feed but they lost pretty nearly half of what they paid for the cattle. They have not redeemed themselves yet. A lot of these fellows are still working away. I do not feel so sorry for those who were in the cattle business for several years and had a chance to make a little money, but I do feel sorry for the younger men who just started up and had to pay a lot of money for those cattle. Mind you, the bank will only carry you so long as your risk is good and then you have to sell. Because they could not cover their notes they had to sell their cattle, and those are the fellows I feel sorry for. A lot of them were in that position.
That is the position in which the cattle business is today. Since last fall cattle have been holding pretty steadily; in fact, much better than I expected they would. Those of us who bought cattle last fall found that tops were going at about 18 J cents. They are still worth 18i cents. I heard of a sale made the other day at 21 cents. Those cattle went to the United States. They were an exceptionally choice bunch of cattle and consisted of two or three loads. If cattle stay around 20 cents or 18 cents I have no doubt that some of those boys will make a little money this year, but that is all in the future. We are hopeful that that will happen.
As I said before, the government was ready to accept the responsibility for selling produce of the farm when selling was good, but now that it is difficult to sell they are throwing

it back to the producer and letting him do the best he can. I do not believe in subsidies. In the first place, I believe we would have been better off if we had never had any. We would have learned to take care of ourselves and not depend on the government. Too much dependence is put on the government and the individual is losing his initiative. This country was built on personal initiative, and until we get back to that there is no hope that the government will pull us out of all the difficulties that we face.
I do not think I have any more to say at this time. As the items go through I shall have more to say. I must say one thing. On going through the estimates of almost every minister's department it will be found that nowhere is the government making any attempt to lower administration costs. No other business in Canada, including agriculture, could operate like that. In every other business a decided attempt is being made to cut costs. The reason why producers' costs are so high, both in manufacturing and in agriculture, is that taxes are too high, and those taxes have to be paid first. Until the government makes some attempt to lower departmental costs we will not be any better off.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I should like to make a few references to the speech we heard this afternoon by the Minister of Agriculture and also to mention a number of points which are of particular interest to the farmers of Manitoba. In his speech this afternoon the Minister of Agriculture informed us that in his opinion the farmers have never been in a better position than they are today. I am not going to dispute that at any great length, but I should like to quote a different point of view of a person whose opinions will carry some weight. I hold in my hand a clipping from the Globe and Mail dated March 8 of this year, which quotes a former premier of Ontario speaking at a conference. He was speaking to the annual meeting of the shareholders of the First Co-operative Packers Limited of Ontario. These are his words:
As things have been going we cannot, I think, avoid a crash. The symptoms are now disturbingly close to those that preceded the crash of 1929.
He was discussing agriculture generally, and those were the opinions he expressed at that time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Who was he?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Drury, a former premier of Ontario. Somewhere between the statement we heard this afternoon and the rather gloomy forecast made by Mr. Drury is the situation which exists in agriculture. Figures already produced in this debate have shown

that there has been a rather serious decline in the income of farmers generally. A little later on I shall put some more figures on the record in that connection.
I also wish to refer to another statement, and I was rather surprised to hear the Minister of Agriculture say this. He said that in his opinion a floor price is not necessary under cattle or beef, or whatever the term was he used. That does not seem to meet with the opinions that I have heard expressed by farmers in Manitoba, at least. I am not in a position to speak for farmers in Saskatchewan or elsewhere; I confine my remarks to the farmers with whom I am familiar.
I hold in my hand a copy of a brief presented to the Minister of Agriculture in February of this year by the interprovincial farm union council. This farm union council represents the three farm unions of the prairie provinces; that is, of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. I have no doubt the minister will agree that the members of this council are men and women with a great deal of experience in agriculture, some of whom have had previous experience in government in various responsible positions, and I think their opinions are worthy of consideration at this time. What do they have to say about the livestock situation? I should like to quote from their brief where they refer to livestock prices. These are their words:
The livestock industry's present position is serious and should have the immediate attention of the government. Livestock producers have taken a severe beating during the past two years, and from all available information it appears that the situation may become even worse. From figures available we find that in 1906 there were 1,181 cattle per thousand population in Canada and in 1952 there were only 635 cattle per thousand population; this shows that there is no oversupply of cattle today. Furthermore, we note that stocks of meat in storage on December 1, 1953 are 13 million pounds less than one year previous, which shows that we are not producing much of a surplus.
May I just stop for a moment to point out that with the latter part of that statement the Minister of Agriculture apparently agrees, because he said this afternoon that there is not a great surplus of beef products in Canada at the present time. The brief goes on:
Yet prices during the past two years have declined approximately 50 per cent.
I have no doubt that these figures are based on statistics which are authentic, and if that is so then certainly it is a far cry from the impression that was left this afternoon. A drop of 50 per cent in the price of livestock products certainly would indicate that the producers of livestock at least are not in the best position that they have been in for years.
Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: Fifty per cent on cattle.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: All right; we will accept that. Let it be cattle, but it does not say so in this brief. I continue:
In view of this, can such a drastic price decrease be justified? We believe it is time that a full investigation of the livestock industry in Canada be made-right from the situation of the primary producers to that of the ultimate consumers.
That was in February, and in the same brief the farm union council suggested that they were interested in a livestock marketing board. From time to time there have been discussions about a livestock marketing board in the house as well as in the provincial legislatures. The attitude taken by the Minister of Agriculture-he will have to say if this is still his attitude-has been that this is something for the provincial governments to look after. Apparently the farm union council is quite willing to go along with that idea, but they have placed a proviso in their brief, and I think a very wise one. They point out that the federal government has taken the attitude that the provinces should take the initiative in setting up livestock marketing boards. They are agreeable to going along with that, but here is the proviso:
Provided suitable floor prices are assured to the actual producers by the federal government, the farm unions have indicated their willingness to go along with you on such a proposal and would draw to your attention that we have taken the lead in calling two livestock marketing conferences on the prairies-the first in October of last year, and the second in January of this year-where the actual producers were invited, and did attend. At these conferences it was decided to begin drafting an improved plan for livestock marketing, using provincial legislation where available and in those provinces where the majority of livestock producers are ready to proceed, looking forward to the establishment of an interprovincial producer-controlled marketing agency in the near future, utilizing existing federal legislation to provide the needed co-ordination in livestock marketing.
Since then there have been one or two additional conferences, and if newspaper reports are correct the minister was present at one of them at least. In Manitoba twc conferences have recently been held, one under the sponsorship of the Manitoba farmers' union, which was largely attended, and the meeting of approximately a thousand farmers almost unanimously agreed that there should be a livestock marketing board under existing Manitoba legislation. I understand that the same situation exists in the province of Saskatchewan so far as the organization there is concerned. Apparently there is some difficulty in Alberta because I understand there is no provincial legislation at the present time providing for the establishment of such a board. However, that situation may change.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I apologize for having to interrupt the hon. member but I am doing so on his behalf. I would ask committee members that if they have to carry on conversations to do so as quietly as possible. I do not think it is fair to any hon. member who is trying to address the house or to those who are trying to listen to him.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I was saying, perhaps the Minister of Agriculture was not even aware at that time of the statements being made. However, surely the minister must have been made aware of the facts after having received a visit from a small delegation while he was in Saskatchewan. That delegation on returning from their visit to the minister, and here I only repeat what has been said by others, left the impression again that if the province of Manitoba would make a request to the federal government assistance would be forthcoming.
From that time on many of us made great efforts to have a request forwarded from the province of Manitoba to the federal government for this special assistance believing in good faith that since statements had been made, and in view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture had said that he would be willing to consider such a request, it would
Supply-Agriculture
be for the benefit of the farmer to do so. But as the correspondence piled up we found there seemed to be the same tendency as is displayed in this South Saskatchewan dam situation that certain statements are made and then people start backing away from them. Here I would like to quote from a letter from the premier of Manitoba to the Minister of Agriculture dated December 12, 1953 discussing this whole situation of special assistance which I had requested in the house.
I was not alone in making that request for the same request was made by municipal officials and provincial members. However,
I would like to read this paragraph from that letter:
I might mention in regard to this whole question that to my knowledge there has been no suggestion from the federal government that assistance, other than that given under the P.F.A. Act, would be forthcoming if the province of Manitoba so requested.
Now I will have to accept his word for that.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is another letter
besides that one.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Yes, there are a couple of dozen letters but I am not going to take the trouble of referring to them all. This is an important phase of this matter because up until the time I received a copy of this letter, which the premier of Manitoba was good enough to forward to me at the same time as it was dispatched, I was fully under the impression, and so were hundreds of farmers and municipal officials in that area, that the federal government was willing to consider a request from the province of Manitoba for such assistance.
It now appears that the premier of Manitoba had no such assurance. The result of this was that instead of obtaining special assistance the province of Manitoba had to attempt to obtain an amendment to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in order that the farmers in that area, and of course in similar areas elsewhere, would receive benefit under that act.
To give some justification for that requested amendment to the act I should like to place some figures on record. I have here a set of figures which set out the contributions made by farmers to the prairie farm assistance fund under the one per cent levy, and also the payments made out of that fund. I will give them only in round figures. Farmers in the province of Manitoba from 1939 to 1952 made total contributions of $11,903,857.84 and to that we must add the 1953 payments amounting to $516,719, because the latter figure is not included in that first total. The two figures together

Supply-Agriculture
bring the total contributions to a little over the $12 million mark. When we turn to the benefits received during the same period we find that from 1939 to 1952 the benefits received in Manitoba amounted to $3,394,546 to which we must add the 1953 figures totalling $500,128 which brings us to a total of nearly $4 million which is about one-third of the total contributed. In other words, for every three dollars contributed by the grain farmers of Manitoba since 1939 under the one per cent compulsory levy they received only one dollar from that fund in return.
Due to that we find that later on towards the end of the session in the Manitoba provincial legislature a resolution was introduced by Mr. Stinson, who is the leader of the C.C.F. group in that parliament, in these words:
That In the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of requesting the federal government to grant emergency assistance to farmers who suffered crop losses due to flood damage in northwestern Manitoba in 1953.
That, of course, was in line with all the other representations that were made. However, the government of Manitoba apparently did not approve of that resolution in that form so a government member moved an amendment so that the amended resolution read as follows:
That this house urges the federal government to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in order that Manitoba farmers who suffered serious crop losses due to excessive moisture conditions in 1953 receive further assistance.
Those last few words are rather important. May I repeat them: so that they may "receive further assistance". This resolution or amendment apparently was not framed for the purpose of amending the Prairie Farm Assistance Act only for future years but also so that if the amendments were made, farmers in Manitoba could receive further assistance with regard to 1953.
A copy of this amendment no doubt was forwarded to the government here. I also raised the matter several times in the house asking the minister whether the amendments would be recommended. Finally we were told not so long ago that the government had no intention whatever of bringing in these amendments. At this time I should like to plead with the minister not to close the door.
The situation in Manitoba, as I have already pointed out, is such that the farmers have contributed to the fund three times as much as they have received out of it. That situation is owing to the way in which the act operates. In Manitoba there is interest in starting a crop insurance scheme which, incidentally, was suggested by the minister himself in one of his letters to the minister

of agriculture in Manitoba. However, as we know from experience, the setting up of a crop insurance scheme at the provincial level at this time is a thing that is not going to come about quickly. We know that investigations were made in Saskatchewan and Manitoba as far back as 1939, 1940, 1942 and so on-and perhaps even before that-into the feasibility of setting up a crop insurance scheme on a provincial basis and that nothing has come out of it.
Even though that committee has been set up by the Manitoba legislature to look into the matter again, I am sure that it will be years before that province will be in a position to take action on a crop insurance scheme; and even then they might have to ask the backing of the federal government in order to underwrite the scheme so as to make it successful. In the meantime I think a good case is made out, not only for the province of Manitoba-and here I am not just making a plea for the constituency of Dauphin or the other two that I have mentioned, namely those of Churchill and Portage-Neepawa which are more urgently involved at this time-but for similar areas in the other two prairie provinces. I think there should be set up some system of zoning under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in order that farmers in those areas at least have the hope or the possibility of benefiting equally under the act. As the situation is now, the scales are unevenly balanced to the detriment of Manitoba; that is not something done deliberately but that has been the result. In the province of Manitoba, or at least in part of it, we suffer more from flooding than from drought. As a result, when it comes to a matter of applying the act, even if it is done in the most lenient manner possible, it just is not possible to give the kind of compensation the farmers deserve.
I am going to recommend that the minister consider under the act a zoning plan under which, after studying crop reports over a period of years-and all those figures are available-it should be possible to set up zones with different yields as the qualifying yardstick. At the present time the yield is set at eight bushels per acre on the average on wheat. There are some areas in which wheat is not a suitable yardstick. There are some areas in which the figure of eight bushels is certainly not a suitable yardstick for a qualifying figure. Certainly northwestern Manitoba is not, because our crop yields on the average are higher than those in most parts of Saskatchewan, and the farming is done on a smaller scale. As I pointed out, flooding and hail affect crop yields in a different manner than does drought. It is not the over-all picture. It is spotty. So I

am going to recommend that the minister consider the idea of zoning so that in certain areas we could have a qualifying figure of eight bushels as at the present time but in others perhaps the figure should be twelve bushels. In others it might even be fourteen bushels, depending on the over-all long-time average yield.
There is another justification for such zoning for qualifying purposes, and that is the actual cost of production. It is well known that in the dry areas of the province of Saskatchewan, for example, or in Alberta summer fallowing is a much simpler and less costly operation than it is in northwestern Manitoba or, for that matter, in northeastern Saskatchewan. Where there is much more rain, where conditions are different and the land is heavier, it is necessary to work the land much more thoroughly and much more often during the summer months, a procedure which of course entails much greater expense. If crop conditions are normal the farmers are, of course, compensated for that expense by having a heavier yield. But if they have a loss owing to flood or hail or some other cause, the amount of money they have put into that land is much greater than it is in the case of, say, southwestern Saskatchewan or the drier areas. I therefore believe it would be only fair and just to set up a zoning system in order that farmers may have an equal opportunity at least of benefiting from this act.
As the situation is now I may say quite frankly to the minister that there is a great deal of discontent with the act in the province of Manitoba. The premier of Manitoba has stated on behalf of this government that he is definitely dissatisfied with the act. He has stated on occasion that Manitoba should cut itself entirely away from the act, should have nothing to do with it and should set up its own crop insurance scheme, all of which is all right provided that he has a crop insurance scheme to put in its place. At the present time the province has not such a scheme. I for one do not go along with the premier of Manitoba on that matter. I think that we should not cut ourselves away from this act until the province has a crop insurance scheme to put in its place, or something which would be better. But the over-all picture in Manitoba is that unless this act can be amended so as to give the farmers of Manitoba a better break than that which they have been receiving, certainly the province of Manitoba would be justified in eventually breaking away entirely from this act.
There are one or two other things about this act that I think need some changes. For
Supply-Agriculture
example, there is the provision under which lands bought or purchased from the province after a certain date-I believe it is 1940-are not eligible for prairie farm assistance. At the time this provision was placed in the act there may have been some reason for it, but since then it has certainly worked a hardship on some of the farmers. Those farmers are not exempt from the one per cent levy. They still have to contribute to the fund one per cent of the value of their crops just like anybody else, and they feel that they are being discriminated against if they are denied the benefits of this act to which they are obliged to contribute. I think consideration should be given to making a change in that respect.
In closing I want to say just a word on this question that I have tried to discuss as calmly as possible, although I feel strongly about it. I think that on future occasions we should not have a repetition of what happened where persons make statements like those which were made in the town of Dauphin about the end of June, making it quite clear that the federal government was going to come to the assistance of these farmers and these statements are accepted in good faith, and then later on the people are told that there was no such intention. I think that sort of thing is not good for public relations. I do not think it is good for the Liberal party. I do not think it is good for government. I do not think it is good in any respect. I think that statements like that are the kind of statements which bring into contempt the statements of politicians across Canada. I think we have a duty to the people of this country to keep them informed accurately and honestly at all times. Even though I cannot see how those statements could have brought any political advantage-no doubt they were designed to bring political advantage or were an attempt to bring political advantage but I fail to see how they could have done so-those statements were made. Then they had to be eaten by those persons who made them.
As a result, there has been a great deal of bitterness and bickering in the province of Manitoba since last July. Of course now we know where we stand. The federal government has told us quite plainly they are not going to do anything in this respect. The premier of Manitoba has made it quite plain he intends to make no such request of the federal government. I am not, therefore, laying any blame at the doorstep of the Minister of Agriculture. Certainly the people who made those requests and those representations were justified in making them on the

Supply-Agriculture
basis of the statements that were made to them by the Liberal politicians at that meeting to which I have referred.


James Garfield Gardiner: In view of the fact these estimates will probably not come up again for several days there are one or two things I should say in reference to some of the questions which have been raised. I do not want to enter into a discussion about the last question which was raised, except to say this. After the first meetings which were held there was considerable done. I am not saying that everything was done that those meetings requested, but everything was done which could possibly be done under the present terms of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, and that amounted to considerable. It was not simply a matter of forgetting all about it, and not doing everything that could be done under the act as it is now drawn.
The other matter about which I wanted to say a word is the floor price on cattle, and beef particularly. The member for Dauphin has gone into that in some detail, and I only want to say that I agree with what he has said, that I did attend one of the meetings held in western Canada recently, the one which was held in Saskatoon last week. This question was discussed at that meeting. I do not believe Alberta was represented at the meeting but the Manitoba farmers union was represented as was the Saskatchewan farmers union. Representations were made at that time, and they were the same as the submissions to the government that were read to us here.
We discussed this question for the greater part of the afternoon, and they reached the unanimous decision which was contained in the press statement later. It was somewhat of a withdrawal from the position taken in the resolution that was read by the member for Dauphin. What I want to say concerning the matter of a floor price under cattle or under beef is exactly what I said to the gathering in Saskatoon. I said I did not think there was anything to be gained at this time in putting a floor price under cattle as our surplus is sold in the United States, the highest market there is in the world. If we were to establish a price higher than that as a floor price, then there would be enough beef from the United States come over here to entirely ruin our markets and put us in a position of not being able to sell. On the other hand, if we were to set a price lower than the price being obtained now, then the natural thing would be to suggest that we were indicating the price was too high.
With those two matters placed before them the committee asked what alternative we had to suggest. I stated to them that we had the

co-operative marketing act of 1939. Under that co-operative marketing act we could set up a marketing organization to make it possible to do the same things as we have done for cheese in Ontario for two years, and which we are asked to do again this year; the same as we have done for potatoes in the provinces of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. In other words, we could guarantee an initial payment not to exceed 80 per cent of the average price for the last three years. I stated to them that there was only one case in which we did make the average 80 per cent. In most cases it was 60 per cent, and in some cases it was less than 50 per cent. In any case we guaranteed the organization so that they could go to the bank, raise money and whenever they took delivery of whatever the product may be they would be in a position to make an initial payment to the farmer. Then, the organization proceeds to sell the product and when they realize a price for it, they divide the money amongst those who form a part of the organization.
I repeat what I suggested a moment ago. After they had discussed that, and discussed it very fully, all of those present at that meeting stated they would make these representations the next day to the general meeting. I understand they did make them on Friday of last week, and that the idea was supported at that meeting. Under that legislation you do not have what is generally called a floor price. There is no attempt made to guarantee a price to the producers, but there is an effort made to set up a pooling organization of which all the producers can be a part. They have their own organization to sell their product. My intention in saying what I did was to impress upon them that we thought it was better to proceed under that legislation, which is already on the statute books and which has worked successfully in 96 out of 98 operations since 1939.
When I say it has operated successfully, I am speaking as a member of the government. When we set up the act we hoped to be able to make such arrangements with the organization that was benefiting by it that there would not be any payment necessary on the part of the government. Now, we miscalculated on furs and we did have a considerable amount of money to pay on furs at the end of the war. This was largely because prices were high towards the end of the war, and when they dropped rather suddenly the government had to pay some of the guarantees it had made.
The second case in which we will probably have to make some payment this year is the guarantee for the potato growers in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.

The guarantees made were higher than the prices received for the potatoes when they were sold. The producer gets his initial payment, and if there is a loss occasioned the federal government pays it. On the other hand, if there is a profit made there is a distribution of those profits to the individuals who were part of the organization set-up and who delivered products to that organization.
As I say, we discussed it very fully, and after having discussed it fully there was this attempt that is being made in Saskatchewan. I assume it will have its effect in Manitoba as well. The attempt being made in Saskatchewan is to organize first a livestock board to handle the livestock under the provincial act. Then they suggest that they may come to this government in order to get a guarantee which makes it possible for them to make an initial payment so the farmers can carry on until their product is sold. Then they will again come here if there are any profits in order to get permission to pay out, having indicated that there will be no loss to the government here, and they will make further payments to the farmers.
The legislation is there, and I just wanted to say tonight, while the question was being discussed, that those are the reasons why it was not thought wise to put a floor price under cattle at this time. There is, as you know, a floor price under hogs of 23 cents which has been referred to by the hon. member for Huron. The only time the price has gone down close to that was a period which the hon. member for Huron mentioned, when the farmers were putting their hogs on the market in much greater numbers than the market would readily take them. That was during the month of January, when they thought that the lowering of the guaranteed price or the floor price was going to result in the lowering of the price of hogs. They thought that, and they delivered hogs in great numbers and almost succeeded in forcing the price down to 23 cents. But immediately that process had been carried through, the price went back up. And the prices have been the highest since that time that they have ever been in our history.
It is true, as the hon. member for Huron said, that those who stayed in benefited by that, and those who got out did not benefit. But I would like to call to the attention of western members the fact that the production of hogs has gone up. In the province of Saskatchewan as of the month of June in the year before last I believe they had over 400,000 head of hogs on their farms. Last year in June they had almost 50 per cent more, with a figure of something more than 600,000. In the province of Ontario-and I 83276-273J
Supply-Agriculture
think the hon. member for Huron will agree with this-they have succeeded through the years in holding the numbers of hogs in Ontario up to a point higher than they were even during the war. And while we in Saskatchewan had 1,700,000 hogs during the war and dropped down to almost 400,000, the province of Ontario went up after the war, and it continued to go up until this year. I do not think they have quite as many this year as they had a year ago. But that reduction in Ontario started to take place under the high prices, not because the prices were lower.
Hogs have been selling across Canada during this past year at anywhere from $42 or $43 per hog up to $50 or $55. Everyone in the house who has raised hogs will know that that is not a price at which one loses money, even at present costs. The returns are fairly high. There is a floor price of $23 under hogs. The price has been up in the $30 bracket during the greater part of the time since that floor price was put on.
In connection with cattle, the situation is as I have outlined it. I doubt very much if it would be to the benefit of farmers-as a matter of fact I am convinced it would not be-for us to put any floor price on that we could put on at the present time. The regulator of cattle prices is the prices in the United States. As the hon. member for Huron said, there have been cattle going to the United States during this last week at $21 per hundredweight.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: That was paid here for them.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, that was paid here for them, and it means that all the costs-duty, freight and so on-were paid. They were landed in the United States at some point where they were slaughtered at that rate. There is great sympathy for the farmers- particularly the young farmers-who came into the cattle business in 1951, as was described by the hon. member for Huron. Those who came in in 1951 and bought cattle at the prices then prevailing certainly took a loss. But the older men who have been in the cattle business for a long time were in a different position. I have talked to a good number of them in the last week or two and they have told me they made good money prior to 1951 on a rising price. They have handled about the same number every year and many of them were in a position to take the loss which they had to take as a result of having bought at the peak price in 1951 and selling at the lower price in 1952 or 1953.
But I understand well the position of the young men. Indeed, I was in that position at the end of the first war, myself. I lost most of what I had, and certainly all I expected to

Supply-Agriculture
gain by going in. The price did go down. It went down a long time as it did following the last war. I agree that the young people who have gone in now have had some difficult experiences. However I think the hon. member for Huron will agree that those who bought their cattle last fall and fed them during this winter have done very well.
It would take quite a while, even at the gain they could make this year, to make up the loss they had to take following 1951. But we hope it will not be necessary for them to do that and that they will be able to go along in this line of business. Operating on the American price they have a floor which is as high and as strong as any floor could be-whether this government were to put it on, or whether it was put on in any other way. The American market is the natural market for our surplus. Our cattle go there; and if the market here will not stay close to that price, then they will go there in greater numbers.
Our marketings in the United States in the last year have not been very high, the reason being that apparently we were not prepared to accept the prices which were paid. With hogs as high in price as they were people were more inclined on this side of the line to eat more beef. And a great number of the cattle which have gone into the market have been consumed here in the form of beef. But we are still convinced that the best floor price we can have at the moment, and probably for some time to come, is the American market, with the American price. That is the reason why we have not thought it was particularly wise to put on a floor price for cattle this year.
I think that is all I need to say tonight. There are other matters I should like to refer to at a later time. I did think, however, that these matters should be discussed now rather than to leave them over until next week.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, most of the remarks I wish to make on agriculture can be made in the discussion on particular items. However I wish to take this opportunity to deal very briefly with one particular subject which is somewhat dear to my heart, and which I am sure is very close to the hearts of a great many of my constituents, and that is the unfortunate lack of co-operation between various departments in the federal and provincial governments. On several occasions this has seriously affected agricultural development in my constituency.
In passing I might say that the constituency of Kootenay West produces only about 16 per cent of its total food requirements. Therefore it can be seen that there is a great opportunity for expansion of agriculture in

that constituency, particularly when it is known that we have thousands of fertile uncleared and unsettled acres. What are the principal reasons for this? The principal reasons are lack of transportation and lack of public investment in irrigation, drainage, schools and hospitals, as well as in public services such as lighting and telephones.
I readily admit the good work that is being done by both the federal and provincial governments departments of agriculture; but there is a lack of co-operation that I think is very necessary for the proper settlement of this part of the country and for the protection of our farmers. This lack of co-operation between the federal departments and the provincial government causes difficulties in my constituency particularly-I am speaking from experience-for those who are farming at present and prevents many others who would wish to farm to take advantage of the many fertile acres which are only awaiting public investment on the part of governments, federal and provincial, and the application of industry and labour on the part of individuals. To illustrate that point I must mention that while we produce in my constituency only some 16 per cent of our total food requirements, we have some 16,000 acres of undeveloped fertile agricultural land in the Lardeau valley, of which the greater portion is black soil bottom land. We have thousands of undeveloped acres on the Arrow lakes and thousands of acres idle in other parts of my constituency remaining undeveloped because of the lack of co-operation that provides the public investment and the public services that are necessary if this land is to be settled by the people who want to settle it.
The federal government is responsible for P.F.R.A., and I shall have a little more to say about that under the item in question. Great work can be done under P.F.R.A. in British Columbia, and particularly in my constituency. There is the Department of Veterans Affairs interested in settling veterans. There should be the greatest co-operation between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Veterans Affairs and the provincial departments concerned. The federal department can do something to promote agriculture and to give some guidance to the development of these new areas in the establishment of not expensive but small illustration stations, that would be of help to settlers, because our conditions vary greatly within a few miles. Then there is the question of co-operation between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Public Works. Very often the lowering of a river by some dredging or the removing of some log jams or something of that sort

lowers the water table of the surrounding land and provides additional opportunities for farming. In the last three years the lowering of the Duncan river as a result of the removing of snags and obstacles has lowered the water table in the surrounding land so that 3,000 or 4,000 acres can be farmed to better advantage.
Then, we have the federal government responsible for unemployment. What an opportunity for some co-operative planning and to use many now unemployed in all these projects. The provincial government is responsible for roads, hospitals and schools and for the provision of light and power facilities and for telephones. All that is required is a common-sense approach and the development of more co-operation instead of the unplanned approach with both the federal and the provincial governments going their own ways, and federal departments and provincial departments carrying on without any co-ordination of their activities. What we need is a co-ordinated approach and a co-operative approach on the part of all agencies, federal and provincial.
I want to illustrate that by a recent happening in my constituency which could have been prevented, I believe, if there had been some co-operation between the federal departments and between the federal government and the provincial government at an earlier stage, and some activity on the part of the Department of Agriculture to protect the farmers' interests in my constituency. I refer to the plight of the farmers and the fruit growers on the Arrow lakes who are left stranded because of the discontinuation of steamer service on the Arrow lakes.
In the early days that district was settled as a result of promotion activities in London largely by the government of Canada, the government of British Columbia and the Canadian Pacific Railway. Most of the early settlers in the Arrow lakes district, as they were in the Kootenay district, where our good chairman comes from, were green Englishmen who suffered the full consequences of their greenness after they arrived. I remember one settler in the Arrow lakes, a Dr. Kelso, who made particular inquiries in London of the Canadian Pacific Railway when he bought a tract of land in the Arrow lakes district where we had a steamer service in operation, and which was an excellent service. He inquired whether it would be maintained. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company's officials said to him and to many others intending to settle on the land in that area that not only would they guarantee to maintain the present service but if anything it would be improved.
Supply-Agriculture
That is the basis upon which the settlement took place. Many of those people in those isolated communities have spent a lifetime clearing the forests and clearing the land, planting orchards, making fields and developing farms; their whole life experience, all their capital and all their labour have been devoted to the development of their small ranches during the last half century. All their investment is in that district, where suddenly, with thirty days' notice, the Canadian Pacific Railway discontinues the steamer service on the Arrow lakes, with a callous indifference to the needs of the farmers and settlers who settled in the district in the early days. The company's officials did not even have the courtesy or the decency to give those affected at least six months' or a year's notice of the discontinuance of the service so that they could arrange for some other service. At the present time the farmers in my district who want to get out to Revelstoke from south of Nakusp have to engage to travel on non-scheduled aeroplane flights and this is most expensive. At the present time there is no provision to transport the freight, express and passengers in general, from Nakusp to Arrowhead.
I bring this to the attention of the minister because in a situation like this the federal Department of Agriculture should have been interested in the plight of these ranchers, and so should the provincial government and the provincial department of agriculture. Here are people who were brought into this country by government and C.P.R. advertising, who have devoted their whole lives to the development of the country and have made a great contribution. Suddenly on thirty days' notice, they are left without transportation facilities and their whole established routine is upset and disturbed.
At the present time every effort is being made to have some service established on certain portions of the lake, and I urge that the Minister of Agriculture do everything he can to support the activities of the West Kootenay and central farmers' institute, and the various fruit growers organizations and the other organizations in the district of the Arrow lakes who are trying to find some way now to re-establish a service which will give them an opportunity to travel, to ship their hay, their fruit, their other commodities, such as cherries and produce of that sort, north to Revelstoke, or south to the Kettle Valley railroad. I emphasize again that this is an excellent illustration of an unfortunate happening to 3,000 people, the

Supply-Agriculture
majority of whom are small ranchers, fruit growers and farmers, because of the lack of co-operation between federal departments and between the dominion and provincial governments.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: It being ten o'clock, shall I rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: There is one subject I forgot to mention. I ask for the indulgence of the committee. I intended to bring to the attention of the committee the fact that the national film board has taken an excellent picture of this steamer service on the Arrow lakes and it is going to be shown in the railway committee room at seven o'clock on Tuesday. I hope the Minister of Agriculture and all hon. members will attend to see what an unfortunate thing has happened to
my own district in the loss of this necessary and historic steamer service.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris:: Mr. Speaker, on Monday we shall continue with the budget debate and if, as may be hoped for, we complete it, we shall spend the rest of the day on the budget resolutions. If they happen to be disposed of we shall go on with the Japanese trade treaty; but if Monday is taken up on the budget and the resolutions we shall take the Japanese trade treaty when we reach it on Tuesday and legislation which I can indicate on Monday evening to follow that. It will be our intention to take estimates again on Thursday and Friday.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 3, 1954