1955-07-13

[Stage Direction]
James Alexander Smith, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Battle River-Camrose, introduced by Mr. Solon E. Low and Mr. Victor Quelch.


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that on June 3 I announced to the house that the government had decided to recommend to parliament that capital assistance be provided in the form of a subsidy of $25,000 per mile for the construction of the Lake Cache-St. Felicien section of the branch line from Beattyville to St. Felicien previously authorized by parliament. As I said then, this decision followed an intensive study undertaken with the co-operation of the Canadian National and local interests which had led to the conclusion that national interests as well as the normal development of the area would best be served by having the whole branch line proceeded with at once.
The house will, I am sure, be glad to learn that the management of the Canadian National has now informed me that surveys of the 139-mile section from St. Felicien to Lake Cache have advanced sufficiently to permit the management to call for tenders on Friday next, July 15, for clearing, grading and preliminary work on the first half of this section, and that at an early date tenders will be called for the second half of the line following the completion of the final surveys.
I believe that hon. members will also be interested to know that the work on the two sections totalling 159 miles in length between Beattyville and Chibougamau is being pushed ahead vigorously despite the late spring breakup which hampered construction activities, and that 11 miles of track have been laid to Belle Riviere where construction of a bridge is under way.



QUESTIONS


NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	In the matter of the photostatic copies of any document or documents which the Minister of National Revenue showed to the premier and/or provincial treasurer of Ontario, on April 27, 1955, were the said photostats prepared in or by the Department of National Revenue?
2.	If so, when were they prepared?
3.	If not, from whom did the minister obtain the said photostats, and when did he obtain them?



SUCCESSION DUTY-PHOTOSTATIC COPIES OF DOCUMENTS

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	During each of the last three fiscal years, in the case of how many succession duty returns did the Department of National Revenue make, or have made, photostatic copies of any documents submitted in connection with such returns?
2.	For what purpose or purposes were such photostatic copies made?
3.	In how many cases were such photostatic copies brought to the attention of the minister?



INCOME TAX-PHOTOSTATIC COPIES OF DOCUMENTS

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	During each of the last three fiscal years, in the case of how many income tax returns did the Department of National Revenue make, or have made, photostatic copies of any documents submitted in connection with such returns?
2.	For what purpose or purposes were such photostatic copies made?
3.	In how many cases were such photostatic copies brought to the attention of the minister?



* NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	In the matter of the information which the Minister of National Revenue communicated to the premier and/or provincial treasurer of Ontario, on April 27, 1955, did the minister obtain the said information, in the first instance, from the files of his department? If so, when?
2.	If not, from what source did the minister receive the said information, and when?


Mr. McCann:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a reply to these four questions. Question No. 4 calls for an oral answer, and I am going to answer all four orally.
With regard to these four questions, public policy, as indicated by statutory provisions and otherwise, requires that all information

Questions
and sources of information respecting revenue matters be treated as secret. Consequently no answer can be given to a question which might tend to disclose a source of information.
However, with regard to questions No. 2 and No. 3, I think I can give an answer that will be satisfactory and will meet the requirements of the hon. gentleman who has put the questions on the order paper. In No. 2 the question is asked: During each of the last three fiscal years, in the case of how many succession duty returns did the Department of National Revenue make, or have made, photostatic copies of any documents submitted in connection with such returns? The same question is asked in No. 3, but has to do with income tax returns. May I say that throughout our 27 offices in Canada we have photostatic equipment to make photostatic copies of documents and also, in some of the offices, to make microfilm copies of these documents. The purpose of this is that, in the event of books and records being seized from a taxpayer, by having copies of the documents, the original ones may be more quickly returned to the taxpayer.
It then asks, "For what purpose or purposes were such photostatic copies made?" The purposes are that they may be used, if necessary, in the event of prosecution, whether that be in the civil court or used in the case of an appeal and whether that appeal be before the income tax appeal board or the exchequer court. With regard to the question, "In how many cases were such photostatic copies brought to the attention of the minister?" I can truthfully say I have seen thousands of them and they have been brought to my attention on many occasions by the officers of the department when we were having conferences with reference to matters affecting the taxpayer.


Mr. Speaker:: Questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 answered.



CANAL SYSTEMS-USE OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY

Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: 1.	During (a) 1954; (b) 1955, did tile dominion government rent, lease, loan, sanction or permit in any way the use for commercial purposes of any government property on any of our canal systems?
2.	If so, what is the name or names of the individual or individuals renting, leasing or having permission to use the said property or properties?
3.	What is the location of the property in each case and what amount, if any, is paid in rent, etc.?
4.	What length of term or lease or authorization is extended for such property or properties?
5.	Is the property thus secured for commercial purposes from the government exempt from business or other taxes?

He said: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the house I would ask that this question be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Question No. 7 dropped.



LAKE ONTARIO WATER LEVELS


Mr. Leonard:: What provision has been made for payment of compensation to property owners who suffer damages as a result of the raising of the water level of lake Ontario to 248 feet above mean sea level?


Mr. Martin (for Mr. Pearson):: In the past, the mean monthly levels of lake Ontario have ranged from a low of 242-7 feet to a high of 249-3 feet. Plans of regulation to be followed in the operation of the St. Lawrence power project are now under consideration. These plans envisage a reduction in the extreme high levels and an increase in the extreme low levels of lake Ontario, both of which can cause damage to property owners. As such regulation will result in a substantial reduction in the frequency of occurrence of the natural levels at which property can be damaged, the question of compensation does not arise.



IMMIGRATION WELFARE ORGANIZATION GRANTS

Mr. Zapliiny:: 1.	What grants were made to Immigrant welfare
organizations in 1954?
2.	What is the name and address of each such
organization?
3.	Have any of these organizations received grants for 1955?
4.	If so, which ones, and in what amounts?


Mr. Pickersgill:: 1.	Travellers' Aid Society (Montreal), 714 Vitre street west, Montreal, P.Q., $5,500; Travellers' Aid Society (Toronto), 142 Las-celles boulevard, Toronto, Ontario, $1,000; Immigrant Welfare Association, 40 Pere Marquette, Quebec, P. Q., $3,500.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	Yes.
4.	Travellers' Aid Society, Toronto, $1,000.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Winch:: 1.	In 1954 was there an authorization permitting the supply of duty free liquor on board C.G.S. C. D. Howe?
2.	If so, what was the amount of duties remitted for the eastern Arctic patrol in 1954 and what was the quantity and brand names of beers and/or liquors on which no duty was collected?
3.	On the completion of the eastern Arctic patrol in 1954 were any beer or liquor stocks returned and

so declared to the Department of National Revenue, and ii so, in what quantity and by what brand names?


ST. LAWRENCE RIVER WATERFRONT    OPTIONS ON PROPERTY
Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: 1.	Does the government now hold options on any St. Lawrence river waterfront land between Victoria bridge, Montreal and the city of Sorel?
2.	If so, what properties are so held and for how long have they been held?
3.	What use is now, or proposed to be made, of any such properties being held?



ESTONIAN SOCIETY OF OTTAWA


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Was an application received by the under secretary of state, (in his capacity as an official of an interdepartmental committee), from an official of the Estonian society of Ottawa for permission to use the war memorial for a wreath-laying ceremony on June 14, 1955, on behalf of the Baltic peoples who lost their lives in the first and second world wars?
2.	If so, was the application refused?
3.	Have similar applications been received by the aforementioned committee or its predecessor in charge of the war memorial, for this ceremony on previous occasions in recent years, and granted every year until the present?
4.	If so, what is the reason for the change in policy between this and former years?


Mr. Pinard:: Return tabled.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:: That on Saturday, July 16, 1955, and every Saturday thereafter until the end of the session, the hours of sitting and the order of business and procedure of the house shall be the same as are now provided for Thursdays.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: In
view of the answer given by the Minister of National Revenue, will he advise of just one thing? Did the photostatic copies which he showed to the premier of Ontario come from the possession of the Department of National Revenue or were they received by the minister from the files of the Guaranty Trust Company?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the same question as the hon. member asked previously, the answer to which I have given.
Inquiries of the Ministry The same answer is given in the answer which I have given to the four questions.


Mr. Fleming:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is no question of secrecy involved in the minister being able to answer one question.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Did he secure the photostatic copies from the Guaranty Trust Company's files?


Mr. Harris:: He has answered that question.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the point at issue now is not whether or not secrecy is involved in answering this question. The minister says it is the same question that was asked and answered previously. I do not recall the situation but if that is the case, and if it is the same question as that which was asked previously, why renew the question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was not answered.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on a
question of privilege may I say that the last time I asked the question the minister said it was a trap question. There is nothing of a trap in a question about a matter particularly within his knowledge. The question therefore was never answered.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members may look at Beauchesne's third edition where they will see that, under standing order No. 44, when a question is asked and no answer is supplied, no debate may ensue and there is nothing that may be done in order to force a minister to answer. Citation 307 reads as follows:
A minister may decline to answer a question without stating the reason for his refusal, and insistence on an answer is out of order, no debate being allowed. A refusal to answer cannot be raised as a question of privilege, nor is it regular to comment upon such refusal. A member can put a question, but has no right to insist upon an answer.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Then, Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? In view of the fact that the house has been unable to obtain any information with regard to a matter that arises from action by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann), has the Prime Minister fully inquired into the fact and is he satisfied with the situation which has been ascertained by that inquiry?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Yes, Mr. Speaker; the Prime Minister inquired into the facts and he is satisfied with the minister's answer that it would be
8040	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry improper to disclose the source from which the Minister of National Revenue obtains information dealing with tax matters.
[Later:!


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to an earlier question and the answer given by the Prime Minister, may I ask the Prime Minister if his answer is to be taken as meaning that the photostatic copies shown by the Minister of National Revenue to the premier of Ontario were obtained from the Guaranty Trust Company?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to make any further answer to the hon. gentleman's question for the reason I stated in the previous answer.


George Alexander Drew: Will the Prime Minister not
agree that if the copies were obtained from the Guaranty Trust Company they are not subject to any of the terms of secrecy imposed by the statutes affecting the Minister of National Revenue?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would not agree with the hon. gentleman's statement in that regard nor with his construction of the secrecy provisions surrounding the revenue tax acts.


George Alexander Drew: Might I ask the Prime Minister if he could indicate to the house in what way the statutory provisions in regard to secrecy applying to the minister in his capacity as Minister of National Revenue would apply to him in his capacity as a director of the Guaranty Trust Company?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: They would not apply to the Minister of National Revenue in any other capacity than in his capacity as Minister of National Revenue, but as Minister of National Revenue he states that it is his interpretation of the law, and it has been the practice, that sources of information dealing with tax matters are not disclosed.


George Alexander Drew: Will the Prime Minister tell us if the Minister of National Revenue told him where he got the photostatic copies?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not tell the hon. gentleman about my private conversations with my colleagues who have the responsibilities and privileges that flow from the oath of office of a privy councillor. Perhaps I might tell the hon. gentleman himself confidentially because he also is a privy councillor.
lLater:i


George Alexander Drew: I must make the record clear, Mr. Speaker, that as a privy councillor I 

would not be prepared to accept in confidence any statement in regard to the activities of the minister as a director of the Guaranty Trust Company, and therefore I must know what his position is. We should know whether there is a conflict of interest between his position as director and his position as minister.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I appreciate that he would not wish to receive information he could not use publicly. I can quite understand it because-


George Alexander Drew: As a member of the House of Commons.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes, and even if afterwards he did get some similar information from other sources he might still feel, as I would, that it would be difficult to separate the two and to use publicly the information that he might have obtained elsewhere but had previously obtained as a matter of privilege under his oath of office as a privy councillor. I have ascertained that there has been no conflict of interest, and that the interests of the Department of National Revenue have been efficiently served by the minister in all cases that have come to his attention.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question on the record for the Minister of Justice. The estimates covering the Combines Investigation Act have already been adopted, and I should like to ask whether the minister is aware that reports indicate that the Manitoba Sugar Company is now controlled by the British Columbia Sugar Refining Company Limited through the purchase of shares very quietly? Will the minister therefore consider an investigation into the sugar industry in view of the facts I brought to his attention during the discussion of those estimates?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The attention of the Minister of Justice will be called to the report in Hansard of the hon. gentleman's question.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Justice. Is he in a position to

report on the outbreak, among the convicts in Prince Albert penitentiary? Is he able to give some report as to the amount of the estimated damage? Is he in a position to say whether or not it is a fact that during the last year or so there have been continuing warnings that owing to overcrowding the situation in Prince Albert penitentiary was a serious and dangerous one?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Acting Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet been able to obtain all the facts concerning the matter to which my hon. friend has referred, but I hope to be able to make a statement on those facts tomorrow.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, on the 23rd of June a question in my name regarding succession duty appeals having a bearing on the subject matter recently discussed was passed as an order for return. I wonder whether the Minister of National Revenue or the Secretary of State could give me some indication when the return might be expected.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised that the return has not been tabled because, as far as my office is concerned, the question was answered some time ago.


Roch Pinard: shall look into the matter and see that it is tabled if it is ready for tabling.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The reference is page 5169 of Hansard.



REPORTED NEGOTIATIONS FOR SALE BY AUSTRALIA TO CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister? Has the report that Mr. Cecil W. Anderson, chief inspector of the Australian wheat board, is negotiating the sale of Australian wheat to China been brought to the attention of the government? Is the Canadian government exploring the possibility of selling wheat and barley to China?
Righl Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister): Yes; our trade commissioner in Australia has advised us that there are negotiations dealing with wheat that are going on. The Canadian government, through the Canadian wheat board, is of course
Inquiries of the Ministry willing to sell wheat and barley anywhere in the world provided satisfactory terms can be reached. We have no trade mission in communist China because, from our information, deals with that country are generally made on a barter basis and it is not our policy to trade, especially in such commodities as wheat, on that basis.



ARRANGEMENT FOR DELIVERIES BEFORE CUT-OFF DATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, which I appreciate it may not be possible to answer at the moment. Perhaps he would take it as notice, and answer tomorrow.
My question is this: How many grain delivery points in western Canada have not yet been placed on the eight-bushel quota, and what arrangements have been made so that the farmers who make use of these delivery points, or other points, and who have not yet been able to deliver the eight bushels per acre, will be able to make those deliveries before the normal cut-off date of the end of this month, for deliveries in this crop year? Otherwise, have any arrangements been made to extend the date of deliveries?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I shall take the hon. member's question as notice.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Norlhumberland-Miramichi):: In view of the representations made by the Renous federal union 239, Renous, New Brunswick, is the Minister of National Defence in a position to provide any information on this matter?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question, and in reply I may say that the Department of National Defence has arranged for the industrial relations officer of the Department of Labour at Fredericton, New Brunswick, to make a new wage survey in the area which will take into account the new industries and the changing conditions referred to in the representations which have been received. As I have already said, it is government policy to pay such groups of employees on the basis of the rates which prevail in the area for the kind of work being done, and every effort is made to be fair in administering this policy.
6042	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry With respect to the hours of work and other working conditions, these are matters which fall within the general policy laid down by the treasury board. These problems are under constant scrutiny and every effort is made to establish working conditions which are in line with the practices followed by private employers. In reviewing the situation, officers of my department will of course take into account the representations received regarding working conditions presently in effect at the Renous depot.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Can
the Minister of National Defence make a statement at this time on what effect the strike at the de Havilland aircraft plant will have on the navy's efforts to re-equip with modern CS-2F A/S search and attack aircraft?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I would think that obviously the strike will have a harmful effect, because until the strike is settled work will have to stop. I am not familiar with the details of the strike or the likelihood of any immediate remedy of it, but we do know that the work has stopped on our product at that plant.


John Borden Hamilton: May I ask a
supplementary question. Is the minister or his department directly engaged in any negotiations at the plant, or has there been any effort on the part of the Department of Labour to assist in those negotiations?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The matter of negotiations is one either for the provincial labour department, or of our own Department of Labour. Our department is not the agent responsible for the conduct of labour negotiations in industrial plants. I would think the hon. member should address his question either to the labour department in Ontario, or the labour department here, whichever is actively concerned in the negotiations.



MANITOBA-INQUIRY AS TO REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker,
I wonder if it would be convenient for the Prime Minister to answer the question I asked on Monday.


Righf Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister): Yes. We have not yet received any request from the government of Manitoba, though we do know, from telephone conversations between their officials and our officials, that they are preparing their request for assistance in connection with that unfortunate situation.


Major James William Coldwell: What about the request of Saskatchewan?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, the situation is as I stated to the hon. member. We would like to deal with the two provinces at the same time, because it is just an imaginary line that separates the two. That has been called to the attention of the officials of the Manitoba government. They have been told that we are waiting, and that we are being pressed in the House of Commons for information as to what we are going to do about the Saskatchewan situation, and we would like to know the Manitoba situation, to consider it at the same time.


Major James William Coldwell: If Manitoba does submit a request, compensation will be considered?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Compensation under certain headings will be considered. We want to apply the same criterion to the two situations. But we know that there are aspects in Saskatchewan which would, under what has been done elsewhere, justify participation in remedial measures.


William Scottie Bryce: Is it possible that the Prime Minister would see fit to send someone to Manitoba to get information at first hand? It has taken so long that some of these people are going hungry now.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No; I am quite convinced that no one has gone hungry in the province of Manitoba.


William Scottie Bryce: I do not know where they are getting anything to eat. Their credit is all gone.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We do expect to send someone. But we would prefer to have the statement of the Manitoba government before us, and to be able, on the basis of that statement, to give proper directives to the one we would send to make our investigation.


Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee of supply.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldt-Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, because we in this group believe

that at this session of parliament the government has refused to admit the serious situation which has developed in our agricultural industry, and as a result of that refusal has failed to implement measures in our agricultural policy which would stabilize this most important industry, we take advantage of this opportunity to bring this grievance to the attention of the house at this time. The agricultural producer is the only producer in this country who has no control over his costs of production or the prices he receives for his product. We feel that we must have implemented in our agricultural policies some measures which will bring about greater stability to the industry.
Our agricultural industry is trying to survive in an economy which arbitrarily administers both costs and prices. We maintain that if agriculture is going to have returned to it its fair share of the national income, that can be done only if there is some system of parity prices or as an alternative some other measure of control over the cost of production. When we realize that the agricultural producer receives only 8-7 per cent of the national income, when we realize that 20 per cent of the people of Canada are actively engaged in industry, then we have reason to become seriously alarmed at the situation.
We in the C.C.F. believe that this question of a fair relationship between the cost of production and the price received for the commodity produced is soon going to become the greatest single problem which will have to be coped with by farm organizations in this country. We submit that all the talk we hear about the inefficiency of the agricultural producer, and that because of that inefficiency he cannot expect to get his fair share of the national income, is false. I think we should look at what the records show in regard to this question of inefficiency.
We find that in 1951 we had in Canada
60,000	fewer farms than there were in 1941. I do not mean by that that 60,000 farms have been taken out of production; they have merely been absorbed, in order to provide more efficient and economical units in the industry. Another significant fact is that there are 53,000 fewer farmers now engaged in agriculture than was the case in 1941. In other words, in the period 1941 to 1951 there has been no reduction in the cultivated acreage in this country; we have been able to maintain our production in spite of the fact that the industry has lost some 53,000 farmers. In 1941 agricultural production in this country was represented by the figure 109 whereas in 1951, despite the loss to the industry of some 53,000 workers, that production is represented by the figure 155. That
Agriculture
is according to the figures in the Canada Year Book. This industry has produced 50 per cent more during that period with a considerable loss in manpower and therefore the argument that the farmer is inefficient, that he must become more efficient in order to participate in a fair share of the national income, is an allegation which has absolutely no truth in it.
That is one of the facts which I think we should not overlook. As a matter of fact, the history of those years proves that as our efficiency increased our share of the national income steadily declined. The question I should like to ask is what has happened to the cash that must have accrued because of this increased efficiency. I suggest without hesitation that it was high-jacked by those people who at the present time have tremendous control over the farmer's cost of production. Therefore I submit that it is a poor argument to say that our receiving a fair share of the national income is contingent on our ability to produce efficiently.


Mr. Gardiner:: Just so that I may understand what the hon. member is suggesting, may I ask him who has said that our farmers are not producing efficiently?


Hazen Robert Argue: The officials of your department, and on very many occasions. You put them to work putting out that kind of information.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: We are told that one reason why we are not able to compete in the world is that we have priced ourselves out of the market.


James Garfield Gardiner: I just want to make it perfectly clear that has never been said by the Minister of Agriculture or anyone responsible to him.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Irrespective of what the Minister of Agriculture says, the argument is being used everywhere throughout this country that one reason we are not able to compete in the markets of the world is that we have priced ourselves out of those markets. If we have, let me say that it is because we have no control over our costs of production. While I am speaking about foreign markets I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to congratulate the government upon their change of policy in respect of foreign countries which would like to trade with us. I am glad that the government apparently have abandoned their position of asking for a political blood test from countries which would like to trade with us.
Farmers are realizing more and more that they have to have some control over their costs; and yet when they see this danger and advocate a system of parity prices in order to


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the motion by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort asks the government to consider the establishment of a system of parity prices for agricultural products. The meaning of 
parity prices is that the price of farm products shall be related to the farmer's cost of production and those things that the farmer must buy. Every other industry in this country, every other group in this country, has already achieved a system of parity prices in its own particular field. By that I mean that any industry apart from agriculture, in setting the price for its finished product, obtains the cost of production plus a return in addition to the cost of production. If the cost of production goes up, then certainly those other industries will increase their prices.
If we are going to establish a system of parity prices for farm prices, then I think it is extremely important that the government do everything possible, not only to obtain the best possible prices for our agricultural products on the export markets, but to expand our export markets so that we may have full agricultural production at home. I was pleased indeed with the Prime Minister's answer to my question as to whether the government was exploring the possibility of selling Canadian wheat and barley to China. I take it from his answer that if the Chinese government produces the cash at the regular selling price, sales will be made. The Prime Minister went on to say that China, in obtaining food supplies, has ordinarily entered into barter arrangements and that Canada was not adopting such a policy. I believe this government should explore the possibility of making barter arrangements for the sale of Canadian wheat.
As a matter of fact, I think the government should do far more than explore the possibility. The government should secure wheat markets wherever they exist, if they can be secured by signing barter deals on a reasonable basis. I for one-and I believe the wheat producers in western Canada also -would be pleased if barter arrangements could be made with any country in the world at fair terms in order to sell our wheat and coarse grains. Some may suggest that there would be something wrong with entering into a barter arrangement with China for the exchange of Canadian wheat; but I think it would be much better for China and Canada to exchange goods than to exchange bombs. I believe that an increase in trade amongst all countries of the world is an essential to peace, and the growing indications that world trade is once again expanding are a good omen for the future.
We in this group for some months now have been pointing out to the government that, by its policy, which is cash on the line, and by not allowing any different policy, we are losing and have lost a great many

important wheat markets to Canada. The United States day by day is continuing to expand its share of the world market for wheat, and it is expanding in precisely the same way as the C.C.F. over the years has asked our government to consider in suggesting policies that our government should follow. We believe that if countries like India and Pakistan wish to accept wheat in return for local currencies, our government should not hesitate to accept such currencies which at some future date we shall be able to use in order to purchase goods from those countries that subsequently will be used by the Canadian nation.
In this group we do not believe that there is anything wrong with gifts of wheat under certain circumstances. If any country of the world experiences famine conditions and is short of cash, under those circumstances we believe that the Canadian government should consider a gift of Canadian wheat. We do not think the farmers should be asked to give the wheat but rather we think that the nation as a whole should give the wheat, under those circumstances, as a part of national policy. In this way I think we would be making a further contribution to peace. We have already given some wheat away in the past under the Colombo plan, but the $26 million voted for the Colombo plan is an insignificant amount as related to this great problem of feeding hungry people.
Through accepting local currencies the United States government is succeeding in selling greater quantities of United States wheat, even though all of us know that United States wheat is inferior in every respect. The results of that action by the United States are clear and are set out in the latest Wheat Review for May, 1955, in which it is shown that in the August to April period of this year United States exports were 204 million bushels, an increase of 58 million bushels from the figures in the comparable period a year previously.
What is Canada's position? Our exports in the same period this year were 189-4 million bushels, an increase of only 1 [DOT] 6 million bushels. There is there a clear indication that United States policies are functioning in that they have been successful in getting rid of additional quantities of United States wheat on the export market.
When we have advanced these policies the government has said no, and we have seen slip away many foreign markets for Canadian wheat in the western world until today, if Canada is to increase its share in the world wheat market, she must sell to such countries as Poland and Hungary because the United States and the Argentine have
Agriculture
together increased their sales to western countries. We have no objection whatsoever to the sale of wheat to Poland or to Hungary. We welcome sales of wheat to any country in the world. However, we say that the government months ago could have increased sales of wheat to countries in the western world if it had followed the suggestions put forward by the C.C.F. group, and that we would not now be obliged to rely on sales to communist countries as apparently the only remaining method by which Canadian sales of wheat can be increased.
We are not only losing the markets for wheat to United States but we have lost substantial markets to the Argentine. The chairman of the wheat board, speaking before the agriculture committee a few weeks ago, told us that the Argentine, through a barter deal, had captured a large part of the market in Brazil and the market in Chile. The Argentine share of the world wheat market in the period to which I have referred was 102-6 million bushels, an increase of 16 million bushels from the figures for a similar period the year before.
In these barter arrangements undertaken by the Argentine and in the United States sales policy for wheat, do the wheat producers suffer? The answer is no. The Canadian initial price or floor price for wheat is $1.40. The United States floor price for wheat in the same period is $2.24 a bushel and the Argentine floor price is $2.72 a bushel. In other words, the United States government and the government of the Argentine have been successful in expanding their share of the world wheat market and at the same time have paid a much higher price to their wheat producers than that which has been paid in Canada.
As a matter of fact, Canada has the dubious distinction of having the lowest guaranteed price for wheat of any country anywhere in the world. I hold in my hand the Alberta wheat pool budget of July 1, 1955, and it lists the wheat prices in some 30 countries of the world. Canada is at the bottom of the list, with the lowest price, namely $1.40 a bushel. Is our government going to say that the Canadian economy is such that we cannot pay our wheat farmers more than $1.40 a bushel or as much as such countries as India, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Japan? I could go on and name all of these countries. The low price starts with Canada at $1.40 and goes up to Norway with a price of $3.43 a bushel; Finland with $3.95 a bushel; and Chile at the top with a guaranteed floor price of $4.50 a bushel. The treatment that Canadian wheat producers are handed out under the present policy is nothing less than shameful.

Agriculture
The motion we have before the house this morning is one that asks for parity prices for all agricultural products. We believe that the establishment of adequate floor prices for farm products is not only something that is essential to agriculture but is something that is in the interests of the whole Canadian nation. I am hopeful that this amendment will commend itself to hon. members of the house and that it will receive wide support when the vote is taken.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I may say that we in the Social Credit group intend to support the amendment. I might point out that on former occasions we have outlined what we consider to be the essentials of a sound agriculture policy. They are, first of all, that the support prices for agricultural products should be on the basis of a two-price system; second, that steps must be taken to extend the market for agricultural products, both internally and externally; and third, the need for a sound crop insurance policy.
On former occasions, I have stressed the fact that the government would have every justification for maintaining adequate support prices; and the justification for that, of course, goes back to the years during the war when ceilings were maintained on agricultural prices and when the prime minister of the day promised that that was part of the stabilization program and that, in return, the farmers would be guaranteed stabilized prices after the war. As a sign of good faith, the government introduced the Agricultural Prices Support Act. The only trouble is that there is always a great deal of uncertainty about what the support price will be under the Agricultural Prices Support Act. Although the minister has announced a formula under which the support price will be set,-that is, he used the base years of 1943, 1944 and 1945-if he would give assurance that the prices of all the main farm products would be supported on the basis of those three base years at 100 per cent of prices during that period, 1 do not think that agriculture would have any ground for complaint. Unfortunately, however, the minister, who at one time apparently did seem to adhere to that principle, has now found it very convenient to use the suggestion of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, namely that prices of agricultural products should only be supported at 65 to 85 per cent of parity. I claim there is every justification for maintaining prices in Canada of agricultural products at 100 per cent of parity on the basis of the years 1943, 1944 and 1945 for the very simple reason that the prices of agricultural products during those years (Mr. Argue.]
could not under any consideration be considered high in relation to the prices of other commodities. During those years the prices of agricultural products were controlled, and therefore the prices of farm products in those years could not be considered high in relation to the prices of other commodities. Therefore why should prices of farm products not be maintained today in a similar relationship to the prices of other commodities as existed in those three years?
We in this group absolutely oppose the principle put forward by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture that farm support prices should only be maintained at 65 to 85 per cent of parity. We support wholeheartedly the proposals of the interprovincial farmers' union for a two-price system. The minister has pointed out that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture stretches right across Canada and therefore is an organization that should be given more consideration than the farmers' union, which is a western organization. But let the minister not forget that the farmers' union also includes Ontario and the farmers' union represents bona fide members. Every member of the farmers' union is a paying member of that organization, a man who has joined the organization because he believes in it. That is not true of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I doubt if there are half a dozen farmers in my whole constituency who are actually members of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture as a result of having paid a fee. They are members indirectly because they are members of the wheat pool or some other organization but they are not paid-up members in the same way that the members of the farmers' union are.
I consider the farmers' union represents to a far greater degree the aims, objectives and wishes of farmers in western Canada than does the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. The inter provincial farmers' union has advocated a two-price system, and we support a two-price system 100 per cent. I am glad to see that the government has supported in part the idea of the two-price system because we have butter supported at a parity price and we have butter sold abroad at the world market price. In other words, the government itself has already adopted in part the principle of a two-price system. I hope the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) will note that because when he spoke he bitterly attacked the idea of selling any of our farm products abroad for a lower price than we sold them internally.
Now the government is doing it and I say they are fully justified in doing it. I will deal with that later at some length.

Under a two-price system, prices of farm products consumed in Canada shall be maintained at 100 per cent of parity on the basis of the three past years used by the minister, 1943, 1944 and 1945, and prices of goods exported abroad shall be set at the best price obtainable supported by reasonable support prices where necessary.
It is interesting to note that the secondary industries have been operating on that principle for years. They set their internal price at a level that they consider will return them a fair profit and sell their surpluses abroad for the best price they are able to obtain. Time and again I have priced in England farm machinery manufactured in Canada and have found that such machinery was being sold cheaper in England than it was being sold in Canada, showing that they were operating under a two-price system. But in agriculture that has never been the system. In agriculture the small surplus that we export abroad has invariably set the price for the larger percentage consumed in Canada.
Let us take beef. In 1954 we only exported abroad 5-6 per cent of our total production of beef. The rest was consumed in Canada. If you take all agricultural products with the exception of wheat you will find that approximately 94 per cent of all foods produced in Canada are consumed in this country. Why should we let the 6 per cent exported abroad set the price for the 94 per cent consumed in Canada? Of course the minister will say we do not do that altogether because under the Agricultural Prices Support Act we have support prices. But let me point out to the minister that support prices under that act are not as high as they should be, using the formula of the minister. Eggs today have a support price of 38 cents, or only 56 per cent of parity on the basis of 1943, 1944 and 1945.


James Garfield Gardiner: Has my hon. friend looked
at the price of eggs this morning?


Victor Quelch: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: The price is 60 cents, not
38 cents.


Victor Quelch: I am talking about the support price. The minister is very happy to be able to say that the price is high, but I am talking about the support price of 38 cents set by the minister.


James Garfield Gardiner: The support price established is set with the objective of producing an actual return. The farmer does not get $1.40 a bushel for his wheat, as the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) said. That is the initial payment.
Agriculture


Victor Quelch: The minister said the floor
price is for the purpose of producing an actual price, but we know that while the support price on eggs has been 38 cents the price at times has been very low in western Canada. I have heard prices quoted that were somewhere around 25 cents, or lower than that.


Hazen Robert Argue: Much less.


Victor Quelch: I have not been selling eggs lately, but I do not doubt for one minute that if I had shipped 30 dozen crates of eggs I would be lucky in the past few years to get 38 cents a dozen for them at the peak of production. With respect to butter, the support price is 58 cents, or only 84.6 per cent of parity. I obtained these figures from the agricultural prices support board. The minister did not like it when I quoted figures from the bureau of statistics so I wrote the agricultural prices support board and got figures from them. With respect to hogs, the support price is 23 cents, which is only 83 per cent of parity. In view of the fact that the minister is using the three years, 1943, 1944 and 1945, I think the farmers have a right to expect the support prices to be maintained at 100 per cent under that formula. I know the minister will try to get out the back door by saying that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has suggested 65 per cent to 85 per cent of parity. I think the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has done the farmers of this country a great disservice in making that suggestion in view of the fact that the farmers were guaranteed, in return for the sacrifices they made during the war, that prices would be stabilized after the war at a fair relationship.
Then there is the question of wheat. We are not on the agricultural estimates so I suppose it is all right to discuss wheat on this general motion. I pointed out some time ago that under a two-price system the support price of wheat today would be approximately $1.81 a bushel. According to the bureau of statistics the parity price for wheat would be $2.27 a bushel. About 20 per cent of our wheat, we will say, is consumed in Canada and the other 80 per cent is exported abroad. If the other 80 per cent were sold at the average between the high and the low of the international wheat agreement that would result in an average on total sales of $1.81 a bushel.
I mentioned that some months ago, and it is very interesting to note that since that time the United States has announced their support price for wheat and set it at $1.81 a bushel, so we would then have our support price for wheat on exactly the same level as that of the United States. Of course the support price

.	Agriculture
of $1.81 in the United States is being paid on the understanding that the farmers will reduce their acreage, but there is no reason why we should do the same thing in Canada because we have not had an increase in acreage in our country in the last few years, as they have had in the United States. The United States brought about a tremendous expansion in acreage and they are really getting back to the level of their former acreage. Therefore there would be no reason why Canada should reduce its acreage.
We come now to the important question of surpluses. I mentioned at the start that one of the most necessary things to do in order to get a fair deal for agriculture is to find markets for our produce both internally and externally. The problem of surpluses is one that has been giving the great producing nations of the world a good deal of concern. We have had from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and even the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) at times statements which would almost give the impression that there is no very great want in the world. Perhaps it is not fair to say that in regard to the Minister of Agriculture, although he did mention that in India he knew of 100 million people who were better off than the people in Canada, which would tend to give people a different idea of conditions in India from what most of us have. If anybody has any doubt about what the world situation is, he should read a statement made by Mr. Gove Hambidge, the representative of the FAO for North America. I should like to quote what he said when he presented a brief before the Senate earlier this year:
Over against this prosperous group of countries blessed with plenty of food and so many of the good things of life, you have another group still far down the scale of economic and physical wellbeing. They include half the people of the world or more, and they are still poor and undernourished, many of them living in bleak hovels, without enough clothing, illiterate and uneducated, dying young, lacking the modern tools and equipment necessary for good production, and often without enough physical vigour to do what we would call a really good day's work even though they work as hard as they can. But better living and greater abundance are possible for these great masses of mankind, and they are becoming more and more sharply aware that their lives and the lives of their children can be better.
It is this possibility of better times, opened up by modern scientific developments but not yet reaching down to all the levels of mankind, that creates much of the tension among nations and within nations today. When people see something they want very badly and think they can have it and are entitled to it, they are likely to try to get it by violent means if more peaceful ones do not seem to work. And there are plenty of troublemakers around to encourage them to use violence.
So the first fundamental need, as I see it, is the necessary effort to bring about a much better balance in the world than we now have.

In the light of that statement, I do not think anyone would seriously challenge the argument that there is great hunger in many parts of the world today. Just as long as that hunger exists, no nation can be justified in reducing its production. As Mr. Hambidge points out, when the masses of people in certain nations are hungry and see other countries reducing their production, then it is bound to cause a lot of friction and discontent in those nations. That, in itself, would do more to breed communism, I believe, than any other one thing, and would in the minds of those people justify the claim of the reds that capitalism has failed when it is not able to distribute surplus goods to hungry people and the only policy of those nations is to reduce their production.
I was somewhat amused by a statement that was made by a man who should have known better but apparently allowed politics to distort his mind on this subject. I have a statement that was made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), as reported in the Edmonton Journal. Speaking at Viking on June 17, he had this to say:
I've heard Social Crediters say we should reduce our stocks of wheat by accepting foreign currencies or even by giving them away.
This has an appeal when we see our wheat piling up whilst others starve, but in Ottawa we have an obligation to keep trade on solid ground. If we started bartering or giving away, we would disturb international markets and in the long run we would injure not only ourselves but also those we seek to help.
We should try to keep trade on a multilateral,
economic basis and disregard emotional superficial solutions to our problems.
It is interesting to note that the minister calls the acceptance of foreign currency and barter a superficial emotional appeal. I wonder if the minister of external affairs would call the recommendations of the food and agriculture organization, one of the ancillary organizations of the United Nations, superficial and emotional? I believe he should study the recommendations that were made by a body of experts set up by the FAO. I quote from a statement of the functions of the international commodity clearing house, as contained in IFAP bulletin, October 1949. These were a few of the recommendations:
(1)	Subject to provisions outlined below, the purchase of stocks of commodities that are in surplus in the country in which those stocks appear.
(2)	The negotiation of sales in inconvertible currencies in order to assist in maintaining the flow of trade during periods of exchange disequilibrium; such payments being guaranteed by the buying countries against losses from exchange depreciation.
(3)	The negotiation of sales at special prices below the market to countries in need, under

strictly defined conditions of use; for example, for relief purposes, special nutritional programs, or for development projects.
(4)	As a long run function, the holding of stocks acquired in periods of surplus as reserves to protect the interests of consumers in periods of shortage.
(5)	The negotiation of bilateral or multilateral trading agreements, or exchanges of commodities on a barter basis.
Now, the FAO recommended the disposal of goods in return for foreign currency and in return for barter deals. The minister of external affairs says that is a superficial emotional suggestion. I do not think he would, on the other hand, brand the FAO as a superficial organization, although, mind you, these were probably their most outstanding recommendations to date.
I want to say just a few words regarding the deal with Poland and Czechoslovakia. We in this group have absolutely no opposition to the sale of goods to nations behind the iron curtain, provided certain definite principles are recognized. First of all, we say we have an obligation to make certain that the needs of the home market are satisfied before we start making goods available to people behind the iron curtain. We should be satisfied that the people in our own country are getting enough of the commodities we are exporting to these countries. I would suggest that one very good way of disposing of butter in Canada before we start disposing of it to Czechoslovakia would be to give additional supplies of butter to all those people receiving certain social payments, such as family allowances and old age pensions.
We could adopt a program similar to that which was adopted in the United States in the thirties and provide these people with stamps, which would give them the right to obtain additional supplies of butter with every purchase of butter they make. This would help dispose of a lot of surplus butter to people who need it in Canada. It worked out satisfactorily in the United States. It helped them dispose of their surplus commodities at that time. These stamps were only issued to people who were on relief, but we could go a step further than relief and could give them to all those people receiving payments from the government by way of family allowances, old age pensions, war veterans allowances and such things as that.
Then we feel a program of course has to be adopted to expand the purchasing power of the people in Canada so as to make it possible to provide a total market for all the goods in this country and all the goods brought into this country in return for goods exported. I am not suggesting we can consume all the wheat we produce, but we can
Agriculture
consume the goods brought into this country in return for our wheat.
The next step would be to make surplus goods available, first of all, to friendly nations; to make them available not merely through the orthodox channels of trade but to make those goods available by the acceptance of foreign currencies, by barter deals and in some cases by gifts. Then, to the extent we still have surplus goods left over, we could make them available to the countries behind the iron curtain. But let us insist, when we make goods available to nations behind the iron curtain, that they must give that transaction enough publicity so the people know that these goods are coming from Canada, and not merely being made available from one of their own satellites. In the light of what I have said we intend to support the amendment.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, this proposal, in general terms, asks the government to give consideration to the advisability of establishing a system of parity prices for agricultural products. I would point out that this proposal was first put forward by Hon. John Bracken, leader at that time of the Conservative party; and, in so far as floor prices were concerned, the proposal was later adopted by the government.
I think I should place on record the position of this party in that respect as definitely and formally adopted by the party and put forward in 1949 at the time of the election. It is in these words:
The Progressive Conservative Party stands pledged to assure the maximum of stability of income to Canadian farmers.
To this end we will enact permanent floor price legislation based on the following principles:
(a)	A definite formula in the Farm Prices Support Act for arriving at floor prices.
(b)	The formula will allow for variations in production and demand for individual products.
(c)	Floor prices will be announced well in advance of the production period.
(d)	The floor price formula will be arrived at in consultation with representative producers.
The statement goes on further to deal with other aspects of our agricultural problem; but this deals particularly with the question of floor prices. We added to that declaration in regard to floor prices a declaration in 1953 as follows:
We will appoint a national agricultural board for the purpose of establishing fair floor prices related to farm production costs.
That, then, is our position. And as we have already advocated a course which would be related to the thorough scientific and continuing examination of farm costs, we therefore will support the amendment now proposed. In doing that, we support the amendment in

Agriculture
relation to its wording, and not to any special interpretation that may be placed upon it by any of the members of the party who put it forward. We take this in its exact form; and in that exact form it obviously presents to the house a recommendation which we have made on numerous occasions. For that reason, and placing it upon grounds that we ourselves have asserted at various times, we support the amendment.
In the discussion which has already taken place on this motion by way of an amendment to the motion that the house go into committee of supply, I do wish to deal with a question that has been raised as to the sale of wheat and other commodities to Poland and other countries behind the iron curtain.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Would not the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) agree with me that, since this amendment is before the house, it would be more appropriate to deal with the matter he has just mentioned after this amendment has been dealt with?


George Alexander Drew: This subject, Mr. Speaker, has already been dealt with by previous speakers, and it quite obviously relates to any problem connected with the disposal of agricultural products, which in turn is related to the question of parity prices and the method by which those prices will be arrived at. It is in relation to those considerations that I wish to deal with the matter. And, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appropriate, in any event, on a question of privilege, that I deal with a subject which has been dealt with by other tion. members who have spoken since this amendment was presented.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I did not hear the previous speeches. Of course, if the Leader of the Opposition is relating his remarks to previous speeches, and to the amendment before the house, he is in order.


George Alexander Drew: I wish to thank Your Honour. The remarks I propose to make are related to comments that have already been directed to the question of marketing, and to the arrangements which might be made for the sale of our wheat or other products to countries behind the iron curtain.
I would point out that in raising this subject in the house by way of questions, and by way of a motion that the house adjourn to debate the subject, we were seeking information in regard to transactions which had not been explained either to the House of Commons or to the public. It was only by directing those questions to the government that we obtained the information we now have as to the terms upon which it is 
proposed to carry out the sales, if the transactions are completed. And I might point out that we are not sure even yet whether or not the transactions in fact have been completed. We had the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that they had not been, and we had the statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that they had. We also have the statement of Mr. Swartz in Winnipeg that negotiations had been completed for these sales. There is still uncertainty as to the details of those transactions. We sought to ascertain what the financial arrangements were. So far as this transaction is concerned we made it perfectly clear, as Hansard will show, that we are not opposed to arrangements with Poland or other countries for the sale of our wheat, but we do regard it as our duty to ascertain on behalf of members of the House of Commons and the people of Canada what the financial arrangements behind those transactions are.
That has been the purpose of raising the question in the house; and we still want more information than we yet have as to the negotiations and the terms of the various arrangements.
It will be recalled by hon. members that we pointed out that reports in reliable newspapers referred not only to the sale of wheat but also the sale of other commodities. As yet we have no information with regard to these other negotiations, either as to the basic terms of the transactions, or otherwise.
The information we have obtained is that it is proposed to carry out a sale of Canadian wheat to Poland under an arrangement whereby the government of Poland would pay 15 per cent of the agreed cost of the wheat; through the Export Credits Insurance Corporation advances to the communist government in Poland would he guaranteed by Canadian banks, to the extent of 85 per cent of the cost of the wheat. Under that arrangement the Canadian taxpayer therefore becomes responsible for 85 per cent of the cost of the transaction. Whether that is a good or a bad financial arrangement, it is obvious that it is the duty of members of the house to ascertain the facts when negotiations of that kind are under consideration.
It will be recalled by every member in the house that we have been urging for several years that this government step up its activities in the marketing of our wheat to our former customers. We have emphasized the need for a more vigorous selling of our surplus wheat to the United Kingdom and to other countries in the sterling area. We have made it clear that we

support the sale of wheat or other surplus commodities under any appropriate arrangements that do not conflict with Canadian security and Canadian interests. I made it emphatically clear in this house only a few days ago that we are not raising a question in regard to these transactions upon the basis of any blanket opposition to dealing with countries beyond the iron curtain in matters of this kind. We do say that if there are to be specially favourable arrangements in regard to food products there should not be more favourable arrangements with countries beyond the iron curtain than with countries friendly to us and in fact joined with us in an effort to defend ourselves against the possibility of aggression from beyond the iron curtain. That has been the sum total of the position we have taken.
I would point out that in the transaction as it has been explained to us the Canadian taxpayers are called upon to guarantee 85 per cent of the cost of this wheat to the communist government of Poland. The arrangement calls for the repayment of that 85 per cent within one year. I think the government should make a statement to us as to its overall policy in this regard. Does it believe that at a time when we are being called upon to spend so much to defend ourselves against possible aggression from beyond the iron curtain we should accept without some adequate assurances the credit arrangements put forward by these governments which are imposing upon us the necessity for these huge expenditures?
It will be recalled that only a few days ago in this house I asked the government if it would not be desirable for it to consider the possibility of using a substantial part of our surplus wheat as further gifts under the Colombo plan to those friendly countries which are in need of wheat at this time. After all, this wheat will be paid for by the Canadian taxpayers. What we want is some explanation of the over-all policy under which these arrangements are being made. I do think that most certainly, at a time when NATO will be meeting in Paris within days to consider broad plans for the colossal preparations being made for the defence of our freedom against possible aggression by communist governments, we should have explained to us the policy of this government under which 85 per cent of the cost of these products is being assumed by the Canadian taxpayers when the products will be taken over by governments beyond the iron curtain.
I subscribe to the idea that has been put forward here that in every way possible we should seek to impress upon the minds of
Agriculture
the people in the countries beyond the iron curtain that there is no antagonism on our part toward them as human beings in need of the ordinary necessities of life. Not only do I subscribe to that statement this morning, but hon. members will recall that I put forward a proposition in this house a few days ago that we should seek every opportunity of carrying beyond the iron curtain our belief that we have common ideals and common purposes with the people who live beyond the iron curtain.
I hope that no hon. member of this house will forget that the communist governments are unlikely to explain to their people that any wheat or other products that come to them have been obtained under favourable terms from the Canadian government. I am not raising that as an argument against carrying out appropriate transactions by sound financial methods. However, I hope that no hon. member will be under the impression that these communist governments will say to their people, "You are receiving this additional wheat because of generous arrangements made by the government of Canada."
I remember an incident which occurred in Italy while I was there a few years ago and which caused a great deal of comment. As every hon. member knows, there are a great number of communist municipal councils throughout Italy. In one of the hill towns of Tuscany a great celebration was arranged by the communist council of that municipality to distribute to the people of that community wheat which they said had been _ sent to them by the government of Russia. The only flaw in the arrangement was that the bags in which the wheat was delivered had a maple leaf on them. They had come from Canada and the communist council had not noticed the maple leaf and wording in English which made it quite clear that the wheat had come from Canada under arrangements made at that time in this country. I recall other similar occasions and I know that many hon. members have read of similar cases.
I recall another instance which happened only last year while I was in Germany; this has certain amusing aspects to it but it does illustrate the way these things happen. A worker in a village in East Germany was helping to load potatoes grown in his own community into a car destined for Leipzig. Of course in East Germany as in all other communist countries you must have a passport even to move from town to town. This man had hung up his coat containing his passport and wallet inside the car in which he was loading potatoes. He turned around to

Agriculture
do something else and then discovered that the door of the car had been closed and his coat was inside.
He did his utmost to get the communist boss to open the car but that communist official was not taking any chances by doing anything of that kind. A friend of this man suggested that if he could get to Leipzig ahead of the car he might be able to get into it. He got to Leipzig, the car was opened and he recovered his wallet and passport. Naturally he was a very happy man. Then, as is the habit in Germany as well as in other countries, he went to a nearby beer hall to get a glass of beer. Whether it was after the first or second glass was not explained to me, but at some point he went on to tell of his experience. When he got into the car in Leipzig he found chalked on the car in large letters a statement that the potatoes contained therein were being delivered to the people by their friends in Russia. This man had worked loading that car in his own village in East Germany the night before and he thought this was a great joke. Unfortunately when he told the joke an MVD man was present and this unfortunate worker is now serving a two-year term for insulting the government of Russia.
That is the kind of thing that goes on. They do not take any chances of the people of those countries being impressed by the generosity of the free nations of the west. Nevertheless I am prepared to agree that by every means within our power we should attempt to break open the iron curtain. I said here in this house the other day that in common with the people beyond the iron curtain, we want to live. In every way we can, consistent with the defence of our own freedom, we are anxious to see presented to the minds of the people themselves beyond the iron curtain the fact-and the very important fact-that we have nothing but good will for them as human beings and as individuals with all of the natural hopes and aspirations of human beings on this planet. Let us not be too confident, however, that any communist government is going to proclaim to its own people the friendly acts of our government or of the people of this country; and this, of course, would be an act of the people of Canada, because it will be the Canadian taxpayers who are paying the money.
I therefore sum up these remarks simply by saying, if there are going to be transactions of this kind, let us know what the transactions are, let us be sure we are not extending more favourable terms to communist governments beyond the iron curtain than we are extending to the governments with which we are associated in the common 
defence of freedom; and, above all, let us be sure that there is a fair statement of policy as to the arrangements under which these transactions are being carried out. That is all we ask. Within those terms we are ready to see any sound transactions carried out with countries anywhere in the world.
We do, however, repeat the demands that we have made for several years that a much more vigorous effort be made to reopen those traditional markets in the United Kingdom and in other countries to which we have been selling wheat for so many years, by methods that we can employ to sell them the wheat and other foodstuffs they need, the wheat and other foodstuffs we also need to sell. This party wants a vigorous and well-understood method of disposing of our foodstuffs. We want to see the wheat moving from the farms in western Canada, and we want to see the farmers of western Canada given assurances which will make it possible for them to carry on their plans for next year and for succeeding years with a much more definite knowledge of what they may expect in return than they have yet had from this government in the years that have passed.


Mr. Harrison:: May I ask the Leader of the Opposition a question? I have listened to his remarks. I wonder if he can tell me what difference there is between his announced sales policy for wheat and the old Tory policy of 1911 of no truck or trade with the Yankees?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to answer any intelligent question that is asked in this house, but I do not include that question in that category.


Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that our amendment happens to coincide with the Conservative election policy of 1949. I wish the Conservatives would fight as vigorously for the farmers for this principle of giving them a fair deal through a system of parity prices as they demonstrated they could do for the manufacturing industries in a recent debate.
Canada has been, is and will be an agricultural economy, this in spite of rather than as a result of policies followed by the present Liberal government. I just wish to take a glance at the proportion of the national income that agriculture generally has received during the past few years. The dominion bureau of statistics figures for 1954 farm income show that the net farm income dropped to $1,125,600,000, or more than 30 per cent below the $1,669,600,000 net farm income for 1953. This follows up the significant trend that has developed in the last five years, when agricultural income has dropped most significantly from the peak level of 1951.

Agriculture
As the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort pointed out, it is only reasonable and fair to request that those employed in agriculture, those making their living out of the soil, should be granted sufficient remuneration for their labours to give them a reasonable share of the national income. In 1951, the top year to which I have referred, agriculture received 11 per cent of the national income. But at that same time 20-8 per cent of the population were engaged in agriculture. The 1954 figure indicates that there has been a slight decrease in the numbers employed in agriculture. It is down to 20 per cent of the population. But they have received only 9 per cent of the national income. There are many ramifications to the decline in agricultural income, ramifications that must be corrected in the very near future.
As you find 20 per cent of the population suffering a variable income which is below 50 per cent of the share they deserve, then by virtue of the fact that Canada is an agricultural economy you will find other segments of our population that will suffer as a result of the low income accorded to agriculture. I have heard many times-and I consider it very valid

the argument that if you have a healthy agriculture you have a healthy Canada.
We have spent a great deal of time this session in discussing unemployment. We have discussed unemployment in the agricultural implement industry. Why was it so important at this time? It was important because the government had failed to give consideration to the welfare of agriculture, and as a result of that the income declined, so that they were unable to purchase the products of industry. Another aspect that must be considered in the stabilizing of the economy is not only those who are employed in the manufacturing of articles which will be used in agriculture but the hundreds of thousands whose occupations derive from the servicing of this important industry; and I am certain that the Minister of Agriculture, for one, would agree with that statement.
In considering the welfare of agriculture, I do not want to limit it to the farmer in Saskatchewan; I do not want to limit it to any sectional area. When we are talking in terms of agriculture, we are talking in terms of farmers all over Canada. We are talking in terms of the smaller farmer in British Columbia, the maritimes, Ontario and Quebec. It is generally assumed that those farmers who operate on the prairies are considered as operating factory farms. I have heard that statement made in the House of Commons. Nothing could be further from the truth. They have to farm on a large scale in order to
give themselves a reasonable return. They have to farm from 640 to 1,000 acres, and in some cases 2,000 acres, to give themselves the same return that those working in industry or in other agricultural areas in Canada could be expected to deserve.
At the same time, we have had a very significant trend showing up in Canada in the last few years. It has resulted from the fact that the farmers of Canada have not received a high enough price for their products to allow them to practise good husbandry. It will be noticed that the yield of wheat in Saskatchewan has declined from 18-6 bushels to the acre in the period 1905 to 1914 to 17-9 bushels to the acre in 1952, a particularly favourable year. That relates the subject to a very important problem which was given consideration and turned down by the government earlier this session. We must give consideration to this problem of conservation as it affects the farmer.
I think we must give consideration to this problem of conservation as it affects the farmers, because we must conserve the products we have today if we are to be expected to feed the population of tomorrow. The population of the world has doubled in the last 100 years. It is expected that it will redouble in the next 50 or 60 years. Therefore the farmers of Canada must be granted a high enough price for their products to make up for the failure of the government to follow a conservation program.
The farmers in my area of Saskatchewan are forced to seed their fields to grain each year, even though they know that good husbandry practice might dictate that they should put them down to grass and rest them for a year or two. But they cannot afford to do that because for every acre they take out of productive cultivation they are losing their income. If, on the other hand, the prices of commodities they sell are to be sufficiently high to allow them to carry on this managerial practice which must be employed if we are going to meet the challenge of the world food production in the years to come, they must receive a higher price for their commodities.
I have seen many fields which have been ravaged by floods and wind storms and which now lie barren and deserted because the farmer could not afford to carry out the cultivation procedures which would preserve and restore that soil. That is one of the sound arguments for the necessity for and the desirability of establishing an agricultural prices program which will give the farmers sufficient income to take care of their depletion. In industry the manufacturer is given a good allowance for his depletion but the farmer is given none.

Agriculture
It is all very well for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to say that the Agricultural Prices Support Act is taking care of the farmers of Canada, but at the end of world war II, when the Agricultural Prices Support Act was passed, it was to ensure adequate and stable returns for agriculture and to secure a fair relationship between those in agriculture and those in other occupations. It was a very noble intent but it is the same as with so many other things introduced by the Liberal government; that is as far as it goes. Although there is a revolving fund of about $200 million for this noble purpose, since the inception of the act little more than $80 million has been used for that specific purpose.


James Garfield Gardiner: Might I suggest to my hon. friend that as much as $300 million has been used.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: I was quoting from the annual report of the agricultural prices support board, 1953-54 which gives a resume over the years. It may be that certain of the moneys to which the minister is referring could be construed as being used for the function of the Agricultural Prices Support Act. As the hon. member for Humboldt -Melfort (Mr. Bryson) pointed out, certainly a large sum was used in connection with the foot-and-mouth disease when, as he mentioned, the situation should have been considered to be a national emergency.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is in the $80 million that you speak of. It is not in the amount that I am speaking of.


Mr. Nicholson:: What is in the amount the minister mentioned?


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: I do not know. I am quoting from the annual report of the agricultural prices support board, 1953-54. It gives a total of $80,163,658.71.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the total amount that has not come back into the fund again. It is a revolving fund. There has been $300 million used but the other part has come back into the fund.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: What I am
getting at is this. It has cost the government only $80 million. That is a rather small contribution to make in order to achieve a stable agriculture in all of the sections of Canada. That is a rather dismal record indeed.
Unless careful consideration is given to this problem of giving a sufficient return to the farmers all across Canada so that they can live in dignity and comfort on their farm holdings, I believe we are going to do much to jeopardize the economy of Canada. When

we are talking in terms of a guaranteed annual wage for labour,-with which I would agree-I would certainly press for a guaranteed annual wage for farmers. They are suffering from the vagaries of the weather from year to year. They never know what they are going to receive. When they receive bountiful crops, when they appear to be doing fairly well,-when they are told by the Minister of Agriculture that they are better off than they have ever been before- and when they receive five crops in three years, what do we find? We find that the farmers in western Canada who are making their livelihood out of wheat and the butter producers in other areas of Canada are in a very precarious position indeed.
It was pointed out in the Manitoba Cooperator that through a survey carried on by the Manitoba department of agriculture it had been found that the average dairyman- and this, incidentally, is an investigation of the better dairy farms-obtained 79 cents an hour for his labour. When we think in terms of 79 cents an hour for the length of day that a farmer must put in, it still does not make a big sum to be distributed among the farmer, his wife and his hired help. We will find that consideration must be given to resolving this problem so that Canada, which is and has been, as I pointed out, an agricultural economy, will derive its strength from its agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to call it one o'clock in order that, at 2.30 p.m., when we come back to the house, I may reply to some of the things that have been said. But before asking you to call it one o'clock I should just like to say that the very marked difference between some of the conditions that are being discussed and the conditions which exist in the world today is emphasized more or less by the fact that yesterday at this time I was visiting, riding over and exploring a 15,000-acre ranch in the highlands of Scotland. I am here in this house today 24 hours later.
The situations which we talk about as having existed at some earlier time are scarcely comparable with the set of conditions that exist now. By way of introduction to what I will say after 2.30, I may say that I had the privilege of going to Britain, at the invitation of their government, to examine into the activities of the farmers whose activities they thought I should examine into; and I had the privilege of visiting with them seven or eight farms, about half of them in England and the other half in Scotland. We did that over a period

of 10 days. In many of the things I saw there are answers to some of the things that are being said here today.
When we come back after 2.30 p.m. I am not going to go into the matter in more detail, but I hope to show in greater detail that the policy which has been followed by this government ever since the beginning of world war II, and for four or five years before that, has resulted in the plans that we followed throughout the period of the war and developed as a result of those experiences after the war, have succeeded. Many of the countries that adopted the plan that has been suggested here today have departed from it. We followed the policy which we adopted then in opposition to policies suggested by the opposition, which was a policy of parity prices. That policy was adopted in some other countries but it is not being followed in most of them today. So at 2.30 p.m. I hope to be able to deal with the question which has been introduced by this resolution and to deal with some of the remarks that have been made.
If you will, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to call it one o'clock.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Would the minister indicate whether he went at the invitation of the British government or the Canadian government?


James Garfield Gardiner: I went at the invitation of the British government and at the expense of the British government.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just before we adjourned for lunch, Mr. Speaker, I was asked whether it was the Canadian government or the British government which had requested me to go to Britain and spend the last 10 days there. I answered that it was the British government. I think I should say in further explanation, before going on to discuss the resolution, that some weeks ago the British department of agriculture inquired as to whether I, as Minister of Agriculture for Canada, would attend the royal show which was this year being held at Nottingham. I agreed to do so. They then suggested that I spend two or three weeks in Britain as the guest of the British government, for the purpose of being shown British agriculture in operation. I think hon. members will understand why that invitation was readily accepted.
I left here on July 2, and arrived there the next morning and have spent the last 10
Agriculture
days in Britain. As I stated just before lunch, I was on a 15,000-acre ranch in the highlands of Scotland yesterday, and the fact I am here today indicates that conditions throughout the world are quite different from what they were a few years ago. We can associate with one another and learn a great many things much more readily than we could in prior times. In addition to that it also indicates that the means by which food may be transported from where it is produced to people who require it in different parts of the world have changed considerably.
I may say that on each previous occasion I have gone to Britain I have gone there looking for something; either trying to sell them something or trying to buy something from them that would be helpful to us. On this occasion, I had nothing of that kind to worry about. The British government invited me, and they put official cars at my disposal when I arrived. They planned the whole program for the 10 days, so that I did not need to do anything more than be ready to get into the car at the right time, get out of it when it reported back to the hotel, and look at the things that were shown to me as I went about and summarize what we had learned. There are one or two things I found out that I had not realized before. One of them is that in Britain they have what we in Canada call a large farm. I had always understood, of course, that there were estates there that were owned by persons who carried them down from the feudal period to the present, and which were quite extensive. But I did not understand that there are many farmers who are operating farms on their own similar in size to our large farms.
One of the first farms I visited was a farm of 800 acres. The next one was a farm of
1.400	acres, and the next visit was two farms operated together by members of the same family, one of 700 acres and another of 400. I finally finished up yesterday at a 15,000-acre ranch, on which there were 4,000 sheep and 300 or 400 cattle, and the facilities that go along with running that kind of a herd.
In addition to finding out there is that type of farm there, I found out also that the farms are just as completely mechanized as our farms. As a matter of fact, I doubt very much if you could find a farm in Canada of
1.400	acres with 26 tractors on it, but I found one there. Not only did they have the tractors, but they had as complete a storage for grain as you will find in the best elevators in this country, and a whole drying system to dry the grain just as complete as we have associated with our elevator system.

Agriculture
Then, going to the areas where they were growing fruit, they had orchards with a sufficient number of trees in them to make me ask how many they had. They could not tell me how many they had. They started to estimate it, and when they got through estimating I concluded that I had better get the facts before reporting them in this house or anywhere else because the estimates that were given to me would indicate that they had about as many trees on one farm as we had in some provinces. Those are all facts which I think are important in these days because we are talking considerably about marketing our products in Britain, and marketing here and there throughout the world, adding suggestions that certain things ought to be done.
I only want to say that I thank the British government for having given me the opportunity of going there representing Canada, first to be at the royal show and see the products of their farms exhibited in the manner in which they are, and then later on to go over the country and see the farmers actually operating their farms. May I say, too, when I said there were 26 tractors on that one farm there were also 55 labourers. Here we believe that mechanization has relieved us from the responsibility of having hired help and feel it reduces our farm population, but they have a considerable amount of help on these farms, and that hired help is well paid and well housed. So, I want to thank the government, through this house, for having given me the opportunity of being there. I want to say to the house, too, that if I have an opportunity of discussing my estimates at a later date in the session-and I hope I will have but if there is as much talking done in the next few days as there has been in the last two weeks I will not be able to be here, and my assistant will see my estimates through the house-I will be quite pleased to go into the details of the visit; what I saw there and the effect I think it has upon our production here and our desire to be in the British market.
Now, the question before the house at the moment has to do with parity prices. The motion is a motion to go into supply, and of course as always an effort to prevent the house going into supply is looked upon as a motion of want of confidence. The suggestion contained in the motion is that the government should give consideration to the advisability of establishing a system of parity prices on agricultural products. This morning I was very much surprised when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) gave his reasons for supporting that resolution. His reasons were that the plank in the Conservative platform

drafted in 1948 justified parity prices. Well, I have read that section over quite often. We heard it read this morning; and I heard the explanation that the gentleman who was most responsible for the Conservative policy on agricultural matters was the last leader of the party, Mr. John Bracken. And, having read the resolution, and having heard it read this morning, and having known Mr. John Bracken for a long time, I am a little doubtful as to whether any of those who sat in that convention had any idea that they were putting through a resolution in favour of parity prices, as they are known to those who moved the resolution in this House of Commons this morning.
The understanding of those who moved parity prices, as I have heard it explained many times, is that someone should determine what the cost of producing farm products is and, allowing for a certain amount of profit after that cost has been estimated, set an actual price and announce it sufficiently far in advance so that the farmers can go ahead and produce, with the guarantee that they would obtain that price on all they would produce, let us say, during the next two or three years, or whatever the limit of time might be.
Now, I am quite certain that that kind of policy would not be put into effect by a Conservative government if they were in power in this country tomorrow. And I am quite certain, too, that the plank in the platform does not mean that. As a matter of fact the plank in the platform is nearly an exact description of what has been going on in this country ever since the beginning of the war, if not before that-an exact description of what has been going on, with just enough difference in it in order to make it possible to say that it is not the same thing. But, in effect, if any party were to attempt to put that platform into effect, as announced in 1948, it would be doing what we have been doing at least since the beginning of the war.
The first thing we did do after the war started was to call together a conference of farmers to find out what they thought of the situation, and to indicate to them what we thought with regard to it; and then, after having discussed the matter for a day or so, to arrive at certain conclusions as to what ought to be done. Then we met from year to year; and we still meet every December in order to go over the facts again, and recite them in December so that the farmers may know what they ought to do during the remainder of the year-knowing that in this country in the spring of the year we put in

our crops, and put our livestock on the grass. We have been doing that through the years.
As a result of what the farmers did to meet war demands there was a strong agitation to do something about giving security to the farmers, after the war was over. At the beginning of the war the federation of agriculture, which was the only farm organization right across Canada at that time- there were not any farmers' unions; there was the federation of agriculture organized right across Canada, in every province-and that federation of agriculture came to us and asked us for marketing legislation. We told then that, while the war is on it will be necessary for us to take control of marketing in order to provide the food that is required for the prosecution of the war, and in order to take care of agriculture in general across Canada. While war is on we have authority to control production and marketing, because our constitution provides that when war comes the War Measures Act can be passed, and we can take over all the authority from the provinces, and do the things that we think ought to be done for the proper prosecution of the war.
We did that. Among other things we entered into contracts with Great Britain and, to a lesser degree, with some other countries, as to what food we would provide each year. Then we told the farmers what we had agreed to provide and the return they would receive. For example, by guaranteeing quantity and price we boosted our production of hogs to where we could send 700 million pounds of bacon to Great Britain in one year, and boosted our production of eggs so that we could send 86 million dozen where we sent only one million the year before the war.
We induced the farmers to cut down on wheat production, because we could not sell the wheat. We induced them by paying $4 an acre to cut down the acreage, and to go into production of those things that were needed and could be turned into cash during the time of the war.
If anyone suggests that was not the policy, and that if so it had nothing to do with assuring reasonable cash returns to farmers in this country during the war, then I am going to say to him that those who take that position were not familiar with what was going on during the war.
We came to the end of the war, or we were approaching the end of the war. And Knowing the possible drop in sure markets in Europe, we brought legislation before the house providing for $200 million to a board- such a board as was described to us this 50433-383
Agriculture
morning as being the policy of the Conservative party-a board that was going to sit down and figure out what the relationship was between the prices the farmers were obtaining for their products, and the cost of producing those products, and then establish a floor price which would make it possible for the farmer to get his costs of production.
It was never intended that floor prices would provide him with much in the way of profit. It was intended that the floor prices should be made to work so that they would save the farmer from loss in adjusting his wartime production to peacetime conditions. Our reason for that was discussed at the time we did it. I remember being asked by the then leader of the opposition, "Well, how long do you think this period will last?" Someone suggested that we put four years in the act. I said that it took longer than that at the end of the first war-the figure I used was 18 or 20 years; and the interim between the period of the war and the period following the war probably was longer than that. We said something ought to be done in order to stabilize returns to the farmers following the second world war.
What was the reason for that? The reason was that following every war we have had -not only the last two wars, but the Napoleonic war-every war of any considerable size the world has ever experienced, we have had a drop in farm prices. And, following that, as has been suggested by an hon. member on the other side of the house, we have had a drop in employment throughout the country, and a drop in wages. We had times we have come to call depressions. And our main point in bringing down the measure was to see to it that condition was avoided following the war that we had just come through.
All I wish to say about that now is that, in spite of what was said this morning, that objective has been reached and maintained, right from 1944 until the present time. We did not use that act at all until about 1947, the reason being that agreements were entered into during the wa rwith Great Britain and others, and were still in existence, and we were able to sell our products at established prices under those agreements, down to about 1947. Then in 1947 we had to use this act that is on the statute books, and we have been continuing under it ever since. We had to bring it into effect. We threshed out this question of parity when we were drafting the act. I sat in a committee until three or four o'clock in the morning before we brought that legislation into the house

Agriculture
discussing the question ol whether or not we should make it parity or make it something else.
I must say that when we had that discussion there were members of the civil service, as well as members of the government, and there was no one on the committee who would favour using the term parity. They said that word "parity" had so many different meanings in different places and to different people that the proper thing to do was to state what we were going to do. That is stated in the clearest possible terms in the act as it is now drafted. It is stated that the board set up under that act must make a study of the facts and keep on studying the facts, studying the facts from day to day, and when we do establish support prices put on prices which meet the conditions which were existing at that time.
We have been carrying on in that way during the whole period of time from then down to now. Someone has been getting up from time to time saying that we ought to have parity prices as they have in the United States. It is true that the United States started off with the idea of parity being the basis from which to work. Very shortly afterwards they reduced it to 90 per cent parity, and shortly after they brought it down to 75 per cent of parity on certain products. Finally they took some products out altogether, for instance eggs. The reason they took out eggs was that under the policy of setting a parity price for eggs and trying to store them for a possible market they had to utilize even caves for the storing of eggs down in the United States in order to find room for all the eggs that were being produced under a policy of parity prices. In the long run that did not help the egg producer down in the United States. It has put him in the position where the price of eggs there today is not as good as ours, and the United States realizes that. They have been changing their ideas of parity from time to time.
Hon. members come into the house and say that we should go back and start where the United States started, that we should have 100 per cent parity; that we should start with that and base our prices in this country upon that. I am going to say to the house that the experience of countries which have tried it, including the United States, is that they will not go back to it under any circumstances. The farmers would not wish them to. They have had experience with this kind of thing with the result that they have developed other lines of activity having more in common with what we have been doing from the end of the war down to the present time.

I have discussed this question many times. I have discussed it at annual meetings of the farmers' union and at annual meetings of the federation, not later than January of this year. It was after this discussion that they drew up the plan which they submitted later to the government in connection with support prices. They do not call them parity prices in the sense in which those words are being used in this house. I have grave doubts whether even the farmers' union does that.
I am a member of the farmers' union and keep up my dues. Someone on the other side of the house said that a member of the federation is not required to pay dues. Whether or not they are, I belong to that organization because I am a member of the wheat pool. As a member of the wheat pool I am also a member of the federation. But I belong to the farmers' union because it is generally known as an educational farm organization. They go out in my province and in other provinces in general and start advocating things in the hope that they will turn out to be good. Quite often they do. Recently they have been looking into this matter of parity prices. Not only have they been looking into it, they have been putting something down on paper. During the lunch hour I took a hurried look at it and I may be wrong, but I could not find the word "parity" in it. I have written it in myself.


Victor Quelch: They advocate a two-price
system.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am coming to that. They do not call it parity; here is what they say:
We would therefore recommend that the government call a special dominion-provincial conference at an early date for the purpose of discussing a marketing and prices program for agricultural products grown in Canada, under two headings:
(a)	For that portion sold for domestic use;
(b)	For that portion sold on export markets.
In order to keep my own mind clear on the matter I wrote in at the end of the first one "parity" and at the end of the second one "not parity". That is my impression of what they were asking for, but they did not say so.


Victor Quelch: You will find it in another section.


James Garfield Gardiner: They do not refer to that in the brief they were submitting to the government on that matter. For that reason I am not too certain that the farmers' union is 100 per cent behind what my friends call 100 per cent parity. Whether they are or not, I would be more inclined to take the recommendation of the other organization which, as I said in an earlier debate, is an

organization set up in every province of this country and associated with every part of the agricultural industry.
The suggestion was made this morning that these men do not pay dues to the federation in the sense that you pay dues to the farmers' union. That is true only in part. They do not pay to the federation as such, but a member of a dairy organization pays his dues to that organization; a member of the wheat pool pays in some way; members of livestock organizations pay dues to those organizations; then all these organizations are brought under what they call the agricultural federation, which includes the fruit growers and everyone in agriculture. These people are organized right across the country.
After discussions and talk they brought in recommendations. These recommendations say what was condemned here this morning. They ask that the basic formula for certain farm products for 1954 should be according to the modernized formula recommended by the C.F.A. national farm parity committee. They set it all out here. They made it plain first that what they are advocating is not an actual, nor is it an incentive price. What they advocate is some form of guaranteed price which will not prevent trading above that price nor will it be high enough to induce unreasonably high production.
They then set out in a table which I have in my hand the results of applying their modernized formula. They go on to say that it would not strengthen the position of the farmer to attempt 100 per cent of parity; that the most you should have is 85 per cent of parity and the least you should have is 65 per cent of parity. Then they set out tables indicating the result. They show that 100 per cent parity for No. 1 northern wheat Fort William would be $2.05; 90 per cent, $1.84; and 85 per cent, $1.74. They state that the government should not be asked to make it higher than $1.74, which is 85 per cent. Eighty per cent results in $1.64; 75 per cent, $1.54; 70 per cent, $1.43; 65 per cent, $1.33.
They say that the support price should not be less than $1.33 and it should not be higher than $1.74. Well, the support price is $1.40, and it has been that for some considerable time. But that is not the whole story. Every year down to this year since this plan was established the government has made interim payments of 20 cents, and on last year's crop it was 10 cents.


An hon. Member:: The wheat board, not the government.


James Garfield Gardiner: You like to call it the government when you are critical but you like to call it something else when something 50433-383i
Agriculture
is done for you. Either your argument means something or it does not mean anything.


Mr. Ellis:: It is the farmers' own money.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend, who does not farm but lives in Regina when he is not at home, talks about what the farmers do. In so far as this particular price of $1.40 is concerned, before the farmer gets along to putting his next crop in the ground he has had another 10 cents or 20 cents on top of that, which gets him up to $1.60. In most years before he puts in another crop, or between the time he puts a crop in and takes it off, he is up another 20 cents. As a matter of fact he has had an average of $1.83 over all the years down to last year, which is 2 cents higher than what my friend from Acadia says is parity.


Victor Quelch: No, I said that parity was $2.25.


James Garfield Gardiner: The United States parity price was $2.25 but you suggested the Canadian price based upon that would be $1.81. I do not think there is much difference between us on that. It is what the farmer gets that counts, and the farmer has got 2 cents more for all the years down to last year than the hon member for Acadia suggests is Canadian parity. In the discussions I listened to in the house just before I went away members of the C.C.F. group sitting opposite said that all we were getting was $1.56 for last year's crop. Based on these same figures for Fort William No. 1 northern, $1.56, 75 per cent of parity, which is halfway between 65 and 85, is $1.54. The farmers have not been fully paid yet. One can go through all the grain prices and find the same thing. The highest price suggested for oats is 71 cents. The average price is 62 [DOT] 7, the lowest 54 [DOT] 3 cents. The average price for barley is $1.05, the next 99 cents. Seventy-five per cent is 93 cents. It is a little below what the guaranteed price is.
Coming down to the livestock products, the price of steers runs to around 19 to 20 cents, or a little above that at times. These are Toronto and Montreal prices. The average price under the parity suggestion is actually $17.29 a 100. The top price suggested is $19.60. What do we do with cattle? We take the established price in the United States, however it was arrived at, whether on a parity basis or not, and we say that all our surplus beef can be exported either on the hoof or otherwise to the United States on the basis of that price. That is the highest price that can be obtained for that product anywhere. As we say, that is the floor. We do

Agriculture
not attempt to establish a floor which is lower than the United States price. We say that we have examined what the price might be in order to cover the cost, but we go on to say that the highest price that can be obtained anywhere in the world is the United States price. We are free to ship our surplus beef to that country. Instead of getting into an argument with the Americans as to whether we think their price is high enough or whether our farmers think the price is as high as it ought to be, we simply say that price is available and tell them to go and get it if they are not able to get sufficient in Canada to maintain their position. Eighty-five per cent of parity works out to $19.60 in Toronto. The price has been at that level for months back, or above that. Coming to hogs-


Mr. Caslleden:: What percentage of our beef have we been able to export from Canada in the past four years?


James Garfield Gardiner: If I were to tell you, it would throw your arguments sky high. Somebody said this morning it was 6 per cent. In any case, we can get the United States prices for whatever we send there.


George Hugh Castleden: I just wanted the percentage of the export of Canadian beef.


James Garfield Gardiner: We sent over last year about
100,000	head in one way or another, and prior to that we sent as much as 500,000. The only reason we did not send 500,000 last year was that we did not have that many.


George Hugh Castleden: What is the percentage?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have given the figures. You can work out the percentages. This reminds me of what Mr. Asquith once said in the House of Commons.
A member was proving his point with regard to an important problem by using percentages. Mr. Asquith said it reminded him of a certain temperance lecturer who had stated 50 per cent of all the men killed in a certain battle in Africa were temperance men. When they looked into the matter, they found there were only two temperance men in the battle and one was killed. Percentages lead to some rather peculiar conclusions. I am not much concerned with that percentage.


George Hugh Castleden: Five per cent.


James Garfield Gardiner: Whether it is 5 per cent or 60 per cent they can all be sold in the United States. The fact is that the farmers are getting as much for their steers delivered in Toronto as the farm federation thought the plan they have evolved would guarantee to them. That is all I am saying about it. They have agreed that would probably be right, and that is what it is.

When you come to hogs, we have had an established price on hogs of 23 cents since the beginning of the year 1953, the year after the foot-and-mouth disease. We started off at the beginning of the year with 23 cents a pound. Hogs have never been down to 23 cents a pound since that time.


George Hugh Castleden: In the west they have.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not in the west either, on the basis of 23 cents at Toronto. Twenty-three cents at Toronto is 20 cents at Winnipeg and 19 cents at Regina. My hon. friend laughs. He had better look up the freight rates and a few other things and find out the cost of getting the hogs from Winnipeg to Toronto. The fact of the matter is that there is 3 cents difference between Winnipeg and Toronto and 1 cent between Regina, Saskatoon and Winnipeg; and then the price goes up as you go west, because most of the hogs out there go down the west coast. The lowest price is in the one province in the centre, the province of Saskatchewan. There is no question about that. Twenty-three cents was established, and that is exactly 75 per cent of parity according to this table. Seventy-five per cent of parity is 23 07 cents. We do not very often get down to the decimals when dealing with this kind of matter. They say the highest price that should be set is 26 cents and the lowest approximately 20 cents, or 19-99 cents. At no time has it been down near 23 cents, except for a very few weeks, in the whole period beginning January 1953 to the present time, nor has it even threatened to get down there. That period when it was close to 23 cents was during last year, and since that time I myself have sold hogs at 30 cents a pound.


An hon. Member:: Were they gilt-edged?


James Garfield Gardiner: If they were not gilt-edged, they would not bring the price. The hog price has been up to $38.50 a hundred during that period of time. It has never been down to $23. What I said this morning was that we have been attempting to set a floor price which would not drive prices down as the prices of eggs were driven down in the United States. Although the price has been maintained above the floor in all that period, the government has not got into it when they got close to the price, as they did at Winnipeg. I was kept busy on the phone by people phoning me from Winnipeg that the price had gone below the floor and people phoning me from Regina and saying the same thing. When I checked, I found it had not gone below the floor price, but they were afraid it was going to. The price went up again. When my hon. friend says the government does nothing about these things, he

is absolutely wrong, and the whole record shows he is absolutely wrong. Everyone in the business will remember that they went on paying more than 23 cents right away, after being checked by our staff, in order to obtain the hogs.
With regard to creamery butter, the average price is 52-6 cents, and the top is 59-7 cents. We have had it at 58 cents ail the way through. Everybody knows the story in connection with that. If it were not for the opposition, we would not have very much trouble with it; but the opposition listens to every harebrained scheme that is put up if it opposes what we are doing. They get out and shout about it, get in the newspapers and they talk just as they were talking this morning about 38-cent eggs. Eggs averaged 56 cents a dozen throughout all the summer months last year. Eggs are now up around 60 cents a dozen here on the market according to this morning's paper and in Montreal. Yet we talk in this house about 38-cent eggs. Then at the first of the season some of the fellows who have eggs want to deliver them to the government at 38 cents. Last year we had two weeks when the eggs went below 38 cents and the government had to step in and tell those that had put them below 38 cents that we would not take a dozen of their eggs unless the price was maintained above the floor or at the floor, with the result that inside two weeks they were up and they have never been down to that price since.
I just cite that example in order to show that the government does not just go away and leave this thing. We operate under it all the way along and the floors are maintained. Whereas a price of 38 cents is talked about, one year the average was 42 cents, another the average price was 46 and in other years it has been comparable to that. But some people take in nest runs of eggs and get 15 cents a dozen for them and then the opposition spreads the story over the country. As a matter of fact, nest run eggs cannot be supported. Such eggs are not properly graded and therefore you cannot guarantee prices of them.
This table not only indicates that our board has been working in the same manner as any other board would work if they were put on the job. This table indicates that our guaranteed prices are identical with the prices that the federation says we ought to be guaranteeing at this particular time. The farmers fairly well understand that. All the talking that can be done here about farm problems by persons who do not produce eggs, who do not produce cattle, who do not produce hogs-who do not produce any of these things -is not going to change the mind of the
Agriculture
farmer as to the proper basis for support. He does not read it in the first place; and if he gets it, in spite of himself, over the radio, he will probably close it off before it is finished because he knows better. Costs that are recited here as being the cost of production are not really the actual costs of production at all. If they were, the farmer could not remain on his farm at all.
I agree with much of what has been said this morning to the effect that if you do not keep the farmer on the farm and if he is not producing the food that can be produced in this great agricultural country and is not shipping it out, you are going to have difficulties. I agree with all that. So-called parity is not the solution for his problems. But I should like to ask any hon. member from western Canada or from eastern Canada to go out to any road allowance in his constituency and check off the families that came there and homesteaded, whether it was 50 years ago, 100 years ago or 200 years ago. If he does so he will find that in the great majority of cases, in any district in this country, the farmers who came out in the first place are still there or their descendants are still there and they are operating those farms. Over in the area to which my grandfather came out from Scotland-and yesterday I was in the area that he came from- the farms are still owned by some descendant of the family. The same thing is true in western Canada. Time after time when I have been speaking on the platform in my own constituency I have asked them to name to me half a dozen men who had ever been put off their farms in the district in which I was speaking and I have not yet had anybody get up and do so. There are all kinds of suggestions made that, if you do not do this or do not do that, then we may take action against you and foreclose on you; but the number of cases where foreclosure has actually taken place is very small.
When I was there last week before I went away I said to the people: I am going to Nottingham to the royal show. Two different men out of the audience came up to me and said: My uncle was a judge in that show before he came out to this country. In other words, the people we have here are the same type of people. The people who formed the foundation of our settlements right across this country are the same type of people who are farming the farms that I have been visiting for the last 10 days. It is remarkable the extent to which we still follow the same practices as they have been following throughout the years that they and their ancestors have been on that land, and we are getting results similar to theirs.

Agriculture
But again there is one thing that is worth while repeating even in this house. In that section of the empire those men are producing about twice as much per acre as we produce. The reason is that very seldom do they have a spell of weather such as that which they had while I was there. I do not know whether or not I took some of the western dry weather with me, but it did not rain from the day I got oft the plane until the day I got on again. It rained in Glasgow last night. They said they had never before had such a long dry period as that. Because they have not had such a long dry period-they had 26 inches of rain in a year on one farm I was on and they had 90 inches on another and so on-the result is that they produce 60 bushels to the acre of wheat and there is comparable production of barley and oats. With that production they raise much more livestock and dairy products per acre than we raise. As a result of that, and the fact that their market is sitting right under their nose in great cities like London, Manchester and Liverpool, they are able to carry on there with a greater population employed to the acre than we are able to employ over here, because we must content ourselves with shipping our products long distances.
In spite of what is being said in this house with regard to wheat, there is not any better way of holding our surplus in connection with agriculture than by holding it in connection with a product like wheat because wheat will keep for a long time. If it can be sold at a price which is stable, it does not make much difference whether it is sold in this crop year or in the next crop year in so far as the surplus of it is concerned. But if the price cannot be stabilized, that procedure can be fatal.
I should like to suggest that the quickest way out of the system that we are following now would be for the government to agree with what the opposition has moved and to bring in parity prices. We might be dreaming of a great future for six months or maybe 12 months, but by the end of that time we would be finding ourselves drifting back into the old plan that we had for marketing products before we had the wheat board, before we had marketing acts in the provinces and before we had any of the systems that we have now; and instead of having parity, we would have a competitive price brought about by conditions that exist elsewhere in the world and brought about by conditions that exist here in connection with marketing as related to production.
I understand why farmers are most anxious to get their wheat into the elevators. They

must get it into the elevators in order to get some cash, and they are anxious to get their wheat in. But I have not yet run across a farmer who is so anxious to do that that he wants to get rid of the wheat board and market it in some other way. I know there are some, but that "some" do not talk to me apparently. Those who are in favour of it still keep saying to the government: Whatever you do, do those things which are going to maintain for us the marketing system which we have for wheat now, and establish a system in connection with other products which will get us the same results as we have had in connection with our wheat over the years since the war. We are attempting to do that. That is our plan and our policy.
I should like to ask this house not to vote for a resolution because the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) says it is the same as the plank in the Conservative platform. It is not. The program of parity prices as enunciated in this resolution is not that at all. Then I want you also to bear in mind the fact that Social Credit at one time thought that it was not very difficult to get $25 a person a month in order to make people happy, but they found it extremely difficult to do it when they got into office. Other people were convinced of that fact but they have not thought much about it since. But when the Leader of the Opposition comes along, as he did this morning, and deals with the supplying of wheat to Poland, may I say this. He can say what he likes about what he said the other day, but the impression I got from reading the two or three line report that appeared in the press in Britain is the impression I got from reading his remarks now. He talked in questionable terms this morning about the 85 per cent that is being guaranteed, but in doing so he is talking directly against what he said in the early stages of his speech when he spoke in favour of parity prices. There is only one way you can get parity and that is for the government to guarantee that they will take out of the treasury and put into the farmers' pockets an amount representing the difference between the price that the farmer gets and what the government figure parity ought to be. When they do that they are taking exactly the same chance as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) says they are taking in guaranteeing 85 per cent of a crop sold in association with the organization that is set up to bring about that kind of trade with a foreign country.
In one breath he is supporting parity as proposed and in the next breath he is condemning the only thing that would ever make parity possible, namely, a guarantee by the

government that we will take out of the treasury of Canada the difference between what we are asking people to pay for the product or what trade in the product results in their paying for it and what we have said is the parity price. Let me repeat that when you do that, and do it for two or three years in advance, the experience of every country that has done it is that you get so much of the product that, in spite of anything the government tries to do, if they do not fix the price that is being charged to the consumer they will not be there very long to do anything about it.
We have been here longer than any other government Canada has ever had and are still here, and one of the reasons for that is that the people of this country in general agree with the policy that has been put into effect to regulate and stabilize the prices of food products. The greater part of our food comes right off our farms and the efforts that have been made in order to stabilize those prices have been such that the people want to keep us here just as long as we follow that policy, and that does not mean accepting parity as proposed. Therefore I am going to ask the house to vote against the amendment, and I am going to suggest to those on the other side who come from the part of the country that I do that they had better be careful how they vote.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I wonder whether the minister would permit a question before he resumes his seat? Could he give us any figures as to the price paid to the British farmers for wheat compared with the price at which the British can buy Canadian wheat?


James Garfield Gardiner: Those figures were all quoted this morning and they are all in Hansard two or three times. If you go and get them they will be more correct than any guess of mine would be at the moment.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman has carried us over to Great Britain. He has given us an indication of the degree to which every part of the world has become so close to every other part of the world. He has told us of the progress made by Great Britain in the rehabilitation of her agriculture. All of this was intensely interesting but he failed to deal with the amendment in the form in which it is drawn, the form in which it is to be voted upon by the house. That amendment reads:
The government should give consideration to the advisability of establishing a system of parity prices for agricultural products.
Agriculture
I endeavoured to follow the minister through the jungle of jargon and the multiplicity of words he used, and I found it very difficult to understand exactly where he stood. He said the establishment of parity prices for farm products might bring a degree of prosperity for a few months but that ultimately they would bring about an uneconomic situation dangerous and detrimental to agriculture in this country. He said that to bring into effect parity prices was a dangerous course, and then he proceeded to point out that prices now are higher than parity. I found it difficult, therefore, to understand wherein the danger would lie in bringing into effect a system whereby the farmer would secure a lesser price than he is receiving now. However, the minister did not answer one question. Why did we lose the British market for agricultural products?


Mr. Hodgson:: Because of Jimmy Gardiner.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have answered that so often that I would simply ask the hon. member to read Hansard.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not interrupt my hon. friend. I sat here and suffered. While there has been a great technological change in British agriculture and while, as the minister said, its productivity is high, the fact remains that Canada has lost the British market for agricultural products. The fact is that no matter how advanced British agricultural production may be, she still requires to import some 60 per cent of her needs. What we in the opposition want to know is why has Canada lost that very excellent market which for so many years was the backbone of Canadian agricultural marketing abroad?
True enough, Britain has changed her agricultural economy. She has expanded it, but she is still in the market. The minister did not explain why it was that the Export Credits Insurance Corporation had not been advancing money to Britain in order to provide for markets there if that was possible. He told us of the reception given to him by the British government, and that is to be expected. He went over there with no purpose in mind other than to visit and enjoy the hospitality of the British people at the fair and elsewhere.


An hon. Member:: Nothing to sell.


John George Diefenbaker: Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that while he was there he might have done something to assure some expansion in the marketing of the agricultural surpluses that are piled up in Canada today? Before I deal in general with the amendment may I refer to certain words of the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Johnson) ? At the

Agriculture
beginning of his speech this morning he used these words, as I took them down; I hope the Conservative party would act as vigorously for this principle of giving the farmers a fair share in a system of parity prices as they did for the manufacturing industries in a recent debate.
Where has that hon. member been, Mr. Speaker? That battle was fought on behalf of parliament and, sir, did you notice how the C.C.F. tried to climb in under the barn in the last two days? When they saw the effect throughout the country, instead of retiring from the field they returned and began to stand, in the dying moments of that debate, for the things for which hon. members of the official opposition fought so long and so successfully. Mention was made by the Leader of the Opposition that the matter of parity prices is not something new in the policy of the Progressive Conservative party. That policy was first established directly and definitely by Hon. John Bracken in his Lethbridge speech in 1943.
Later on, as the Leader of the Opposition said this morning, it was officially incorporated in the policy of this party. Successive sessions of parliament have seen resolutions regarding parity prices brought before this house by the Progressive Conservative party. One was brought, I think, in the year 1949. Another, which I have before me, was moved on March 23, 1953. I then moved a similar amendment to the motion to go into supply, seconded by the then member for Souris, Mr. Ross. It is reported at page 3208 of Hansard for that date, and reads:
... in the opinion of this house consideration should be given by the government to the advisability of introducing during the present session legislation to provide floor prices for agricultural products at such levels as to ensure producers a fair price-cost relationship.
Today the minister was able to answer the arguments that have been advanced as to the need for the establishment of parity prices, but in 1953 he did not know what parity prices were. At page 3218 of Hansard of the same date the minister said this:
The only objection I have to the word "parity" is that I seldom know what people mean when they use it.


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


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not understand what they are really talking about when they use the word.


James Garfield Gardiner: I said that today, too.


John George Diefenbaker: I think the minister has established the truth of his observation two years ago in this house. Today the farmer finds himself, despite the optimistic statements of the minister, in a serious position, caught as he is between the squeeze created by rising costs of production and falling
f Mr. Diefenbaker.]
farm prices. That is the view taken by every agricultural organization in this country, and by the farmers to whom the minister referred in different parts of Saskatchewan and elsewhere in Canada who settled in the pioneer days and are still there. They ask members to come to parliament to see what could be done toward removing the injustice which requires that they operate under conditions whereby they have rising costs and falling prices.
The minister says they are not concerned about the sale of their wheat as long as they have it on their farms.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not make that statement.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister says he did not say that. I must say that was my interpretation of his words. As long as they have wheat, their concern today is what is going to be done about marketing it. When is Canada going to take a stand in keeping with the aggressive policy of the United States? When are trade policies going to be undertaken and inaugurated with vigour and forcefulness?
Mention has been made of the Polish deal. There have been other similar deals in the last couple of years. As I understand it, no one has any objection and no stand has been taken at any time so far as I know by anyone in this party or elsewhere, in opposition to the sale or disposal of surplus farm products anywhere in the world, as long as we are disposing of them for a return that is reasonably secure and certain. No one has taken any stand in opposition to the need for securing markets anywhere in the world. Indeed, I am one of those who believe one way in which to overcome the impenetrability of the iron curtain is to promote trade between nations behind the curtain and ourselves. The stand taken by this party is that trade is needed. We have pressed for that, and we shall continue to press for that.
Canada is losing her markets for wheat. She has fallen below the United States. She was ahead of the United States for years, not only in amount but in her share of the world market. She has fallen behind the other great wheat producers. One of the reasons for this is the fact that the United States, contrary to its responsibilities under GATT and within NATO, has been handing out free gifts for relief purposes, and entering into barter deals for foreign currency at cut prices. Those are the kind of things that undermine international trade stability; those are the kind of things this government has accepted with equanimity. Indeed, on the few occasions we have asked what the government

was doing in order to protest against the attitude of the United States the answer was in effect; "We wrote them some letters; we wrote to protest." When the question was asked in effect; "What reply did you receive", the answer given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce was to the effect that a reply was not expected.
The United States is having fire sales of its wheat in many places, to the detriment of world trade. The United States still has a support price. No one claims that 100 per cent parity is requested or desired under this resolution. The resolution simply says that consideration should be given to the advisability of establishing a system of parity prices for agricultural products. In the United States the support prices on dairy products now amount to 75 per cent, and on wheat the support price in 82-5 per cent for the current year, this being assured by the fact that United States farmers voted in favour of a reduction in their acreage beyond what would otherwise have been the case.
Certainly the western farmer, looking at the wheat situation, wonders why the Canadian government has failed to inaugurate a strong and effective sales policy. It is true that the Export Credits Insurance Corporation has made a couple of these guarantee deals recently. One was made with Brazil in connection with wheat for $16,750,000. Two were made with Yugoslavia, one in 1951 and the other in 1953. One has recently been made with Israel, upon the particulars of which I do not think parliament has yet been fully informed.
Recently I asked a number of questions to find out the extent to which the ultimate net price to be realized for the wheat in storage in this country is being eaten up by excessive storage charges. No one knows the amount of unsaleable wheat there is in storage. No one has ever been able to get the figures. For some reason the wheat board and the government-today they have been associated, for the first time in my experience in this house-have not told us how much of tnis unsaleable wheat is on hand. No one knows how much is being paid for storage.
I refer you, sir, to sessional paper No. 131-D, brought down on June 17, 1955. On that occasion, in response to this question, "How many bushels of wheat were in elevator and terminal storage in Canada as of the 30th July, 1954," I was told there were 361,271,000 bushels. The amount at the same time a year ago was approximately 337,600,000 bushels. The next question was:
What was the total amount paid for elevator and terminal storage for all wheat in storage between the 1st July, 1953 and the 30th July. 1954?
Agriculture
The answer was that there was no information. Mr. Speaker, that answer is an evasion, a deliberate evasion. For the government and the wheat board to say there is no information available as to how much was paid for storage last year is either incorrect or reveals a serious lack of accounting responsibility on the part of the wheat board and the government.
Further questions were asked as to terminal elevators or other storage facilities owned by the government and leased to private companies. Can anyone tell me what justification there is for the government and the wheat board to rent out terminal facilities owned by the government to a private company, and for that private company to store government wheat and make a profit on the return?
Another question asked was whether any of these terminal elevators or other crop storage facilities owned by the government were leased to private companies or agencies during each of the crop years 1952, 1953 and 1954, and the answer was yes, that there was one terminal elevator at Port Arthur, the Canadian government elevator. I cannot understand why an asset owned by the government of Canada should be rented to a private corporation in which government wheat will be stored at the expense of the farmers of Canada, thereby assuring to the elevator company a very considerable profit at the expense of the Canadian taxpayers. Further questions should be asked regarding this elevator situation. The elevator company to which I referred is McCabe Grain Company Limited.
How much of the stored wheat is unsaleable? No one knows the answer. What is being done to secure markets? No one knows. All we do know is that two or three deals have been made, one with Poland and two with Czechoslovakia. Then there was one recently with Israel, and one with Brazil in 1952 or 1953. Which member of the government will rise and let the Canadian farmer know what is being done? Certainly the experience of the last year and a half has been that, perceptibly, Canada's grain markets are being lost to the United States and other great agricultural producers.
The minister has not answered the question of markets by a multitude of words. It can be answered only by attention on the part of the government to a study of the question as it is asked. What is to be done?
The right hon. gentleman said in effect, "You had better be careful how you vote on this." Mr. Speaker, you know what will happen. If they follow precedent, hon. members from western Canada will rise and say

Agriculture
they are in favour of action, and will speak about parity prices. They will even say they are in favour of them, and then when the vote comes they will vote against them. That has been the experience of the past. That was the experience in 1953. The answer always given is in effect, "Well, after all, we do not dare take our stand in support. We believed in it; we were all in favour of it, but it was a vote of non-confidence."
I would ask the leader of the government to announce that each member in the house may vote on this question as on a nonconfidence resolution. Let the leader of the government say that on this question which is so important to the welfare of Canadian agriculture and which has been the subject of demands by various farm organizations of this country, members may speak as they feel, and vote as they wish. Let them speak and vote on this subject, so the people of Canada may know how they feel on a matter so necessary to the preservation of the Canadian economy.
The right hon. gentleman said in effect, "You had better be careful how you vote on this." All I can say is that in the next few months those who vote against this amendment will be spending a great deal of time explaining what they meant by their vote, when they voice otherwise.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Speaker, we have just had another of the minister's fine travelogues, such as he gives us when he finds himself attacked in the house on his agricultural policy. We have been glad to learn that he visited Great Britain and found some large farms over in Scotland. We note his comment that the world is changing, and that conditions are different today from what they were a few years ago.
The minister's talk to the House of Commons this afternoon in defence of his agricultural policy was marked particularly by his usual deviation from some of the realities facing the people on the farms, who are today confronted with problems in a changing world. As other hon. members have said, the one big problem facing farmers today, the factor that has wiped security away from under them, is the fact that increasing costs of production have placed them in a position where they must go further and further into debt if they wish to continue in production. If the minister will look over the farm debt figures for the last few years he will see that wherever the farmer has endeavoured to mechanize his farm to increase efficiency in production, he has been compelled to go into debt.
The farmer has no control over the cost of those things he has to purchase. On the fMr. Diefenbaker.l
other hand he must accept whatever prices are offered for the commodities he sells. He is caught in a squeeze where he must do his utmost to produce at the lowest possible price and in the greatest possible quantities with the facilities he has. The result is that he finds his position becoming increasingly difficult.
He has had some degree of success in the last few years, particularly in the prairie areas of Canada, because in the three years prior to last year he had enjoyed a series of bumper crops which had produced quantities equivalent to normal production in five years. Since that time, however, he has run into difficulty. The minister seems to slough that off as if the condition did not exist, but I would point out to him that it does exist, and that he knows it exists.
Listening to the minister today one would have thought the farmer was in a most prosperous condition, that the prices set on his commodities make him perfectly secure, and that the minister has all the farmers-I believe he described them as representative farmers-coming to his conference in December to help him decide what prices shall be set on farm products. I wonder if he ever calls to those conferences representatives from the interprovincial farm union council?


James Garfield Gardiner: They have been there ever since they have had such an organization.


George Hugh Castleden: I suppose they have always agreed exactly with the prices the minister has set as floor prices.


James Garfield Gardiner: If we were sure everyone was going to agree we would not have a conference.


George Hugh Castleden: I have listened to the minister all afternoon-


James Garfield Gardiner: You have not learned much from listening.


George Hugh Castleden: To learn much from you one would have to listen for a long time. We still find the farmer in exactly the same position. The minister talks about support for the farmers of this country. The farmer is in such a splendid position in Canada that when the minister took over as Minister of Agriculture, I do not know what the percentage was but probably over 30 per cent of the people in Canada were engaged in agriculture, whereas today there are only about 20 per cent of the people in Canada engaged in that industry.


James Garfield Gardiner: Is my hon. friend suggesting that any farmer would like to go back to the conditions that existed when we came to office?


George Hugh Castleden: I am just telling you the results.


Hazen Robert Argue: The price-cost relationship is worse today than when the minister took office.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not at all. I am just asking a simple question. Does the hon. member know of any farmer who would like to go back to the conditions of the thirties?


George Hugh Castleden: To the dry years of the thirties? Naturally not. But the farmer would like to have his share of the national income. Farmers constitute 20 per cent of the people of Canada, but last year their income was only 9 per cent of the national income. That would indicate that the farmer is getting less than half his share of the national income. The minister may talk as he likes, but the difficulties which face Canada are real and serious. They are such that they have taken security away from the farmer.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have never said they are not, but what I am saying is that your parity price scheme will not correct them.


George Hugh Castleden: If you have a parity price program in which the farmer's selling price bears a relationship to the cost of production he will then have security. Of course the country will have surpluses. By instituting a parity price program the farmer can provide surpluses which the world could use.
The minister said this afternoon we have advocated that Canada should follow the plan instituted by the United States some 15 or 20 years ago. If he will look over what we have advocated he will see that we have advocated that the government institute a parity program and gain from the experience of the United States to avoid some of the mistakes they have made. I maintain that agriculture has a greater function to perform in the life of Canada and of the world than it is performing at the present time.
All the farmers ask is that they be allowed to produce. I would like to know why there cannot be food surpluses without creating serious trouble. It is contended that with the situation which exists in the world today there can be no such thing as a food surplus. There are a billion people in the world who are hungry, who are suffering from malnutrition. This is indicated by reports of the FAO such as we had this morning. I had the privilege of discussing this with the director of the FAO, and his story is that the hungry people of the world are looking to Canada. They see that we have surpluses and they wonder why they cannot have some of those surpluses.
Agriculture
They want to know why the democracies with their vast surpluses cannot distribute them to the needy people of the world. They want to know why the production knowledge Canada has should not be given to the needy people of other lands. These are the people who are being won over to the totalitarian ideas of communism. They look at what the democracies can produce and wonder why that production is simply stored up. They wonder whether the democracies are going to try to win them over merely by the production of bombs and other nuclear weapons. Would not the democracies be more apt to win over these people if these surpluses were distributed to them?
All the Canadian farmer asks is that he be allowed to continue to produce. Any surpluses should be distributed to the needy people of the world, and they should be told how they can grow two spears of rice where they are now growing but one, how they can improve their irrigation systems and their general agricultural efficiency. They should be told how they can live better. That is the kind of contribution Canada can make to the world. The Canadian farmer should be allowed to go ahead and produce. To him there is no such thing as a surplus. Plan our program in such a way that these surpluses can be used to the best advantage in winning over to the side of democracy the billion people who are looking for leadership and who will one day make a choice.
I maintain that this is the great job for Canadian agriculture. This is the great vision of the Canadian farmer. Whether or not they get leadership from this government the farmers of Canada must have a larger share of the national income. They will then produce so long as the rains fall. As the minister said, during the terrible thirties when there were areas where no rain fell for five or six years, there was no production and of course the income fell. The minister says no people were put off their farms through foreclosures, but he knows that at one time 80 per cent of the farmers in one province were carrying a mortgage debt.


James Garfield Gardiner: I know also that the government of the day secured the cancellation of much of those debts.


George Hugh Castleden: The government is still cancelling some of those debts. When the war came along after the terrible days of the thirties, every farmer went back into production and produced to his limit. They can still do a good job. A greater percentage of the Canadian population should be in agriculture. Canada should be working to her greatest capacity to help the world and help win

Agriculture
these peoples for democracy. What a senseless state of affairs it is when a producer must suffer because there are surpluses which the world needs. I think man is about the only creature who could create such a senseless state of affairs.
We are asking for an up to date program of agricultural production which will assure security for those engaged in this industry. The Canadian farmer is looking to the Minister of Agriculture to provide that leadership. He is looking to this government largely because he can blame this government for his present costs of production. During the war, when he was back in production, the Canadian farmer took the prices that were offered because there were price controls during that period. But when the war was over the price controls were wiped out, and it was then that the farmers' costs of production increased and since that time the farmers' returns from their production have been declining.


James Garfield Gardiner: There was no control over the price of wheat during that time.


George Hugh Castleden: Not on the price of wheat, no.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is what you are talking about.


George Hugh Castleden: We are asking that there should be a parity price. The wheat board system of selling certainly is a tremendous improvement over the old competitive system, and I do not think one farmer out of 5,000 would advocate a return to the old system. But when he looks at what it costs him to produce his wheat, when he knows the cost of production in the United States, where they have a parity program and where they are getting $2.25 per bushel for wheat as compared with the $1.60 or $1.80 which he is getting, he knows he is not getting his fair share. What he gets is a return from the sale of his produce in the markets of the world.
I imagine this government is doing the best job it can in selling that commodity in the markets of the world in competition with some tough countries. In the United States, where they have the Commodity Credit Corporation, they can sell the wheat at a low price and still give the farmer his $2.20 a bushel. The Canadian Department of Trade and Commerce, in endeavouring to sell this wheat, has a job on its hands and has the support of this house in doing that job. The farmer is not going to continue producing wheat and selling it at $1.70 for many years if his costs of production continue to rise.

I agree with the minister that selling butter at 58 cents puts stability into the dairy industry, but that is not going to continue for very long if the costs of production continue to rise. Twenty-three cents at Toronto may be a price floor for hogs at a certain cost of production; but if the cost of production continues to rise it will not pay the farmer to continue production.
We could be selling our commodities in the markets of the world and farmers could continue to produce. But the costs of production are the fault of the government, because when they took off the price controls they allowed the costs of those things the farmer himself purchases to rise, such as farm machinery, oil, fertilizer, sprays, repairs, the cost of living for everyone, the cost of labour, taxes.	All these are part of the
constantly increasing cost of living in Canada as a result of the government's policy of doing away with price controls. Unless the farmer's returns increase along with increasing cost of production, then he is facing bankruptcy. Nobody can stay in business when the costs of doing business are increasing and the returns are decreasing. That is why the farmer is in the position today where he is only getting 9 per cent of the national income, although 20 per cent of the people of Canada are engaged in agriculture.
For the reasons I have outlined we support this amendment, which calls upon the government to institute a real program of parity prices based from year to year on the actual costs of production. It is the only thing that can give security to agriculture, the only thing that can place agriculture in a position where it can do the job that agriculture ought to do and thus enable Canada to take its place in the world and help win the world for democracy.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture, when he was in the United Kingdom, did not spend more time in finding out exactly the prices paid to the British farmer for his various products.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, just so my hon. friend will not start from a wrong premise,
I found out all those things; but it has no place in this debate today.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I was about to proceed to prove that it has. The British farmer is in a position where the government of the United Kingdom considers that the production of food in that country is a very important occupation. Those who are engaged in the production of food have support prices so the treasury of the United Kingdom will be standing behind the farmers in their production. The hon. member for Assiniboia pointed

out this morning that 96 per cent of the wheat produced in the world is produced in countries where there is some sort of government control or government support. He also pointed out that the Canadian farmer is receiving the lowest price that is being paid for wheat in the whole world.


Mr. Mang:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question on that point? Is the standard of living in these high-priced farm commodity countries higher to the extent of the higher prices of wheat, than the standard of living of the Canadian farmer?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That is a very good question. I would say that in countries like Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom the standard of living of the farmers is going up, while in Canada, although the standard of living of Canadians generally is going up, the relative position of the farmer is going down.
The price of wheat in Norway is $3.43 per bushel. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle has travelled extensively, and I am sure he will agree with me that the farmers in Norway are enjoying a very high standard of living. The Minister of Agriculture, in visiting
14,000	or 15,000-acre farms in the United Kingdom where they have 20 or 30 tractors, also agreed that farming is quite a profitable-enterprise in Great Britain. In Sweden the price to the farmer is $2.35 for a wheat inferior to what is being produced in Canada. In France it is $2.64. In West Germany it is $2.72 to $2.83. In Austria it is $2.63. In Switzerland, where they have a very high standard of living, it is $4.19.
I think the people in Canada will have to recognize sooner or later that with 96 per cent of the world's wheat being produced with some sort of government price support, when we are exporting such a large percentage of our total Canadian production our government has to step into the picture and see that something is done to give wheat producers in particular and all farmers in general a fair share of the total national income. I submit that the Minister of Agriculture performs a great disservice to western agriculture in getting up, as he did today in parliament, and creating the impression that those of us on this side of the house are unfair and are presenting an unreal picture of Canadian agriculture.
The minister has referred to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I agree with the hon. member for Acadia that some of the suggestions made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture are most unfortunate. In spite of that, I want to draw the minister's attention to the fact that in the brief presented
Agriculture
to the government on the 3rd of March, 1955, this organization which is very friendly to the minister said:
Farmers are very greatly concerned over the weakening of their position in the Canadian economy. Farm prices have been falling over the past few years, while costs have remained at near record levels, and some have actually risen.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, on a matter of privilege, three members have suggested that in my speech I suggested that farmers are getting along very well. Whether or not that is true, I did not say so. I have produced no argument to that effect. I simply produced an argument to say that parity prices, as suggested by the C.C.F. party in this house, would not correct any difficulty that exists among farmers, and nothing more than that.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture heard the hon. member for Assiniboia this morning, in asking for support in parliament for the idea of parity prices, explain as simply as it can be explained that it means nothing more and nothing less than a fair share of the total national income for Canadian agriculture. I submit that members in all sections of this house should be prepared to stand up and vote for an amendment which asks for something as simple and fundamental as that. As a matter of fact, when the Minister of Agriculture-


James Garfield Gardiner: Why was it not put in those words? That is not what it says at all.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I have not the words before me, but they are as plain at A, B, C. Anyone who votes against that will be voting against asking that Canadian agriculture be given a fair share-


James Garfield Gardiner: No, they will not. The fact of the matter is that the federation has stated in the very document that is in my hon. friend's hands what the position is in connection with agriculture. They do not say that parity prices will correct that situation. Neither does this government. This government says that parity prices will lead to a position in production that in the end will make the farmer worse off, not better off.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That is a debatable question, but before I conclude I hope to establish the point that the Canadian people can, if we want to, organize the Canadian economy so that we can have maximum production of foodstuffs, so that we can have maximum consumption in Canada, and so that we can make Canadian foodstuffs available to hungry people all over the world. I hope to come back to that matter a little bit later on if the minister does not keep interrupting me and using up my time.

Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: At whose expense?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It is at my expense, unfortunately.


James Garfield Gardiner: No. What I mean is this; at whose expense are you going to produce this food to ship everywhere.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am going to say something about that matter in a minute or two if the minister will give me a chance to do so.
The result is a cost-price squeeze that has made serious inroads on the standard of living of Canadian farmers.
As I said, I do not agree with some of the findings of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, but what I have read is fundamental. The minister's statistics and the statistics supplied by the bureau of statistics support the view that the Canadian agricultural economy is in a very critical condition. In bringing down his Agricultural Prices Support Act in 1944 the minister stated:
In prescribing (support or guaranteed) prices . . . the board . . . shall endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other occupations. With this goal (parity of income for the farmer) we are in agreement since it expresses exactly the objective of organized agriculture in Canada today.
Apparently in 1944 the minister did have some understanding of a prices support act which would give the farmers prices so there would be a proper relationship between what the farmer receives and what others in the economy receive. But since that time the farmers' position has grown worse each year. As other members of this group have indicated, with about 20 per cent of the people of Canada classified as farmers they are now getting well under 10 per cent of the total national income. It does not matter whether you live in Prince Edward Island, in British Columbia or in Saskatchewan; if you belong to a section of the economy that receives 10 per cent when you should be getting 20 per cent, you cannot possibly have the standard of living you should have.
I am not finding fault with others in our economy who are able to bargain collectively. Recently in the United States the automobile workers have been able to win a point which will guarantee an annual wage. Next year the price of automobiles will go up. The dealers will have a greater commission. All the people along the line will carry the cost. In the province of Ontario a few weeks ago the medical doctors decided that costs have gone up and that they should pass on to the people who are sick the increased costs in connection with looking after the sick. While there are protests here and there the medical doctors, through their

organization, are able to pass on to the people in the community the increased costs which they decide are reasonable.
The Minister of Agriculture said that he could not find any reference to the fact that the interprovincial farm union council asked for parity prices. I might mention that in the brief they presented to the standing committee on agriculture on May 23 they asked for a national agricultural policy. They asked for:
Establishment of a new national agricultural policy that will guarantee farmers parity prices for grain and all other farm products sold on domestic markets, and equitable floor prices for all farm products sold on export markets.
But in their previous submission on January 19 they said that Canada needs a new national agricultural policy. They said:
Recorded statistics indicate that agriculture in Canada has been a depressed industry more often than not. Over most of the years a large percentage of the farming population has never been able to do much better than eke out a bare, poverty-stricken existence.
Unfortunately that is an accurate description of agriculture.
I listened to the hon. member for Acadia with interest this morning. I was surprised that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, while participating in a by-election in Alberta, took time to discuss some of our farm problems. As reported in the Edmonton Journal of June 17 the Secretary of State for External Affairs said this:
I've heard Social Crediters say we should reduce our stocks of wheat by accepting foreign currencies or even by giving them away.
This has an appeal when we see our wheat piling up whilst others starve, but in Ottawa we have an obligation to keep trade on solid ground. If we started bartering or giving away, we would disturb international markets and in the long run we would injure not only ourselves but also those we seek to help.
We should try to keep trade on a multilateral, economic basis and disregard emotional superficial solutions to our problems.
I was astonished to hear that trying to produce food for hungry people is a superficial or an emotional solution to a problem.
Mention was made of "The Story of FAO" by Gove Hambidge. As I read this book recently I was interested in some flattering references to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As all hon. members know, he was chairman of the interim commission. Under the leadership of the distinguished gentleman this is what FAO set out to do, and these are the exact words:
Food production must be greatly expanded.
The necessary technical knowledge is available.
To produce more food is useless unless markets are created to absorb it by a widespread increase in consumer purchasing power.

Each nation is responsible for seeing that its own people have the food they need, but no nation can fully achieve this objective without the cooperation of others.
A permanent international organization with a wide range of technical functions and duties, concerned with food and agriculture, must be established as quickly as possible.
Then for two years the Secretary of State for External Affairs acted as chairman. At the Quebec conference, in winding up the business, he outlined the objectives which were really worth while in connection with the formation of this organization. But Canada really has played a rather insignificant role in connection with carrying out these fine ideals which we accepted some 10 years ago.
When we get around to the estimates of the Department of External Affairs we shall find that we have $323,000 as Canada's contribution to the work of FAO for this year. That works out at about 2 cents or something over 2 cents per person this year. That would not seem to me to be a great strain on our resources.
As soon as this motion is disposed of we shall be coming back to the estimates of the Department of National Defence. In connection with those estimates we have an interesting section dealing with mutual aid. As part of our international contribution toward national defence mutual aid we have $5-9 million for ammunition and bombs; $4-9 million for aircraft engines; $5-3 million for armament equipment; then for transfers to NATO countries we have some $9 million. Then there is another section for equipment. Under this section for mutual aid there is a total of $175 million.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that $175 million for the Minister of National Defence for mutual aid compared with some $300,000 for the Secretary of State for External Affairs for FAO to carry out projects that he considered 10 years ago were important do not seem a fair distribution of the resources of Canada. I do not know how it is that the Minister of National Defence has so much drag with the other members of the cabinet so he can get $170 million for his mutual aid program, whereas to the job of helping to feed 1,500 million people in the world only about 2 cents each year for every Canadian citizen is devoted.
The Minister of Agriculture referred some time ago to the question of how we could hope to increase Canadian production and consumption of food and also help to feed the hungry of the world. As found at page 4209 of Hansard of May 27, the minister said:
Members of the house throughout this session have been suggesting that the Department of Agriculture should increase production to take care of
Agriculture
an underfed world and at the same time maintain producers' returns at a high level. Attention must be and is being given to both suggestions, but I am sure it will be agreed that what is done in one direction will influence what can be done in the other.
The minister is saying that we cannot produce maximum quantities, give our farmers a fair share of the national income, and also feed the hungry people of the world. Twenty years ago anyone who suggested that we could do both things might have been thought to be irresponsible, but I must remind the house again that during the war years we found no problem in Canada in increasing our own consumption and production and giving our products away at a tremendous rate. When the war was over we found ourselves with a much more valuable investment in plant and equipment than we had when the war started. The Canadian people had a higher standard of living at the end of the war than they had at the beginning.
I submit again that if the tragedy of a third world war should occur the Canadian government, no matter which party was in office, would find, as was the case previously, that whatever is physically possible can be made financially possible.
I appeal to members in all sections of the house to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort. The Minister of Agriculture suggested it was a want of confidence motion. There have been similar motions. I had an amendment some years ago in connection with the milk subsidy which was carried by a majority. The main motion was then put and we went into supply. We did not have a general election. All that has to be done is for the leader of the house to tell members on the government side to use their own best judgment and decide whether they do not think it would be in the best interests of Canada to have a system of parity prices so that those who are producing food in all parts of Canada may have in return for the food they produce a fair share of the total wealth produced by all in Canada.


Mr. F. S. Zapliiny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment before the house is very important. As has been indicated by the mover, we do not regard the question of a parity price system as affecting agriculture only, although it does have immediate reference to that sector of our economy. As a matter of fact we regard the question of a fair share of the national income for agriculture as being one of importance to the whole Canadian economy.
Some time ago in a discussion on unemployment the leader of this group pointed out

Agriculture
that it was no coincidence that over the same period and almost in the same percentages as net returns to Canadian agriculture went down, unemployment figures in Canada climbed. The two are closely related, because it is well known that farmers as a group are the best customers Canada can have. They are not only customers in the ordinary sense of being domestic consumers of goods and services; they are also good customers because they require for purposes of production a great many things that people ordinarily do not buy. I refer to things such as farm implements, fuel, hardware, tools and so forth, used by farmers in large quantities for purposes of production and the purchase of which helps keep the economy going and maintain full employment.
The Minister of Agriculture made a rather resounding speech today on the general question of agriculture. We have learned to be a little cautious, as I think most of the farmers of Canada have, about accepting at face value the things the minister has to say about agriculture. It is well known that he can make a very good case out of very flimsy material. In spite of the many generalities he gave us today, he made no attempt whatever to face the problem and explain why net farm income in Canada has dropped so seriously since 1951, and that is something that should have been done.
According to the latest figures available net farm income in 1954 dropped from the previous year by about 33 per cent. To put the drop in dollars, whereas in 1953 net farm income was $1,699 million, by 1954 it had dropped to $1,125 million. Taking the whole period from 1951 to 1954 the drop was even more pronounced. In 1951 it was $2,154 million whereas by 1954, as I have said, it had dropped to $1,125 million. This is a drop of almost 50 per cent over that period of time.
When the net farm income of agriculture in Canada drops in three years to the extent of about 50 per cent, then certainly neither the Minister of Agriculture nor any member of the government can disregard the situation or explain it away in general terms by telling us that what the government is doing today is what they set out to do during the war, or anything of that kind. In addition, what is apparently not being taken into consideration by the Minister of Agriculture is the fact that at the same time the drastic drop of almost 50 per cent in net income occurred, which means a drop in the net purchasing power of the Canadian farmer, the cost of production actually rose instead of declining.
Not only that, but when we speak of parity we are asking, as our amendment indicates,

for what we think is simple justice, and in my opinion we are not being at all unreasonable. We are asking that as the result of an over-all price policy agriculture should receive its fair share of the national income. Obviously if the net income of agriculture has dropped by almost 50 per cent in three years, that in itself indicates that agriculture is not receiving its fair share of the national income, even if other things were equal. But other things are far from equal.
I have already pointed out that the cost of production has actually risen. In addition to that, we find that some of the industries in Canada, in fact the manufacturing industries of Canada as a group, according to the latest figures which I have here, dated July 11, have been experiencing a rapid increase in income. Dividend payments by Canadian companies in July reached a total of $54,572,373, as compared with July, 1954, when they were $47,109,721, a very substantial increase for the month of July. The cumulative total of dividend payments for the first seven months has now reached $347,507,388, and there are indications that by the end of this year it will reach record levels.
Those are the dividend payments. To them would have to be added the undivided profits, plus the amount placed in reserve, plus depreciation and depletion and all these other accumulations of wealth that go to make the total income of industry. During the same period when the manufacturing industries of Canada were increasing their dividend payments by as much as $7 million over last year, we find that agricultural income dropped by approximately 33 per cent.
This causes us some concern, and we look at this thing in a very serious manner. We are not out to ask for anything more than we think is due to agriculture in Canada, but we do intend to plead the case of Canada's best customer and biggest producer in relation to what has happened in our economy recently. Whereas the basic industry of Canada, which is still agriculture, has suffered great setbacks in the last three or four years we find that other industries are having a field day.
There is also some relationship between those two factors, Mr. Speaker. After all it could be that the one's gain is the other's loss. It may not be on all fours, but it certainly would indicate that if someone is losing his fair share of the national income while someone else is gaining it, then the person who is gaining it is doing so at the expense of the one who is losing it. That is the basic reason for this motion. We are asking the government to set up a price policy, which

we call a parity price system, in order to bring to agriculture its fair share of the national income.
In his reply today the Minister of Agriculture attempted to make a case, first of all, by proving that the government is now following a sort of parity price policy under the Agricultural Prices Support Act. Then he shifted his ground a little toward the end and stated quite categorically the government is not in favour of a parity price policy. He gave certain reasons for it, but I think it is indicative that for perhaps the last three years, at every farm organization convention and practically every local meeting at which I have been present, the question of parity prices has always come up.
The minister seems to find it difficult to locate a reference to parity prices in the resolution or submissions of the interprovincial farm union. I would suggest to him that if he were to read the resolutions passed at the most recent conventions in the three prairie provinces he would find abundant references to parity prices in very specific terms. There is no question but what both the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the interprovincial farm union are committed to the principle of a parity price system, though they may differ in some of the details as to how it should be applied.
There is no question, either, but that so far as the members of this group are concerned we are committed to the principle of parity prices for agriculture. We have no hesitation in saying that the government itself has a moral pledge, or shall we say a moral responsibility, for bringing about the stabilization of agricultural prices. I shall place on the record the words of the late prime minister himself, used in a broadcast in 1947 when speaking to agriculture specifically. He said:
If to help win the war, the farmers are asked to accept a ceiling on prices, we believe they are entitled to a floor under prices to insure them against an agricultural depression after the war. As an essential part of its post-war policy the government intends to ask parliament at the next session to place a floor under the prices of the main farm commodities.
The minister will say that pledge was carried out by passing the legislation referred to as the Agricultural Prices Support Act. Two of my colleagues have already referred to section 9, subsection 2 of the act which sets out as the objective of the board that the board shall endeavour to ensure adequate and stable returns for agriculture by promoting orderly adjustment from war to peace conditions, and shall endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other occupations.
Agriculture
The minister referred to that section also, and said it sets out in clear, specific terms just what is the policy of the government. A careful reading of that, if it means anything at all, would indicate it could mean only one thing, a parity of income for agriculture as compared with other occupational groups in Canada. Unless the government is today prepared to argue that they have achieved that parity and are maintaining it, then of course even on their own admission they are not living up to the policy which was set out in the Agricultural Prices Support Act and in the radio speech delivered by the late prime minister.
The figures I have already quoted I believe are evidence which cannot be contradicted that the government is not maintaining that pledge and is not carrying out its stated policy, if that is what it means by talking of parity of income for agriculture; because, as I have pointed out, agricultural income has dropped almost 50 per cent in the last three and a half years. Since the cost of production has actually gone up, the relationship is simply not there. As the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) and others have pointed out, percentagewise the agricultural population of Canada represents about 20 per cent of the people, but their income is somewhere between 9 and 10 per cent.
In view of this the government certainly cannot argue that they have achieved this fair relationship which they express in such euphemistic terms in the Agricultural Prices Support Act. That being so, I think it is necessary for this parliament to address itself to that question and try to evolve a policy which will bring a fair relationship between agricultural income and other occupational groups.
In my opinion there are two main ways in which that can be accomplished. Let me say at the outset that if either of the two ways I am going to mention is accepted it will mean a challenge to the present economic system, to some extent. It will require some interference with what is normally called the free enterprise system. Perhaps for that reason we will find that members on the government side, members of the official opposition, and perhaps even our Social Credit friends to the left will not find themselves able to go along with these two methods.
One of the methods by which parity as between agriculture and the rest of Canada can be achieved in what we normally describe as a high-priced economy, which I think would be comparable to the situation today, would be through a system of subsidies. In other words parliament would have to decide

Agriculture
that a certain price was required in order to bring to the farmer a fair price for his produce, in relation to all other prices in the nation, and be prepared to pay the subsidy out of the national treasury to the extent that that price at any time fell below the open market price at which a commodity could be sold.
Let me hasten to say this, because sometimes when one mentions subsidies and the national treasury in the same sentence people get visions of someone digging in for great handfuls of money to hand out in the form of subsidies. Let me say that to commit parliament to a policy of floor prices and a willingness to pay a subsidy when necessary does not necessarily mean any cost to the public treasury. It does mean that we are prepared to say to the world that in our own nation there will not be any fire sale of agricultural products, and that we consider agricultural production so vital to our economy and consider agriculture so important a section of the Canadian economy that as a nation we are prepared to stand behind a certain policy so we will not sacrifice that section of our economy on the altar of competition on the world market, or however it may be described.
To some extent the Minister of Agriculture argued the same thesis this afternoon, when he tried to impress us with the fact that even though under the Agricultural Prices Support Act there were certain times when none of that revolving fund was used in the form of support prices, yet the very fact that it was there and that the government was prepared to use it, and had authority to use it, had an influence on the market to the extent of keeping the price at or above the floor.
If what the minister argues is true-and I have no reason to doubt his word, because administering the act he is in a position to know-then certainly that can be extended. That same argument can be extended in relation to the whole agricultural policy in Canada.
I am quite prepared to admit that there may be situations and conditions and times where subsidies on some commodities required over a period of time would cost the public treasury a certain amount of money. If that happens, what are the objections? Those who oppose the idea of subsidies-and there are members in the house who quite sincerely, they say, hold that view and do not believe in subsidies on agricultural products-will have to remember that if we are going to follow that through we
[Mr. ZapUtny.l
will have to go back over a long period of Canadian history and reverse the trend that has been growing up.
So far as manufactured products are concerned, Canada has been committed to a system of subsidies for 60 years, or perhaps closer to 70 years. From the time the late Sir John A. Macdonald came out with what was known as the national policy, under which he persuaded the people of Canada that it was desirable to set up a tariff system to keep competitive goods off the Canadian market and, in that way, promote the development of a Canadian manufacturing industry, Canada has been committed to a huge and perhaps unending system of subsidies.
There is no greater subsidy, nor has there been any greater in the history of Canada, than is found in our tariff structure. I am not saying this in criticism of the position taken by members from manufacturing areas when they argue for protection. However, I do make these observations so they will realize what has been the effect of that kind of policy. If they will stop to realize what the consumers of Canada and particularly, as I have pointed out, the farmers, who buy perhaps a great deal more in proportion than do other people, are paying every year, every week and every day on manufactured articles by way of direct subsidies to Canadian manufacturers because of the fact that the protection is there, they will realize at once that this runs into hundreds of millions of dollars each year which comes out of the pockets of the consumers and goes into the hands of Canadian manufacturers so they may enjoy higher prices.
That is a subsidy; it cannot be called anything else. You may call it protection; you may call it customs duties; you may call it tariffs or any other name you wish, but it is nothing more or less than a direct subsidy taken from the pocket of the consumer. The only difference is that it does not channel its way through the public treasury; it goes direct from the pocket of the consumer to the income of the manufacturer. Then I need only mention the fact that we have been committed to a system of subsidies on the production of coal, gold and iron and steel, as well as subsidies on transportation on our railways. These have been going on for years.
The people in western Canada, particularly the farmers, are aware of these facts and are willing to play their part in the national economy. They say that perhaps some of these things are necessary. They are willing to go along with it in the interests of national

unity and the promotion of Canada as a nation. But when the shoe is put on the other foot; when a modest attempt is made to get some sort of guarantee from parliament in connection with agricultural products which, after all, are still the most important production in Canada, and when an effort is made to have some form of insurance through a system of subsidies, if necessary, immediately we are met with the argument that subsidies in themselves are evil, that in principle they are not good.
Without discussing the question of whether subsidies in themselves are good or bad, let us at least be fair in our discussion. If we are prepared to subsidize manufacturing industries in eastern Canada to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars each year, so those moneys are taken directly from the pockets of the consumers and placed in the coffers of the manufacturers, then certainly as a parliament we should be prepared to pass legislation which would serve as insurance to the producer of farm commodities, so he will not be faced with a fire sale each time he has a surplus. That is one method.
The other method that could be employed would be in what we might describe as a low-priced economy. So far I have been talking about what is normally described as a high-priced economy. In a low-priced economy we could achieve the same objective through a system of price controls. As a matter of fact that was what the government indicated was its policy during the war years and the years immediately thereafter.
I can remember so well, as I am sure other hon. members do, that when the British wheat agreement was entered into in 1946, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Agriculture and the then prime minister made quite a case in the house for that agreement on the basis that, in the long run, it would be better for the agricultural industry in Canada to enjoy a stabilized market, even though it would not have the peaks of high prices, in order to avoid the deep valleys of low prices.
In other words their whole story at that time, their whole objective, was stabilization. They said, "We know the Canadian farmer will not be receiving as much for his grain under the British wheat agreement as he would on the open market at this particular time, but we also know that with such a system of commodity agreements, such a system of guaranteed prices, the farmer will have security which will enable him to plan his production and carry it on with confidence from year to year."


Mr. Trainor:: Was that achieved?
Agriculture


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The hon. member for Winnipeg South asks whether that aim was achieved. I would say that it was half achieved, because at that time we had a system of price control over commodities and along with that a policy of stabilization of income for agriculture. But the moment the government changed one-half of its policy; the moment-I think it was on April 15, 1946-they made the first fatal move and agreed to an increase of $5 per ton in steel, which increase was reflected immediately in an upward trend of prices. Then a few weeks later there was an increase in the price of farm machinery, so the moment they lifted the lid off the price control program they destroyed half the policy and stabilization no longer existed.


Owen C. Trainor: What happened to the price
of wheat?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The price of wheat is under the control of this parliament. This parliament passed the wheat board act under which is set the guaranteed price. So long as that guaranteed price bears some relationship to production costs the farmer will feel that he has stabilization, but by removing price control the government allowed the other half of their policy to go wild and thus destroyed the whole idea of stabilization in this country.
It is a matter of record and history that it ended up by putting the farmer back into a price squeeze, where the price of his product has been going down in the last three years while the cost of production has been rising. I am not arguing that we must use one or other method to the exclusion of the other because it is possible to use a combination of both methods, that is a combination of subsidies and controls such as the government used during the war years.
I believe the first legislation setting up the wartime prices and trade board was passed in 1941 when prices were frozen as at a certain date. We all know, and the Prime Minister was the first to admit, that all prices were not at the proper level at that particular date, but a start had to be made somewhere and through a system of subsidies and adjustments it was possible to bring prices into a fair relationship. We had the milk subsidy, the subsidy paid to millers for the production of bread and subsidies on other items which brought about a fairer relationship.
By 1945, when the war ended, we had a pretty smoothly running and efficient system of prices. The government of the day sold the idea of stabilization to Canadian agriculture on the basis of the British wheat agreement and other commodity agreements

Agriculture
with other countries. But the government then turned around and wiped out the base on which that whole stabilization program was anchored; they wiped out the price control legislation and allowed prices to get out of hand.
That briefly is what I mean when I say we should pool these two methods in order to attain this objective of a fairer share of the national income for agriculture. Whether we adopt one method or the other, or a combination of both, it means a challenge to the free enterprise system. The moment we do that we run up against opposition in this house.
A great deal has been said about the Canadian wheat board, and it would seem as though there was unanimous support for this idea. As a matter of fact that is not so. It is true that the members of this group have always supported it and support it now; it is true that members from western Canada support the idea, but we find that there are both Liberal and Conservative members who are opposed to the wheat board at this time. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg South will not object if I put him in that category.


Henry Philip Mang: Does the hon. member include western Liberals?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Very definitely so.


Henry Philip Mang: Western Saskatchewan Liberals?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Saskatchewan is not the whole of the west; there is such a place as Manitoba.


Owen C. Trainor: Would the hon. member maintain that the Canadian wheat board has anything to do with the price of wheat on the markets of the world?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The wheat board may not be able to go out and set the price of wheat on the markets of the world by any authority vested in it by this house, but it certainly has a tremendous influence on the price of wheat on the markets of the world by the very fact that it is the sole marketing agency for one of the greatest wheat producers in the world. My hon. friend knows that if he were the marketing agent for a manufacturer who held as large a share of the world market for his product as does Canadian wheat normally, he would be in a very strong position to set the price of his product.


Owen C. Trainor: Not as long as there is other wheat for sale.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: It is a matter of relativity. Answering the question asked by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, who wanted to know if there were any western Liberals who would 
oppose the wheat board, may I say that there definitely are and I can give him the names of a Conservative and a Liberal member in the provincial house in Manitoba. As reported in the Winnipeg Free Press of March 5, discussions were taking place with relation to marketing and Mr. McDowell-who entered the house as a Progressive Conservative but whose present status is doubtful, because there has been some indication that he refuses to sit in their caucus and perhaps now would consider himself an independent, though he is still referred to as a Progressive Conservative-made it quite plain where he stood. He demanded what he called a showdown on the question of the marketing of wheat through the wheat board, and this report continues:
A successful farmer and grain trader-
Incidentally he is more successful as a grain trader.
*-Mr. McDowell charged that abandonment of compulsory marketing through the Canadian wheat board would result in higher prices and a better deal for farmers.
His demands for abandonment of compulsory marketing and return of the open market for grains received "wholehearted agreement" from L. R. Fennell (L-St. Boniface).
That indicates that even at this time when there is discussion as to the status of the Canadian wheat board, on which it might be expected there would be unanimity, there are members of both the major parties represented in this house who are quite prepared to scuttle the wheat board and go back to the Winnipeg grain exchange as a preferable method of doing business. I am quite sure the hon. member for Winnipeg South would be quite happy to see that done.


Owen C. Trainor: We might sell some wheat.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The hon. member thinks we might sell some wheat. I would refer him to the recent history of the efforts of one John McFarland. Then he would find out how much would be sold and at what price under this free system of his. I have raised this question, not in order to discuss the merits of the Canadian wheat board but to point out that the whole idea of a stabilized system in our approach to farm commodities is in danger at this time. One of the reasons it is in danger is the fact that the government has abandoned one half of its agricultural stabilization policy, and by doing that is going to damage and perhaps destroy the other half.
It is very important at this time that this parliament adopt an agricultural policy and declare itself prepared, through a parity price system, to stand behind farm commodities and say to the world that there will be no fire sale; that we are not going to

enter into a cutthroat competition method of disposing of our product or allow the Canadian farmer to be the sacrificial goat of the Canadian economy, but we are prepared to stand behind him as the backbone and basis of the whole Canadian economy.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, just a few words in connection with this matter, I think will be in order coming from another member of the Social Credit group. We listened to the minister this afternoon give a fine and interesting talk, such as he always gives.
The minister's major objection to parity prices appeared to be the fear that we should accumulate surpluses. Now, that attitude puts us in a rather bad light. I think everybody recognizes that, because there are, as has been pointed out, demands for far more food in the world than is being supplied. If Canada, one of the major food producing areas in the world, limits production in the face of the growing need through the world, then obviously she is not discharging her responsibilities, and there must be something radically wrong with the way we are managing our affairs.
I suggested on June 10 that the solution to this surplus problem would be storage on the farms. I outlined the method which, I think, would be fairly practicable, by which we could put the grain on the farms and pay the farmers for it, so they would be just as well off as though the grain were in an elevator or as if it were sold abroad. Yet they would have the responsibility for carrying the grain. That would obviate the necessity of using caves or battleship holds to store grain, or having great concentrations of grain or other foods where serious mishaps might befall them.
Briefly I suggested that, in respect of any given farmer, the government should say, "You have for instance 5,000 bushels. We shall lend you the money out of the Bank of Canada at a very low rate of interest, probably 1J or 2 per cent", which is perfectly possible from the Bank of Canada. "With this money you may build on your farm approved farm storage which will stand up against all sorts of conditions which might befall grain stored on farms in any part of Canada. When you have that storage built and put the wheat in it, we will pay you for the wheat at the going price just as though you delivered the wheat to the elevator. Then you begin to take care of the wheat, and every year during which you hold that wheat, until we take it off your hands, we will pay you 10 per cent of the value in wheat. That will mean that if we do not take the
Agriculture
wheat off your hands in 10 years the wheat will belong to you again, notwithstanding the fact that we have already paid you for it."
In that case the farmer would have the grain and the country would have the grain, -and supplies of food of that sort might be of inestimable importance in times just like these. The farmer naturally would take care of the wheat after that. I must confess I simply can see no objection to that policy of dealing with the storage of wheat.
There will be people who will say, "If you lent out all the money which would be necessary to do all that, you would cause inflation." No one would worry about inflation if the farmers sold the wheat to the elevators and got the money. Why should there be any worry about inflation if the farmer had the money with the wheat in his bin? That sounds sensible to me.
The question will arise, where will the government get all the money? I have said time and again that governments can create money, and immediately someone says, "Print it". Did you ever have a $1 dollar bill issued by the Bank of Canada in your possession that was not printed, or a $5 bill that was not printed, or a $50 bill that was not printed? Then why all the excessive excitement over printing, provided the printing is within limits?	.
It is time we faced these things realistically. The money does not have to be printed at all. It might take the form of bank credit coming from the Bank of Canada and could be kept in the form of bank credit, deposited in the local bank and transferred from one person to another by cheque. Ninety-seven per cent of all our business transactions today are conducted in that way, with bank credit. I fail to see how on any logical ground there can be any objection to this proposal I have offered.
While we are on that I would point out that the other day-I think it was the day before yesterday-I referred to a most interesting thing that occurred in the 1930's. Japan began to use her national credit to subsidize exports, so she was able to sell her goods in the markets of Britain or any other country into which she could send her goods, cheaply enough to undersell their goods and put their factories right out of commission. She increased her trade 53 per cent in one year. Anyone who will pretend that Japan was doing something which was unsound would certainly be taking many chances.
Just a few years after that we got into a war with Japan, and there was nothing unsound about what she was doing. She could hit with mighty strength. It would not be

Agriculture
surprising if she used her national credit to fix selling prices within her country. We had better check a half dozen times before condemning that as unsound. It would be good for a pseudo-authority on money to go to Japan to find out how she managed things; he should say just as little as possible while finding that out and so have less to be sorry for.
The whole attitude of Canada in respect to her farmers appears to be that it would just break Canadian hearts if they helped their farmers a little. If there is one body of people they just will not help, it is the farmers. It is a capital crime to help them!
The farmers now commit their grain to the wheat board-and we all support the wheat board-and from there on the wheat board does the business of marketing for the farmer and pays the farmer what is left after all the expenses are paid.
For the government to come in and supply a little bit of money to the wheat board with which to do this is apparently, according to Liberal thinking, completely impossible; and I presume according to Conservative thinking it is equally impossible. That strikes one in an ordinary way as being just nonsense. Why the government cannot help is something I cannot see.
Already this afternoon we have been told of the prices paid by various other countries. As I recall it, the hon. member for Mackenzie told us that Sweden is offering her farmers $2.35 a bushel for wheat; Norway, $3.43; Switzerland, $4.19; France, $2.64; United Kingdom, $2.36 and Chile, $4.50. Will someone tell us how he thinks Chile can pay her farmers $4.50 a bushel for wheat when Canada cannot do so? Will someone tell us how he thinks little Switzerland, with an economy far weaker than that of Canada, can pay her farmers $4.19 a bushel for wheat while we cannot do so?


An hon. Member:: They have no Liberal government there.


John Horne Blackmore: I have an idea the explanation is that they have much better sense than to have a Liberal government. What are they doing? How are they doing it? Are they using their national credit? Who is to say that they are not? I do not know. Would you tell us how it is that Norway is able to do what she is doing in respect of paying her farmers, not to mention France? They are doing it. I understand that the government is entering into the picture and paying the farmers a subsidy out of government revenue in order to make up the price of wheat which they deem necessary in
[Mr. Blackmore.1
order to keep their farmers in a good healthy condition financially and economically.
It would therefore seem to me to be logical to conclude that there is unsoundness in the attitude of Canada as expressed in the Liberal party, and perhaps in the Conservative party, to the effect that it is wrong or it is bad policy or it is not sound for the government to enter into the picture and pay the farmers a little bit of a subsidy out of national revenue funds. It seems to me that attitude must obviously be unsound, because Switzerland and these other countries expect to carry on. They have been carrying on for several generations, and apparently they have been coming through all right. Their economy as well as that of practically every other country I have mentioned is undoubtedly weaker than Canada's.
Now we come to another aspect which I think certainly ought to impress every hon. member of the house, namely the gross unfairness of Canada's present method of making the farmers wait, pay storage and borrow into debt. I wonder how any member of this house would feel if he went into a year's work with $10,000 promised to him and then, when he had put in one month and expected his first pay cheque, he were told, "We cannot pay you yet; you will have to wait. Maybe we will be able to pay you next month", and so it went on until the year was up and still they said, "We cannot pay you yet; you will have to manage to get along". That is exactly the condition the farmers are in in my constituency, and it must be so in many other constituencies.
After the farmer has gone through all the risks, the work, the sweat, the anxiety and the expense of producing his year's crop, he has done his job. He has earned his pay. Then he cannot have his pay because he cannot sell his grain. If he puts the grain in an elevator he still cannot have his pay, because it is not sold. If it stays there two or three years and accumulates a great deal of expense in storage, he pays the shot although it is none of his fault in any way.
How can you justify that situation? I honestly believe that if you heard of that kind of thing being done in Russia you would take it as good evidence against communism. That is a situation which is obviously unreasonable. The farmers must live. Surely anybody can see that. Nowadays, every bit of travelling for instance the farmers do must be done with the use of gasoline, for which they must pay money. The situation is not as it used to be in the days when they drove horses that could feed on the grass. The situation is much worse today.

Some people act as though they were not living in the world of reality at all when they think about the farmers. Then when the farmers have no money they have to go into debt, when there is no assurance that they are going to be able to pay off the debt; and finally when it looks as though they will probably lose their farms, many of us apparently have just about as much interest in that procedure as we have in what occurs on Mars. It does not make a bit of difference to us what happens to them! It seems to me it is high time we did a little bit of realistic and human thinking about our farmers.
The next question is this. What shall we do about the situation if we get too much wheat? Suppose we get all the wheat we can sell, then all the wheat that we feel it is wise to store on the farms under the system I have suggested, and still we are getting too much wheat? I have an idea that some such system can be used ultimately as that which is used by the sugar factories in my constituency. Before the season begins the sugar factories enter into contracts with the sugar beet producers, and they say to them, "We will take all the sugar beets you can raise on say 20 acres; we will not take any more, but we will take that many. We will guarantee you a certain price at certain stipulated times, and we will guarantee to discharge several different kinds of responsibility in connection with the crop. All you can raise on 20 acres" or 10 acres or 30 acres, as the case may be, "will be contracted for". I see no reason why, in the ultimate, we in Canada should not adopt some such method as that in order to curtail the amount of wheat produced.
We would not thereby be holding control over the farmers or being dictatorial. No beet grower feels that he is being regimented. He feels that he has had an opportunity or has had the privilege to produce so many acres of beets. It seems to me that a similar thing could be done in respect of every commodity as to which we deem it advisable in the national interest to limit production.
The time may come when we shall feel just that way with regard to a good many commodities. We may feel that it is not good policy to take the nutrients out of our soil beyond a certain point. We may desire to keep some of the richness in the soil for the children to come. I would suggest that ultimately some such method of limiting production can be used without trying to squeeze the farmers out of production by lowering prices. That seems to be a sort of method of torture. Why not go about it in a different way?
Mr. Speaker, I think I will vote for this amendment. I think it is high time something
Agriculture
was done to help improve the condition of the farmers across this country. I do not think any of them are being treated nearly as well as they have a right to be treated and as we have a duty to treat them.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, just before the vote is taken I think I should take a few minutes of the time of the house to make a statement with respect to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort, which amendment reads as follows:
That the motion be amended by deleting therefrom all the words after the word "That" and by substituting therefor the following words:
"the government should give consideration to the advisability of establishing a system of parity prices for agricultural products."
Members of the house, Mr. Speaker, will note that the amendment specifically states that the government should give consideration to the advisability of establishing "a" system of parity prices for agricultural products, and does not at all suggest a particular type of parity price set-up. It does indicate that there should be some latitude for the government, and I imagine I am interpreting the amendment correctly when I say that the mover and those who are supporting him mean that they want a system of prices for farm products that will guarantee farmers their fair share of the national income. If the farmers of Canada make up, let us say, 16 per cent of the total population, then we would expect that the price system for their products would yield them something like 16 per cent of the national income.
That is the attitude we take toward the amendment. That is the objective we hope we can reach; and how the government does that is not too important as far as we are concerned provided, of course, they do not clamp on us a completely controlled economy. May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that we are living in an economy that is partly controlled, in which there are guarantees given to almost every section of society except the farmers. When I say "guarantees", one needs only to remind himself of the protection that is afforded to the industrialists of the country by way of tariffs. One only needs to remind himself of the protection afforded by the government to the workers of the country through such things as the Unemployment Insurance Act provisions.
All these things, and I could name many more, indicate that we are living in an economy which does much for many sections but little, if anything, for the farmer by way of guaranteeing that his income will remain at a level comparable with the level of income of other sections of our economy. The minister says that parity prices will result in

Agriculture
conditions which will make farmers worse off rather than better off. I took down his words pretty carefully, so I would not make any mistake. I can remember not so long ago when the minister favoured a pricing system for farm products, the object of which would be to keep the prices of these products in fair relationship to the prices of other products based upon the relationship that prevailed between them in the years 1943, 1944 and 1945. I am wondering what has happened to the minister since that time.
It seems only a very few years ago that he was expressing that idea in the house, and quite clearly, but evidently something or somebody has had an adverse effect upon his mind because he is not talking that way now. How can the minister say that parity prices will result in conditions that will make the farmers worse off rather than better off in the light of what has happened in the United States of America, just next door? Can he say that farmers in the United States are worse off today than they were five, six, seven, eight or ten years ago because of the fact that the government of the United States has maintained all during that period a parity price system, and a pretty rigid one at that?
I think it can be shown that farmers in the United States of America are much better off than they are in Canada, and certainly the position of the United States farmer has not declined as a result of the parity price system the government of the United States has maintained for about 10 years and which was based, by the way, upon the period 1909 to 1914. In the United States it can be said with assurance that the government has stood by the farmers.
We will probably have a chance to get at the minister again on this matter on his estimates, and I should like him to tell the house just how he and the government propose going about the very important task of ensuring farmers their fair, proportionate share of the national income in an economy that provides guarantees for nearly every other section of society except farmers. I should like him to tell us that.
I once asked one of the leading officers of the department of agriculture of the United States the same question. In a group I was in he was expressing the view that he could not quite go along with the farmers' demand for a parity price system, but when I asked him the question, how else are you going to guarantee the farmer his fair share of the national income, he threw up his hands and said "I don't know." Neither does anybody else. I think it is about time the minister
began to lay before the house some plan by which he can guarantee the farmer his fair share of the national income and see to it that farm cash income is kept at a high level.
I have already placed before members of the house facts and figures relative to the important business of keeping farm cash income at a high enough level so there can be a balance between agriculture and industry in this country. I draw attention to the fact that when a dollar paid to a farmer for any one of his products starts the circuit from the farmer, it immediately creates a dollar in wages and salaries to a worker or workers in industry, and at the same time as it goes through the circuit from the farmer to all the service centres surrounding the farming areas it creates no less than $7 of national income. That is the kind of thing that keeps the economy going. If the farmer is denied that dollar of income, what happens? There will be a denial of at least a dollar of income in the form of wages and salaries to the workers in factories and industries in our country, and also in the service circuit through which these dollars inevitably have to travel somebody will be denied at least $7 of national income.
I draw to the attention of hon. members that one of the biggest reasons we had 600,000 unemployed in the country during the past winter was the very serious decline in farm income. When one thinks about the terrific decline in farm income, how it affected the farmers' ability to buy the products of the factories and how the service people in between the farmers and the industrialists suffered in income, one can readily understand why the economy came very close to a bad recession. Keeping farm cash income at a high level is one of the most important and pivotal things the government can do, and members of the government should begin to take the matter seriously instead of standing up here and trying to defend an outworn and decadent system. I do not see why in the world we should go on thinking that the farmers will look after themselves irrespective of the protection afforded to other parts of our economy.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, the minister owes it to this house to give us an explanation of the kind of thing that he and his government think would be possible to keep the farmers' cash income at a high level, in order that the farmers of Canada may buy the goods that are coming out of our industrial plants.
At the end of his speech the minister warned members of the house to be careful how they voted on the amendment. He suggested that those who support the amendment calling for support prices may have to spend

considerable time in the next few months explaining their stand. I am going to say this, Mr. Speaker. If I do not vote for the amendment I shall have to spend a very long time explaining my stand, and at the end of the explanation I might find that I was out on my ear.
I represent a farming community, and they expect me to say a word on their behalf concerning their requirements. I want to draw to the attention of the minister this very important fact, and he should know it. All he needs to do is look around him and see the few Liberals there are from western Canada to realize how the farmers of this country have regarded the policies of the Liberal government toward the adoption of parity prices for farmers.


William Melville Martin: As the hon. member knows, a great many of the western members are busy outside of the house.


Solon Earl Low: I am not counting those who are in the house. I know some members are busy with other things. I am speaking of those who are elected to represent the people of Canada. One of the best bits of evidence as to the way the farmers of western Canada regard this whole question of parity prices and farm income is found in the fact we were able this morning to introduce into this house a young man who stood, all throughout the by-election campaign, for parity prices. He was elected in spite of the fact we had ministers out there falling over themselves in an attempt to show the people how foolish these Social Crediters were. They were wearing ten-gallon hats; they were making smart retorts and doing everything they possibly could, including holding tea parties, to influence those people to vote Liberal.


An hon. Member:: What was his majority?


Solon Earl Low: That is all right. In spite of that, I just advise the Minister of Agriculture to take a better look at this situation and he will discover that the farmers of western Canada are anxious to have an agricultural policy established in this country that will return to them their fair share of the national income. I support them in that, and I shall continue to support them because I know it is right. It is the only way the economy of Canada can be kept strong and vital.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Like the hon. member for Peace River I was much more impressed by the fervor of the Minister of Agriculture when he spoke earlier today than I was by his logic. I must say that so far as I could see the minister made no attempt whatever to meet the position which has been stated by some of my
Agriculture
colleagues concerning the situation in which the farm producers of this country find themselves so far as the share of the national product which they receive today is concerned. For that reason I felt I should like to speak for a few minutes in support of the motion moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort.
Some members may wonder why I would take part in this debate, because certainly I do not represent a constituency which ordinarily is considered to be agricultural, though of course there are a number of farmers living in that area who are as much concerned about their situation as farmers anywhere else in Canada. However, the bulk of the population of the constituency which I represent are dependent for their livelihood upon the forest products industry.
I recognize that that industry is somewhat different from agriculture, inasmuch as by and large the production is not carried on by an owner-producer as is the case in the field of agriculture. I suppose that at the present time the situation in the forest products industry could be considered good. The last quarterly statement of the lumber products corporations showed a rise in their net profits, and the workers in that industry have recently come to an agreement with the operators and signed a two-year contract which, amongst other things, provides for an increase of 5 cents an hour in their wage rates this year and another increase of 5 cents an hour effective in June next year. Therefore, by and large, I could safely say, there is no cry in the forest products industry of British Columbia today that they are not receiving their fair share of the national income.
As I listened to the situation in the agricultural industry, as outlined by my colleagues, I could not help but feel that "there, but for the grace of God, go I." We must recognize that there are other economic interests in this country that are as vulnerable to the situation in which the farmers find themselves today as are the farmers. If certain conditions developed in world markets in respect to forest products, and if there were a fall-off in some other sections of the economy in regard to their purchasing power for these products of the forest industries of British Columbia, this industry could find itself in exactly the same plight as the farmers find themselves today, that they were not receiving their fair share of the national product.
I feel, therefore, that if the citizens of this country are to be able to lead prosperous and happy lives we have to come to a recognition that as to the different economic groupings in this country, we must be prepared

Agriculture
to help one another. I feel, for that reason, that this motion sets forth something that is for the good of a large section of the Canadian people.
I take it that should the people who depend upon the forest products industry find themselves in the same position as the farmers, the movers of this motion would be prepared to sponsor the same type of action to enable the woodworkers to enjoy their proper share of the national income. It is because I feel we must recognize that we are, in effect, our brother's keeper, regardless of what part of Canada we happen to live in or come from, or to what economic group within our society we may belong, that I believe this motion should be supported.
It is the type of action we can and should expect our government to undertake. Certainly as I listened to the minister this morning he gave no indication whatever that he was prepared to suggest a positive program to meet the situation which has been outlined by some of my colleagues, and which has not been challenged. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in saying these few words in support of the motion before the house.


Mr. Hahn:: I was paired with the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence services-
236. To provide for the Canadian forces, the defence research board and other expenditures relating to defence, including contributions toward the military costs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; to authorize expenditures in the

current year out of the amount hereby provided, not exceeding $175,000,000, under the provisions of section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, and to provide that, notwithstanding subsection (3) of that section, where equipment or supplies acquired by the Canadian forces after March 31, 1950, are transferred, the estimated present value thereof shall, if the governor in council so directs, be credited to this vote instead of being paid into the special account mentioned in the said subsection (3), and when so credited may be expended for the purposes of the Canadian forces; and notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act to authorize total commitments for the foregoing purposes of $4,269,726,540 regardless of the year in which such commitments will come In course of payment (of which it is estimated that $2,443,441,346 will come due for payment in future years), $1,729,285,194.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
William Alfred Robinson: Have we completed the discussion under the heading Royal Canadian Air Force?


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I am completely baffled by the minister's white paper dealing with the equipment situation in so far as the air force is concerned, and his comparison with what appear to be the actual facts. I might say that some of the statements made in the white paper itself are almost impossible to reconcile with others in the same document. First of all let us read from page 43 of the white paper. Paragraph 163 begins with these words:
Production and delivery of the CF-100 Mk 4 is now well under way at Avro Aircraft Limited.
Later in the same paragraph it says:
As deliveries increase, the CF-100 Mk IV will gradually replace the CF-100 Mk III in all-weather fighter squadrons.
Later on in paragraph 201 on page 51 of the same book we find these words:
In 1954-55 expenditures on aircraft are expected to be about $97 million less than estimated. Notwithstanding this decrease in expenditures, aircraft production schedules have been maintained substantially as planned.
On page 52 the second line begins in this way:
The trend to lower costs resulting from-
I am skipping some words here dealing with increased efficiency.
-somewhat lower rates of production planned for the CF-100.
I think we are entitled to know exactly what the situation is. I am wondering which is really the more dangerous attitude to take in matters of this kind. Are we better
Supply-National Defence off to refuse complete disclosure of information in connection with production facilities and plans for manning our air force because of fear that we may be allowing an enemy to have information which might be of some benefit to him, or is it really not more dangerous to keep a public such as the Canadian public not completely informed of the true situation in connection with aircraft equipment requirements? There is little doubt that although the first paragraph I read indicated a continuing line of production to equip our squadrons with CF-100 all-weather interceptors, there has been a definite slowdown. I might refer at this time to an editorial in the Toronto Globe and Mail of Thursday, March 31, 1955:
The reduction has hit hardest at Avro, which produces the CF-100 jet fighter, and is currently developing the CF-105 supersonic, at its huge Malton plant. Early in January, Avro got orders from the defence department to slow down CF-100 production, and in consequence laid off 1,000 men. A further slow-down has now been ordered, which means the lay-off of another 1,000 men. This year, Avro will produce fewer than half as many CF-lOO's as it did last year. And 2,000 members of the skilled production team it built up with such great effort and expense will be lost to it, probably for good.
If we need any additional information as to the slow-down in the production of this plane, I might refer to the Ottawa Journal of May 12 of this year. Under the dateline May 12 from Renfrew, it states:
Attributed to curtailment in Orenda jet engine schedules, 61 men were laid off today by Light Alloys Ltd., at Haley's.
In addition, it is common knowledge in Toronto that suppliers to Avro, such as Lucas-Rotax, have made lay-offs, and lay-offs are to continue in the future. As a matter of fact the indication here that 2,000 men have been involved at Avro may be on the light side, not the heavy side. With one paragraph of the white paper indicating a continuing effort to equip our home defence squadrons with CF-100 planes, this cut-back comes apparently in the face of information that not more than three or four squadrons are completely equipped with this plane for home defence.
When we talk about three or four squadrons we are talking about 50 to 75 planes. The minister has indicated that it is the intention to completely equip the balance of nine squadrons this year. I say to him that we should have definite information which indicates the possibility that this will be done, even in view of the apparent slow-down in the production rate of these aircraft.
The minister has apparently indicated to us that 10 auxiliary squadrons which it had been formerly planned to equip with these aircraft will not now obtain them.
6084	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence The question may be academic at this time as to what type of plane those auxiliary squadrons will have, but the main factor is that when the defence of this country was planned based upon the use of the CF-100, it was obvious that 10 auxiliary squadrons were going to fill a very definite need in the total defence structure. Surely then, if it is now the intention to scrap those plans, the only alternative to such a move would be to add at least another five or six squadrons to our active force.
The minister owes an explanation to this house as to what plans are going to be followed to ensure that the 10 auxiliary squadrons which very definitely must have filled a very useful purpose in our previous plans will be replaced in some other way in connection with our defences. It is most difficult to understand the situation in connection with this plane. I think we are entitled to know it.
It seems to me there is some indication that perhaps not even the nine original squadrons will be completely equipped, notwithstanding the fact that in connection with this program the minister has said-and I think I took some notes at the time he was speaking indicating this-that it would serve a very useful purpose for some time to come, and programs were being outlined to carry out that purpose. At the same time it was indicated as has been stated in the past and is indicated in the white paper-that this country has been called upon through mutual aid to supply certain types of help to foreign countries. At page 19 of the white book, paragraph 62, we find these words:
bJ ProducIt>g in excess of thesi requirements, Canada agreed to assist in meetim the equipment requirements of allied countries b' program	the Canadian mutual aii
Going on to paragraph 63:
While the emphasis in Canada's earlier programs was on transfers of equipment from service stocks, since around 1953 programs have contained an increasing proportion of materials and equipments supplied from current Canadian production.
Is this not the plane as well that was indicated as being very desirable for service overseas? I notice that, as reported at page 628 of Hansard, the minister had this to say:
Increased emphasis, too, is being placed on the air arm, but as hon. members are well aware this increased emphasis on air power is and has been for some years past a feature of our own Canadian defence program.
In this regard the military committee of NATO has been continually stressing for some time past the need for increased air defence in Europe, particularly in the field of all-weather fighters. We have been pressed for some time past to assist in this regard by reason of the fact that we in Canada are producing, in the CF-100, what is generally regarded as one of the very best all-weather fighters in NATO.


This particular quotation from Hansard was referred to in the Globe and Mail of April 4 of this year under the heading "Left Hand, Right Hand". The editorial quoted part of the excerpt which I just read, and following that said:
-Hon. Ralph Campney, Minister of National Defence, in House of Commons, January 28, 1955.
Then it goes on to say this:
''There is certainly no indication that any member of NATO is not interested in any piece of Canadian equipment which would aid in the collective defence."-Hon. L. B. Pearson, Secretary of State for External Affairs, in House of Commons, March 31, 1955.
It further goes on to say:
"I know of no orders (for CF-100's) from any nation other than Canada."-Right Hon. C. D. Howe. Minister of Defence Production, in House of Commons, March 31, 1955.
These last two answers were given to questions which I myself placed before these ministers. Apparently it is not because we cannot sell jet fighters, because I see in the Globe and Mail of this morning, July 13, under the heading "Canadian Jets are purchased by South Africa", an article which indicates this:
South Africa has placed an order for an undisclosed number of Canadian-produced mark VI Sabre jet fighters, it was announced today.
The South African high commissioner's office said deliveries of the swept-wing fighter by Cana-dair Limited, Montreal are scheduled to start April 1, 1956.
What is the true situation in connection with this production? We would all like to know. Surely we have not reached the stage where we are going to base Canada's home defence, as far as the air force is concerned, upon three or four squadrons of CF-lOO's.
I am sure everyone is impressed by the tremendous amount of publicity we are now reading concerning the establishment of the various radar warning lines. But if we are anticipating the type of attack that has been experienced in other wars, just having the radar warning line without the defensive planes to do the job will never help defend this country.
Perhaps I might suggest to the minister that while we are assisting in building the warning lines, we appear to be depending on the United States for the air defence. I do not think anyone expects that we can always have our squadrons equipped with the latest, up to date planes. We are told that no sooner has a plane come off the drawing board than it is out of date. But surely it is necessary at various stages to call a halt and produce the planes to man the squadrons we require and, while doing that, to go on with our engineering and processing work to put a new type on the production fine.

I suggest that we apparently are failing in both respects, but not because of any failure in the productive capacity of our plants. I believe it is of much interest to all of us, not just to those who may be in the area where these plants are located, to see that these plants are at the ready, that they are always in a position to produce. But if we are going to cut their staffs by 2,000 and
3,000	it will be impossible to obtain the necessary wartime volume of production.
Reference is made to the radar defences. I was amazed to read in the Telegram of Thursday, July 7, an article headed "Canada Far Behind U.S. on D.E.W." and reading in part as follows:
The Americans have proven themselves faster than Canadians when it comes to building radar warning lines in Canada's north.
The United States started later, is flying farther and is expected to finish sooner than Canada. The Americans are also spending more than the Canadians.
At least with that sentence I think we would all agree. That is one place we would expect them to lead. The article continues:
A competent source said all sites for the D.E.W. (distant early warning) line being erected by the U.S. along the Arctic coast-roughly the 70th parallel-have been selected and that 40 per cent of the buildings on the sites have been put up. Peak of the huge airlift for the D.E.W. fence has been passed.
Work was started first on the mid-Canada chain, which this country is building along the 55th parallel, and according to the original schedule it was to have been completed ahead of the D.E.W.
But informants said work on the more complicated D.E.W. line is far ahead.
If this is our major contribution to Canadian defence, surely we should be able to ensure that our share of the work is completed ahead of the much more difficult job which has been undertaken far to the north.
The hon. member for Brandon-Souris referred to the recruiting situation. Is it possible that failure to obtain the necessary personnel is the whole trouble in connection with manning the squadrons for Canadian defence? A return made to the house this year indicated that of some 5,500 people making application, over 4,000 were turned down. It seems to me we are entitled to know whether the failure to obtain the necessary manpower to man the aircraft may be one of the contributing causes of the failure to put the squadrons in the air.
It has been suggested that the use of intercontinental ballistic weapons may do away with this ordinary type of attack altogether. But if progress in development in all countries keeps pace we may expect to have what might be termed an ordinary war. Radar defences may be dangerous in that they may leave us with a Maginot line complex. I think that was referred to as well by the
Supply-National Defence previous speaker. The only way to do the job is to get the squadrons in the air. To date, so far as our domestic defences are concerned, we have failed in that purpose.


Mr. Hamillon (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Chairman, there is one point I should like to draw to the minister's attention, because I think it illustrates the tendency on occasion for the national defence department and the armed services to make expenditures in excess of that which is necessary to accomplish a specific purpose, and to utilize facilities far beyond those required for a specific end.
I want to make it quite plain that money which is well spent on national defence, spent with due respect for economy, is properly spent and certainly has my support. However, the spending of money which is poured down the drain without regard for economy can no more be justified because it is wasted on behalf of national defence than if it were wasted on any other purpose.
I refer to the facilities now being used for air force recruiting in the centre of the city of Montreal. This matter was drawn to my attention some little time ago, and before taking it up in the house I made a point of personally visiting the particular locale, 680 St. Catherine street west. I was greeted very nicely and shown through the building by one of the officers there when I identified myself. I emphasize that because what I am about to tell the minister is not hearsay. It is factual. The building now being used is an old post office vacated several years ago. It is located in one of the highest priced sections of Montreal on one of the busiest streets at one of the busiest intersections, in the midst of other real estate which is used at very high rentals primarily for stores, office space or by clubs for entertainment purposes, by restaurants and so on.
On the ground floor of the three-storey building now being used are facilities for the reception of inquirers regarding air force registration and extensive office facilities, including private offices for a number of the officers, examination rooms for giving tests and the like. The second floor is entirely devoted to officers' mess facilities for units in the area. To give an example of the lack of use of these premises, I may say that these messes are completely closed down for the summer.
The top floor is devoted to the commanding officer's office and a number of other rooms used for medical examinations, X-rays and the like. There might be justification for such extensive facilities if the volume of applicants coming to the office indicated a need for them, but we had a return filed

Supply-National Defence earlier this year which indicated that the total number of applicants for the air force in all Canada was 5,570. Yesterday the minister qualified the return, and may I say here that I wish the government would qualify their returns before giving them to the house rather than afterwards. I give the minister credit for having found out the mistake and bringing it to the attention of the house, but I do feel such information would be better if we got it correctly in the first instance.
However, the remarks the minister made yesterday in connection with the return indicated that of the 5,570 applicants in 1954, approximately half were serious in that they got beyond making an inquiry and got beyond their first examination for enrolment. Even if we take the larger figure, that means that for all Canada there were only about 22 applicants per day for the air force or about three per hour. If we limit that to Montreal we have at the most an average of one person an hour, and I am informed by people who know something about these premises that this is a reasonably accurate figure as to how many people go in and out the door.
We know from the minister's statement yesterday that many of these people never get beyond walking in and asking for a little information. Therefore we finally come to a situation in which we have a three-storey building with thousands of square feet of space being utilized for the handling of three or four people a day. That is wrong in the first place; it is doubly wrong in the second place because, as I have pointed out, the building is, in respect of its location, one of the most valuable in the city of Montreal.
Pressure has been put on the Department of Public Works on a number of occasions for the release of the building, because office space is at a tremendous premium and there are many organizations and individuals who would like to utilize these premises more efficiently and effectively than the recruiting office is now doing. I ask myself and I ask the government why it is necessary to have the officers' mess in that particular location. On either side of the building within a block or two there are commercial clubs. They are spending $400 or $500 a month for similar space on the second floor of buildings just because that is a suitable location for a commercial club.
An officers' mess could operate, I would think, quite as successfully a block or two away in premises which would be far less costly and far less valuable but undoubtedly equally satisfactory from the point of view of the officers' mess. I ask the government
[Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace) .1
why it is necessary to set up a medical examination centre, which is used only occasionally, on another floor of this expensive piece of real estate, when it could be set up with equal effectiveness and equal efficiency a block or two away in real estate that would be perhaps not one-fifth or one-quarter the value.
In order to give some idea of the valuation of this property, I may say that the current city valuation on land and buildings is some $275,000. The experts who are currently revaluing property in preparation for another assessment roll at the end of this year estimate roughly that on the new roll the value of this property will be some $350,000. The government is using it simply for the purpose of handling a handful, three, four or five applicants per day for the air force.
Let this not be construed by any manner of means as a criticism of recruitment for the air force. It is good that we recruit people, and it is necessary that we recruit them. But I suggest it is not necessary to set up the office in such a spot as they have, and I recommend to the minister most urgently that he have somebody look at this location and come to the only sensible conclusion to which he could come, that the operation be moved to a spot where it could be operated with equal efficiency but with far less drain upon the taxpayers.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, it may very well be that the minister will rise and say the Department of Public Works owns the building and therefore it is not costing us anything to use it. Of course the answer is that if the air force will get out we will not own the building but we will have some $400,000 or $500,000 which could be put into the consolidated fund and used for any one of a great many purposes, most of which-because we have seen some uses of government moneys-would be very definitely beneficial to the Canadian public.
I believe if the defence department would vacate this building, and if the government has no further sensible use for it because this is not a sensible use to make of it, they could sell the building and the taxpayers of this country would be substantially ahead of the game.
Seme hon. Members: Carried.


John Borden Hamilton: I think we are entitled to an answer to some of these things.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I should like to deal with some of the observations of the hon. member for York West. First I would point out that this department is not concerned, as such, with the production of aeroplanes. We are

concerned, of course, with our requirements being met, but the fact that employees have been laid off or production has been cut is really the concern of the Department of Defence Production. However, we are responsible, of course, for taking such reasonable steps as are necessary to have our requirements met.
The sale of planes abroad is another function into which we do not enter, except that we have to give consent to classified types of equipment which may be included. As the hon. member mentioned in passing, the sale of Sabre jets to South Africa was a purely commercial transaction within the terms of Canadair's agreement with the parent North American company. While we are instrumental in having the release of classified instruments and weapons cleared with the United States company, there is no other action we need to take.
Now, as to our own needs and as to our own position, I will deal first with our position in Europe. We of course had a commitment to NATO to produce an air division of Sabre jets. We have succeeded in meeting that commitment on time, and we have continually improved the type of Sabre jets that are being used. This country can be justifiably proud and take considerable credit for that. Without wishing to boast, I think we have done a splendid job.
As I said in my statement at the opening of my estimates, the question of CF-lOO's for Europe has been mooted on a number of occasions in Europe, not with a view to European countries purchasing CF-lOO's but with a view to having some of them made available in Europe. We undertook that next year we will provide four squadrons of CF-lOO's in our air division in Europe. We intend to keep that commitment.
I regret as much as the hon. member does that considerations of security do not make it possible to be as completely frank and detailed as one would wish, but they are real considerations. The hon. member will realize what our opponents might gain by way of knowledge of our activities and plans, if I were to make certain statements of fact. They would certainly have excellent confirmation of the value of their sources of information. It is for this reason that the security regulations have been established. I can assure the hon. member that the nine squadrons for our defence forces in Canada will be equipped by the end of this year, which is the undertaking I gave to the house.
Another point mentioned by the hon. member had to do with the D.E.W. line. In support of his argument he read an excerpt from
Supply-National Defence a newspaper, which I dealt with in the house on July 7, at page 5804 of Hansard. It was a speculative newspaper story, and as I said in the house on that occasion, it was not in all respects accurate. Both the D.E.W. line and the mid-Canada line are proceeding, and they are proceeding on schedule. The mid-Canada line, which Canada is building solely at its own expense, was not started ahead of the D.E.W. line. The planning for the D.E.W. line started three years ago and the planning for the mid-Canada line, which is our responsibility, started two years ago.
Nevertheless the fact is that both these lines, which are tied in together, are going along very well indeed. It is anticipated that both will be operational on schedule.
The suggestion of the hon. member that we are depending solely on the United States for our defence is entirely in error. What we are doing is co-operating with the United States and carrying out our plans in conjunction with them. The permanent joint defence board meets frequently and matters affecting our joint defence projects on this continent are considered carefully. Our chiefs of staff work together, and there is excellent co-operation between them.
Only the other day our chairman of the chiefs of staff committee received a letter from Admiral Radford, his opposite number in the United States, in which he said:
"As you know, both Mr. Wilson-
That is the defence secretary of the United States.
"[DOT]-and the U.S. joint chiefs of staff are really very pleased and satisfied with the arrangements made between our continental air defence command and your Canadian headquarters."
I can assure the hon. member that many hours of intensive effort are being expended by both sides in co-operation, in the hope and expectation-and I think thus far that expectation has been realized-that jointly we shall work together, each carrying his own share, to provide the best possible defence for all of us.
The hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace has referred to a building we occupy in Montreal. I can only say-and I am sure he will readily appreciate this-that I am not familiar with the building and I am not in a position tonight to comment in detail on his observations. Certainly I shall have the matter looked into.
However, I would like to correct the hon. member on two or three matters. He spoke about a return dealing with the number of persons who were successful in examinations for aircrew. I would point out that at the recruiting centre in the building to which

Supply-National Defence he referred not only do we recruit aircrew, but also groundcrew. In the last year throughout Canada we recruited some 10,000 ground-crew or about 800 each month.
The headquarters for our auxiliary squadrons is also in that building. Whether our accommodation is better or more extensive than it should be, I am not in a position to say. But in this, as in nearly all cases, when we wish to rent accommodation we inform the Department of Public Works of our requirements and that department uses its best endeavours to obtain a suitable place as cheaply as possible. We do not rent areas or buildings ourselves. We utilize the service provided by the Department of Public Works. My understanding is that in this instance that department was consulted and the only suitable place it could find in the area was the building to which the hon. member referred. I am not familiar with all the facts, of course. However, we try to get what we need and get it at reasonable rates, and in doing so we operate through the Department of Public Works.


John Borden Hamilton: From what the minister has said it would appear that in a considerable length of time we have equipped three or four squadrons with CF-lOO's. The minister indicates that the balance of nine squadrons will be equipped this year. We have another six months to go.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I do not confirm that we have equipped only three or four squadrons.


John Borden Hamilton: You have not denied it, either. In addition we are told we have four squadrons slated for overseas work. The only reason I mentioned the layoffs at the plant was to confirm the suggestion of a slow-down in production. How does the minister reconcile the slowing down of production of these aircraft with the responsibility still placed on him of equipping the nine squadrons for Canada and four squadrons for overseas in the following 12 months?


Ralph Osborne Campney: We expect to begin to equip the four squadrons for overseas next year. The nine squadrons for the defence of this country here in Canada are to be completed this year.
I should mention one other matter mentioned by the hon. member for York West. I can assure him that the matter of auxiliary squadrons is receiving intensive and earnest consideration. I am entirely mindful of the problems that consideration raises; but it appears that the limited amount of training an auxiliary squadron, made up of persons who are bound to spend most of their time making their living in other activities, can


obtain in a year, makes the effective use of the CF-100 by auxiliary squadrons situation very doubtful. We are of course making an intensive study of it; but it does appear doubtful. The British have found in similar cases that the powerful jet aircraft equipped with a great amount of complex equipment, cannot be operated effectively by auxiliary squadrons.
The second observation by the hon. member follows naturally. If we come to that conclusion here, then certainly we will have to look at the defence picture from that angle. All these points are being carefully considered, and I expect that in the not too distant future we will be able to outline a policy in that regard. But as Minister of National Defence I would not want to equip auxiliary squadrons with CF-lOO's if I felt, after receiving advice from my experts and those who are familiar with all the circumstances obtaining in regard to these aircraft, that the degree of difficulty or danger to the aircrew would be such that it overstepped the bounds of reasonableness and care.


John Borden Hamilton: Is there no urgency in connection with the finalization of the equipment program in connection with the nine squadrons here or the four squadrons for overseas; or do I understand that it is quite possible for us to slow down our production and still meet the needs of our defence program both in Canada and in Europe?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes, I think that is true. I think also that the pattern in aircraft production factories, especially those producing for defence purposes, is that you begin with very active production. I do not know what the total number of people employed at A. V. Roe was, at the peak, but perhaps it might be 12,000 or 13,000.


Mr. Croll:: I believe it was 18,000.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am told it was 18,000. After one has made his initial production of a substantial number of aircraft, one slows down production in the plant for two reasons. In the first place one wants to keep the production line running until new planes are developed. That is standard practice. You just cannot employ the maximum number of men and have all the planes made quickly and then shut down the plant. I do not think that is in the best interests of the defence of the country or of the local community. I believe what I have said is in accordance with standard practice.


John Borden Hamilton: Am I to understand that the minister is going to be satisfied at the end of this year to back up our radar screen with nine squadrons of CF-lOO's?

The production line is slowed down, and there is no indication that we are going to have any additional squadrons to replace the auxiliary squadrons which were in the former plan.


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is still under consideration, and I am not in position to give either a definite answer or an undertaking until the research we are doing is completed to my satisfaction.


John Borden Hamilton: Is the minister satisfied with the backing up of our radar screen with only nine squadrons; because that is all we are going to have?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Nine regular squadrons. We are reconsidering the 10 auxiliary squadrons and their functions and the way in which we can usefully employ them. Second, we must decide what steps will need to be taken, in view of the fact that we will have nine regular squadrons by the end of the year, if it is decided that the auxiliary squadrons cannot effectively operate the CF-lOO's.


Mr. Campbell:: I have been disturbed about what I consider to be the large number of young men who have been killed during training and within a year after their training was completed. I had an answer recently about this indicating that 31 members of the R.C.A.F. and 22 NATO students had been killed in training during the past five years, and that during the same period 59 members of the R.C.A.F. had been killed within a year of graduation. What steps are being taken to decrease these accidents; and does the minister consider that these pilot trainees are getting the proper training when so many are killed within a year of graduation?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, I think I hardly need assure the hon. member that there is no group of people who have deeper regret over these training casualties than the R.C.A.F. and myself as head of the department. I can assure my hon. friend that intensive studies are continually going on to find out the causes of these accidents and what steps can be taken to remove those causes. Pilot error is an element in any system of training which you cannot eliminate entirely. We discussed this matter the last time my estimates were up, and all I can say is that we have made a thorough study of our casualties in training and subsequent to training, and we find that they are a little lower than in Great Britain and a little higher than in the United States.
It must be remembered that as our training facilities grow and the number of pupils and hours flown increase, the casualties will rise. I am satisfied from such investigation as we 50433-385
Supply-National Defence have been able to make that in relation to the number of people being trained our casualties are not out of line. That does not mean we are not endeavouring by every possible means to eliminate anything that might contribute to these accidents.
I am informed that in the last few months the rate of casualties per thousand flying hours has been steadily decreasing, showing that our studies and remedial steps have been effective. You can never get to the end of this thing; you can never say that you have a perfect system, that you cannot do any better. No country can do that. Nevertheless we must go on striving to improve the training in every way we can to reduce accidents. That is what we are trying to do, and we are meeting with a good deal of success.


Milton Neil Campbell: How many hours of training does a pilot get before he is put in charge of one of these high speed jets?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The average pilot must fly at least approximately 180 hours on conventional planes before he goes on jets.


Milton Neil Campbell: How many casualties occurred during formation flying, and how many during solo flights?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I have not the figures here, but I am told that a study indicates that there is no particular pattern. That is, the casualties are no higher in formation flying than in solo flying. There is no indication that any particular type of flying results in more casualties than any other.


George Hugh Castleden: On June 28 the Minister of Defence Production stated that we had started on a program of development of the supersonic plane and supersonic engine, and that we were just moving into the field of guided missiles. Have orders actually been placed by the Department of National Defence in either of these fields, or is this merely preliminary and experimental work?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I do not think I can say too much on this particular question. As far as guided missiles are concerned, we have placed a pre-production order in respect to one type. As far as the new plane is concerned, the CF-105, we are also placing a pre-production order. We are trying to keep abreast of the latest developments in the United States, Great Britain and other countries. My experience thus far has led me to realize that this is a most difficult field, and that for every successful project that is launched there are many failures.
Once you are committed to one particular phase it is difficult to detach yourself even if you find that you have made a mistake. I think it is better to be careful and try to

Supply-National Defence get the answer as far as you can before launching upon production, because these are extremely costly projects to develop.


George Hugh Castleden: I was asking whether orders had actually been placed for these planes or missiles, or are you just instructing them to proceed in the experimental field.


Ralph Osborne Campney: There is a pre-production order in respect to one type of missile, and one is being placed in regard to the CF-105.


George Hugh Castleden: What would be the earliest date for delivery in either of these fields, from the date of order? Would it be five years?


Ralph Osborne Campney: All I can say is that they are proceeding diligently and actively. I am very much averse to fixing dates in respect of matters which are in some ways unpredictable.


Mr. Noseworthy:: Mr. Chairman, one criticism I have heard from personnel in the areas is that the air force does not make use of the professional training which many of those men in the regular force possess. I am thinking of graduate engineers and other qualified technicians and specialists in various fields. The criticism I have heard is that too often these qualified specialists are used on very routine work in the force, while the kind of work for which they are educated and trained is given to outside commercial firms or to civilian specialists.
I note in the estimates, for instance, that there are about 15,000 civilian employees costing about $36 million in the air force. Among those there are about 500 engineers of various types listed here at close to $2 million. In addition there is at page 340 an item under "professional fees" and I assume the major part of that item is for engineering fees. That is an item of $3,600,000.
In other words there is itemized here well over $5 million to be spent on civilian engineering talent. What use is being made of graduate engineers who are members of the force? Is it true that the services of many of these men are used in very routine work, and that they just do not get any opportunity of tackling the really important engineering jobs, for instance, that have to be done in the air force?
The minister will note that I have discussed this question with him personally in relation to a few particular individuals. There is today, for instance, a firm employed by the department. Some of the specialists that firm sends out are former members of the force, while in the force there are professional members who are given very routine jobs.

Today the department is paying them, through that firm that employs them, many times what they were commanding in the air force.
My question is this. Is the force attempting to use to the largest possible extent the talent of university graduates, the specialists who are regular members of the force, instead of turning over most of the really important technical jobs to commercial firms?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am informed, first, that the air force does endeavour to utilize as fully as possible its own engineering staff and, second, that it sometimes finds it is unable to obtain sufficient engineers of certain specialist categories. So I would think that would be a check on the use of the people in the air force who have engineering training.
In regard to the vote for professional fees and the increase from $1,500,000 to $3,600,000 for architects, engineers and consultants, shown on page 340, I might point out that out of the amount, $2,600,000 is for professional services in connection with the mid-Canada line, so that on the ground of normal engineering the vote is somewhat less this year than it was last year.
There is a great need for engineers. We cannot begin to get all we want. There is no other alternative but to go outside the service. We are utilizing people with engineering training, or certainly endeavouring to do so, to the very best advantage of the service.


Joseph William Noseworthy: While I am on the same point, I notice the item under professional fees for medical and dental consultants and special services is for $2,213,000. I always understood that the air force had its own medical and dental officers and personnel. Just why is it necessary to go outside the force to spend nearly 2J million on medical and dental services?


Ralph Osborne Campney: A large part of the moneys we spend for medical and dental consultants and special services in that field is really reimbursement to the D.V.A., which conducts a good deal of our work. It also includes care of dependents in certain circumstances, in isolated areas where we have to look after the dependents of our personnel. The remainder of it is due, of course, to the steadily increasing size of the R.C.A.F. We do have our own medical service, but we do not have, generally speaking, a complete hospital service. We use the D.V.A. service where it is possible to avoid duplicating such services. We have some hospitals, but we do not engage in a large hospitalization scheme.


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Chairman, would the minister be kind enough to bring the committee up to date on the progress which is

being made in re-equipping the maritime squadrons with Neptune aircraft, and what the target date for complete conversion might be. I presume O.T.U.'s that support those squadrons will also be equipped with Neptunes.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The O.T.U.'s will have Neptunes this year, and I believe it is anticipated that all the Neptunes that have thus far been ordered will be delivered in November of this year.


William Findlay Maclean: That includes Neptunes for
O.T.U.'s that support the maritime squadrons?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes, the number ordered for them will be delivered this year.


William Findlay Maclean: I have a second question I should like to ask the minister. In the white paper a reference is made to the mobile striking force. It says:
The mobile striking force consists of army and air force components to deal with possible enemy lodgements on Canadian territory.
I am concerned with the progress which is being made in supplying suitable equipment to the air force component of the mobile striking force, whatever that component may be, so that troops could be transported and dropped in any vital area and, just as important, that they can be supplied by air, wherever this location may be. I wonder whether the minister could say a word as to what the plan or program is in that regard?


Ralph Osborne Campney: There are two squadrons. They are completely equipped now with C-119's for the purpose of transporting the mobile striking force. Was there another question that followed that one? I heard the horn member asking something but I did not hear it clearly.


William Findlay Maclean: The second section of my question was this. What special aircraft may be provided, if any, for supply purposes?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The C-119.


William Findlay Maclean: The C-119 is filling both functions. Yesterday, I think it was, we were discussing under the army estimates the disbandment of anti-aircraft units in the country. I wonder whether the minister would say a word about any plans that may be in existence with regard to replacing these units with some other formations to take over the function these anti-aircraft units formerly carried out? It seems to me that modern military thinking is to the effect that the air force should have control over all air defence, whether it consists of ground units firing ground to air rockets or whether it is done by aircraft themselves.
50433-385J
Supply-National Defence
In that connection, if the minister can do so would he indicate what plans there are for the experimental use of guided missiles and rockets at Cold Lake and whether the actual personnel who will be doing the testing of any missiles which may be developed will be air force personnel, army personnel or civilian personnel?


Ralph Osborne Campney: In answer to the first question, I can only say at the moment that the various alternative methods-to some of which the hon. member referred-are still under consideration, are being studied and will be studied for some time to come. With regard to Cold Lake, that is entirely air force; it is a guided missile range for air to air missiles at the present time.


William Findlay Maclean: The program at the present time is for air to air missiles, as I understand it.


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is right.


William Findlay Maclean: But I was under the impression-I may be wrong-that tests of ground to air missiles would be carried out at a future date; and I was wondering whether any plans are being made along that line.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I would not want to go any further on that particular question than I have said in the white paper on page 5, paragraph 12.


Mr. Dinsdale:: I should like to pursue the line of questioning being followed by the hon. member for York West just a moment ago. I also asked some questions along this same line last night. I refer to the preparations for home defence. When this question has been discussed in previous years the reply has been that our 10 auxiliary squadrons were the backbone of home defence. From the remarks of the minister I take it that now that policy has been reversed, that the auxiliary squadrons are being withdrawn from defensive responsibilities and that the nine active force squadrons are going to be placed in the front line of our air defence.
The minister also indicated tonight that the whole matter of the future of the auxiliary squadrons is still under consideration. From that I take it that perhaps it has not been decided to withdraw them from fighter-interceptor activities. I wonder whether bolstering these auxiliary squadrons with a heavier percentage of permanent force personnel might not help get around the difficulty of coping with modern, complex military aircraft?
Along the same line, may I say that I cannot quite understand how it is that we are reducing our expenditures-and I raised

Supply-National Defence this point last night-for the procurement of aircraft by $100 million. I cannot reconcile that reduction with the need for the equipping of several of the active fighter squadrons with the CF-100 type of aircraft. The inference I draw from that answer is that we have a surplus number of CF-lOO's already produced and waiting to be manned by aircrew personnel; and that in turn would suggest that there must be a shortage of adequately trained personnel to man these aircraft. I wonder what the true situation is. Is there a shortage of trained personnel to man the aircraft, or is there overproduction in the CF-100 type of aircraft?


Ralph Osborne Campney: To deal first with the spending last year and this year in respect of aircraft purchased, I think last year our estimates contained an item of $395 million. This year, as the hon. member has said, it is about $100 million less, or $293 million. The fact is that last year we spent $309 million of the estimate, so the difference this year is $16 million.
May I say that there is also another phase of the matter which I overlooked in replying to the hon. member for York West. There are quite substantial savings in costs of airplanes as the production schedule runs along. In other words the manufacturing companies learn by experience how to cut their costs. So that consideration enters into this figure as well.
To refer again to the question of aircrew, may I say that we are not short of aircrew. We are getting aircrew to the extent on which we have planned. We had done so up until the end of last year, and I think the situation is still being maintained.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In his reply, then, the minister suggests that there is no overproduction of CF-lOO's and that the present output of, I believe, seven aircraft a month will be sufficient to equip the remaining nine active force squadrons still not equipped with the CF-100?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose-and I am sure the hon. member will not expect me to do so-to discuss production figures. I am not going to enter into that matter at all. I should like to make this one other observation. I do not want to appear reluctant to answer the hon. member, but I am sure he will understand that I am not the Minister of Defence Production.
However, I do not want to give the impression which seems to have been gathered by the hon. member who has just spoken, that the auxiliary squadrons are not now equipped with any aircraft; or that it has been decided

that the auxiliary squadrons will not be equipped with CF-lOO's. There is no decision yet, but we hope to have one in the reasonably near future. We are making very intensive studies for the reasons I gave earlier in the evening.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I can appreciate the problems, but I think the matter of the suitable use of auxiliary squadrons has been under consideration for some time and the question arises just how long the decision can remain in abeyance.
However, leaving that for the moment I should like to refer again to the return on recruiting for aircrew that was referred to last night. The minister qualified the original return by indicating that the third category, those turned down for other reasons, amounting to 3,729, included 1,207 people who merely made an inquiry and also 1,393 who made a contact and voluntarily withdrew before being examined and enrolled.
That brings us to a figure of some 2,500 who were approaching the net. They had actually made the initial contact or had made inquiry, and I imagine they would be supplied with all the necessary information regarding enlistment for aircrew training. Half of the 2,500 went further than initial inquiry and, as the minister expressed it, made a contact.
There is not much difference between an inquiry and a contact, but it seems to me the fact that 2,500 young Canadians were sufficiently interested to make an initial approach concerning recruitment for aircrew training and then backed away would suggest that perhaps there was something wrong with the initial counselling, if I may use that phrase, that is given to these young men.
It would also seem to me that perhaps the initial information given regarding the aircrew training program must have a discouraging effect to a certain extent. Last night I raised the question of risk pay. I wonder whether the minister would comment as to any possible deterrent effect that pay levels or such factors as risk pay might have in discouraging these 2,500 young men to whom I have referred. Has he any explanation why, after the initial contact, such a large number did not go further with their intention?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I would only observe that we are dealing now with aircrew, not groundcrew, and we try to be very rigid in our qualifications. If there is any sign that a man will not make a successful pilot we think it is economical to dispense with his services as soon as that is realized. In the second place, those we keep in the service have to be of an extremely high standard.

I mentioned the question of aircrew a moment ago. We need about 900 new applicants to train each year. Last year we had 885, so we are fairly close to the mark.


Milton Neil Campbell: Can the minister give any indication when the Cold Lake project will be completed and whether, when it is completed, the public will be given ample notice when bombs are going to be dropped in that area?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The range is in operation now. I am informed that ample notice has been posted throughout the district and given in various other ways, and that it is well known that the range is in operation.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman, earlier in the evening there was some discussion about the rental of buildings for the Department of National Defence. I should like to have a clarification by the minister of the statement he made last night concerning a building ai i367 Howe street in Vancouver which apparently was rented-


Robert Henry Winters: What is the address?


Howard Charles Green: 1367 Howe street-for the use of the ground observer corps. This subject was raised by the hon. member for New Westminster. It has come into prominence within the last few days in Vancouver because the owners of the building have made a claim against the city for damages caused by the fact that a ramp leading to a new bridge over water known as False creek has depreciated the value of the property.
In the course of the proceedings to determine the amount of damage it came out that the Department of National Defence has rented this property for the sum of $750 a month, and that the value of the building today, as given by the valuators who appeared for the owners, is $57,256. That means, of course, that at a rental of $750 a month, which is $9,000 a year, the owners will recover the full value of their property in less than seven years.
In the course of the proceedings it was also sworn by the valuators who appeared for the owners that the rentals were too high. I have here a clipping from the Vancouver Sun of July 4, just last week, which reads in part as follows:
Testimony showed that the air force pays currently $750 a month rent for the concrete block building and its penthouse.
I do not know who uses the penthouse, but apparently there is a penthouse.
Two private assessors called by the claimants-
That is, called by the owners.
-thought this too high. Douglas W. Reeve-
Supply-National Defence
The minister will agree with me there is certainly no more experienced or trustworthy valuator in British Columbia than Mr. Reeve.
*-said he would have estimated $550 a month before the ramp was built-
That is $200 less than the government is paying.
-and $400 afterwards. Harold B. Itter also thought $750 "a little high".


Robert Henry Winters: What is the date of that
article?


Howard Charles Green: July 4, 1955. Apparently the feature about this which I think requires explanation is that these two owners are two leading Liberals, outstanding Liberal party officials.


Robert Henry Winters: Who are the owners?


Howard Charles Green: The owners are Mr. R. Rowe Holland and William Couper. Mr. Holland has been a candidate for the federal house. I do not know how these things happen, but this is not the first time there has been an occurrence of this kind in Vancouver. Not so many years ago the government made a deal with certain people who were prominent Liberals under which a building was constructed called the Alvin building. It is now occupied by the unemployment insurance commission. This building was rented for some years; then a deal was made with the government under which the people who built it got an extremely high rent. Finally the government bought it. In my opinion, and I am sure this is the general opinion in Vancouver, the government lost several hundred thousand dollars in that deal.
Then we have the case of other prominent Liberal party people who rent buildings for postal stations and that sort of thing. I have raised this in the house at more than one session. I am really amazed that now, in 1955, we have another deal of the same kind. I think between the two ministers some explanation should be given of why it is that prominent Liberals are able to rent these buildings to the government at exorbitant rentals. It just is not good enough. I do not know, but this may be another case like the Alvin building. It may be that there was a deal with these people that if they constructed the building the government would then rent it for a certain amount. I would hope the Minister of Public Works would look up his files and find out whether that was what was done.
I have here an editorial from the Vancouver Sun of July 7 which sets out the facts of the deal, and which closes with these paragraphs, which I think sum up the situation:
What is really most important here is a question of the propriety of friends of the party in power doing business with the government in this way.

Supply-National Defence
Even if they were not making too much out of the deal the owners of the building would have been wiser to seek private tenants. And the government would have been wiser to seek other accommodation.
The government would be wise now to permit the matter to be thoroughly aired. Its least duty is to justify that rent.


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member is still
speaking of this building on Howe street?


Howard Charles Green: Yes. Perhaps the Minister of National Defence could explain in what way this building is used. It is supposed to be for the ground observer corps, but within half a mile of the building at the other end of another bridge known as the Burrard street bridge there is an air force supply depot which I believe is just lying idle. Amongst the buildings in that depot it may be there is one that could have been used for this purpose. Then again, there is the British Columbia area command in the city of Vancouver, and I would have thought the ground observer corps could have been found accommodation in one of the buildings at that headquarters.
I should like to find out just how these transactions were handled. Somebody must decide that there has to be a building, and I presume the Department of National Defence makes that decision. Then it goes to the Department of Public Works and the Department of Public Works gets the building. But somewhere in these transactions there is a loophole through which Liberal party supporters are getting, which enables them to make contracts of great advantage to themselves and to the detriment of the country.


Robert Henry Winters: That is not true.


Howard Charles Green: Here are the actual facts. The valuators who appeared for these men, not the valuators for the city-


Robert Henry Winters: On a point of privilege, I do not think it is either fair or true to say that deals are made which are of value to Liberals and a detriment to the country. I do not think the hon. member intended to say that.


Howard Charles Green: If these deals are unwise-


Robert Henry Winters: We must examine the facts before we come to a conclusion.


Howard Charles Green: -and if they are of great value to the people who enter into them, if the owners are getting excessive rents, then it is a detriment to the country.


Robert Henry Winters: We ought to examine the facts before we come to that conclusion.


Howard Charles Green: Somebody did not examine the facts before this deal was made.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think the hon. member is going too far.


Howard Charles Green: I have the floor.


Ralph Osborne Campney: On a question of privilege, the hon. member is beginning to cast a lot of slurs. I have no particular recollection of this matter. I think it was two or three years ago when it was first initiated. In the first place, simply because people may be Liberals, I do not think they should be precluded from renting property to the government. In the second place, I think the hon. member ought to look and see whether these gentlemen are Liberals.
So far as I am concerned, and I am sure so far as my colleague is concerned, there was no such collusion or build-up or attempt to extract any money from the public treasury for anybody. I will have to look at this file to learn the facts in this particular case because I get a great many of these applications from our department. Where space is wanted in an area, for a certain purpose, or with certain facilities, I write the Minister of Public Works, after the matter has been thoroughly checked departmentally. The request is for so much space, and I ask the minister to provide it. I have no recollection of what happened in this particular case. I have not looked at the file. I agree with my colleague, however, that before we start throwing things around we had better know what the facts are.


Howard Charles Green: There is no question about Mr. Holland being a Liberal. He either is now or has been an officer in the Vancouver centre Liberal association. He certainly is one of the leading Liberals in British Columbia and makes no apologies for it. I am not criticizing him for that at all. But this lease at $750 a month, according to the evidence given in the proceedings with the city, was made on March 1, 1954, just a little over a year ago. Apparently construction of the building was only started in February of 1952, and from May 12, 1952, until May 31, 1953, the air force rented part of it for $400 a month. The rent for the penthouse, starting May 14, 1952, was $66.66 per month. Then, as I say, the reports indicate that on March 1, 1954, the air force took over the whole building at a rental of $750 per month.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the committee should have an explanation of just what went on in connection with this deal. If the facts are as indicated at the hearing in Vancouver, then I would hope the Department of Public Works would bring about a reduction in the rent to what the valuators for the owners of the building swore was a proper rent. I do not know the terms of this lease, but surely

there should be some way to remedy a situation of this kind. I would ask assurance from the minister that this transaction will be looked into right away, and that something will be done about it.


Robert Henry Winters: I shall certainly be glad to do that, and have any scrutiny the hon. member cares to make of any rental the Department of Public Works has made on behalf of the Department of National Defence or anybody else.
I might say that question No. 25 on today's order paper, in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster, seeks information for which the hon. member is now asking. These questions will all be answered as quickly as possible, and I shall be prepared to deal with any of the answers or with any other questions when my estimates are under consideration.


Mr. Hansell:: I did not get the significance of the question asked by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, nor did I get clearly the significance of the answer given. However, I am raising a question which I believe is pertinent to the discussion and which has to do with air force personnel recruited into that force for the five-year course. I am wondering how many of them receive permanent commissions. Would the minister tell us, with as much accuracy as possible, the number recruited each year for these purposes and the number who remain in the air force after the five years has expired?
I fancy there is a considerable number of young air force personnel who, after taking the course, find themselves without permanent commissions, and are let out by the air force at an age when it is difficult for them to readjust to civilian life. I have in mind an example, which I fancy is common, of a young man who joined the air force during the war at the age of perhaps 19 or 20. He may have had excellent service during the war and may have received a commission as pilot, as flight lieutenant or some other rank. After the war he was demobilized. Then perhaps after a couple of years he was urged to re-enlist and was given a commission on enlistment. After taking the five-year course he may have reached the age of 30 or 32, and if he does not meet the required standards he is let out. Young men of this kind have no other profession. Some of them may have enlisted from high school. They find themselves in civilian life with only the training they have received in the air force.
I am not making these remarks in any spirit of criticism, because I realize that if air force personnel are to be retained with officer ranking they have to be of a high
Supply-National Defence standard. However, it does seem to me that after having received a commission and gone through a course, even though a person may not have met the standard and had to be let out he should be able to remain in the air force and be of considerable service. I find it hard to understand how a young man could receive a commission during the war and then, after taking a course, be let out as being of no further use to the air force.
Surely there is something they could do. My plea is on behalf of these young men who are thrown into civilian life but with no civilian experience. Even though they are still comparatively young, perhaps 10 years or more of their lives have been spent in the air force. Surely some arrangement could be made to retain them. Would the minister enlighten the house on the point? If he does not have the figures he could take what I have said as notice and reply later. Perhaps he would tell us how many have been taken in for that purpose during the past number of years, and what percentage are retained after the five years have elapsed.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The permanent officers of the Royal Canadian Air Force, those who secure commissions on enrolment, are university graduates who have taken an officers' training course. In addition to those permanent officers we have what are known as short-service commission officers. Under this plan a man who is not necessarily a university graduate is accepted for a term of five years. It is a contract for five years, as he and as the air force know at the time, and there may seem to be some disadvantage if he fails to get a permanent commission within the term of his short-service commission. However, that is the contract.
While he is serving his short-service commission, each year he is assessed for a possible transfer to a permanent commission on a competitive basis. At the present time about 60 per cent of short-service commission officers are made permanent. In other words about 60 out of every 100 make the grade. As of February of this year we had on strength 3,322 short-service commission officers.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Pursuing the question raised by the hon. member for Macleod, could the minister indicate the number of aircrew recruits drawn from the air cadet movement and from university squadrons, as well as from graduates of the subsidized flying training program operated by flying clubs across Canada? Of the number of recruits offering themselves for aircrew training, I wonder what percentage of the total membership of those groups this number represents. Is that information available?

Supply-National Defence


Ralph Osborne Campney: I have part of the answer. In 1954 approximately 1,000 air cadets enlisted in the R.C.A.F. regular and reserve. I do not think I have the other figure at this moment.	[DOT]


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Those figures could be
obtained?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I shall get them for the hon. member.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: For the university squadrons and the subsidized flying training program.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am informed that the flying clubs' supplementary training is not for pilots, it is for ex-pilots, for those who have already qualified. Therefore I do not suppose the figure would be of any particular interest.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I think the minister has misunderstood my question with reference to the subsidized flying training program. Under this program training provided up to the private pilot's licence level; a certain percentage of the cost of such flying training is repaid when the private licence is obtained, and I believe there is a further repayment if the trainee joins the air force. I am wondering if there is much intake from that particular program?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I shall be glad to get those figures.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: There is another matter I should like to deal with concerning the employment of civilians at air force stations. The last sentence in paragraph 106 on page 8 of the white paper reads:
Hence, more effective use of service personnel is facilitated by the employment of civilians in roles for which military training or a military background are not essential.
Would a stationary engineer's job be allocated to a member of the air force or to civilian personnel?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Generally speaking they are civilians, but there are some places where it is desirable to have service personnel and the air force supplies them. With reference to the university reserve training plan, I can say that since 1952, 549 officer candidates have been qualified, of whom 107 joined the regular force, 105 the reserve force and 337 the supplementary reserve. Last year there were 16 commissions granted in the R.C.A.F. regular from the university reserve training plan.


Mr. Charlton:: I should like to direct the attention of the minister to a matter which was first brought to his attention in a letter dated June 29, 1953. This has to do with a road into No. 6 repair depot at Dunnville, Ontario, which is a mile and nine-tenths


long. Because of the heavy truck traffic into the repair depot the township has been put to considerable expense for many years in keeping this road in repair.
This letter was written to the department by the clerk of the township on June 29, 1953, pointing out that over the preceding eight years the expense of maintaining this road had been some $16,000 and indicating that during 1954 it would be necessary for them to spend an estimated $6,200 to bring this road back to a reasonable condition. They were pleading with the government for a grant to help them under the circumstances.
This is merely a township road, and if it were not for No. 6 repair depot and this heavy truck traffic over the road the cost to the township of maintaining the road would not be great. The township did not hear anything from the department for a considerable length of time, although a representative of the department visited the officials of the township and offered them what I consider to be the paltry sum of $1,500 as a grant toward the upkeep of the road. This was in relation to an expenditure of well over $22,000. From that point until the present time the matter has been receiving the attention of the department.
I think I have been more than fair, due to the fact that I have not had an answer. No decision has been arrived at over a two-year period, and I think the department should be able to come up with some kind of an answer, either saying they are not going to give them anything or they are going to grant a reasonable amount for the upkeep of this road. The last letter I wrote to the minister was dated April 21 of this year. Previous to that I had written on January 18 and had a reply. As of today I have had no reply, though I have had several telephone conversations with the departmental officials. Surely it does not take this long to make a decision of this kind.
For sometime the story was going around Dunnville that this repair depot was going to be turned over to war assets and disposed of, but later we found out that was not true. We understand from correspondence that it is not going to be turned over to war assets but will be maintained by the air force. If that is the case surely it should not require this length of time to arrive at a decision on this matter.


Ralph Osborne Campney: We have a considerable number of cases such as the hon. member has mentioned and I am almost coming to the conclusion that we are looked upon as fair game by any municipality having a road leading to some installation of ours. Since I became minister I have been endeavouring to

deal with matters of this kind as rapidly as I can, and therefore I am somewhat familiar with the matter to which the hon. member has referred.
One of our officials who regularly looks into cases of this kind expects to go to Dunnville during the first week of August to look over the situation and he will advise me as to what he thinks ought to be done.
I must say in fairness to myself and my officials that it is most difficult to determine a proper solution of these cases. I am not referring to the case cited by the hon. member, but in many cases we have found that the particulars have to be verified and very often they turn out to be different from those originally alleged. It is public money that we spend, and when we do spend it I want to be reasonably satisfied that it is being properly spent. I have no desire to delay giving an answer to the hon. member and I think in the next short while we shall be able to do that.


John Charlton: I do not think the minister is quite fair when he says the department is considered fair game.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I can tell from where I sit. I was not speaking about the hon. member's case, but speaking generally.


John Charlton: I think they have been more than patient in this particular case. It has been necessary for them to spend a considerable amount of money for the upkeep of this road, almost purely because of this repair depot.


The Deputy Chairman:: Does that complete Royal Canadian Air Force-regular and general?


Mr. Churchill:: I have just one final question on the air force, to round out the picture of the defence of Canada. Could the minister inform us how many United States servicemen are now serving on Canadian territory in connection with the radar warning lines and air stations and on other duties?


Ralph Osborne Campney: It is my understanding that these figures have never been given out officially, and I do not think it is desirable that I should do so.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, the minister announced figures of Canadian personnel serving overseas, and we frequently see in the press information concerning United States servicemen serving abroad. Is it not reasonable to ask for information about 50433-386
Supply-National Defence United States servicemen serving here in Canada? As the minister points out in the white paper:
The working partnership between Canada and the United States for joint defence has for some time been closely concerned with defence against air attack.
He goes on to say later:
By agreement certain of these installations are at present manned by U.S. personnel.
We cannot get the full picture of the defence of this country unless we know the amount of assistance we are getting from other sources.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, I prefer not to give the figures. I think it has always been understood that these figures have not been given out. I certainly would not want to give out any of these figures without reference to the United States.


John Horne Blackmore: May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: What is the wish of the committee?


An hon. Member:: Let us finish.


George Hugh Castleden: Ten o'clock. Mr. Chairman, we passed a motion today that this house would continue sitting on Saturday. I suggest that we might now call it ten o'clock.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I have understood throughout the day that it was the desire of everyone to complete these estimates tonight. It is true that we are going to sit on Saturday, but I have been following the last hour rather closely and it seems to me that the only two persons who rose at ten o'clock, when the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre concluded, were the hon. member for Yorkton and the hon. member for Lethbridge, and I think they both rose only to remark about it being ten o'clock.


John Horne Blackmore: Unfortunately, no.


George Hugh Castleden: I believe there are more members in the house who are opposed to continuing, and I would ask that the question be put.


Walter Edward Harris: I am not aware of the sentiment as to ten o'clock, but I think the questioning is probably over. If I am wrong in that respect someone can say so, but I was under the impression that the air force was almost completed. If it is, then I suggest we should try to complete it.


John Borden Hamilton: Five or 10 minutes would complete it.

Supply-National Defence


John Horne Blackmore: It would take a considerable length of time to discuss the matter I want to raise. I think it would be wise to call it ten o'clock.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Go ahead.


An hon. Member:: No; ten o'clock.


Walter Edward Harris: If we can take at the most another 15 minutes and see what progress we can make, we might complete the item by then.


John Horne Blackmore: I am in the hands of the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is it the general view of the committee that an effort should be made to finish this tonight? I am the servant of the committee, not its instructor. I would suggest that the hon. member for Lethbridge proceed. Unanimous consent, as I understand it, having been given cannot be withdrawn. I would suggest that it be understood that if we are still here at 10.30, I shall again hear the question as to whether we should continue.


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to point out that I do not think unanimous consent has been given. I believe the hon. member for Lethbridge has at least a 30-minute talk to give on that item.


An hon. Member:: Let us see.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, I feel very much as the other members do. It is useless to try to set a pace that will destroy our health. We are sitting from eleven in the morning to ten at night, and that is a long time for people who stay in the house all day long and attend to the business. I think the sensible thing to do is stop at ten o'clock and go on with it tomorrow. We are not going to be finished tonight with the subject we are discussing now.


Walter Edward Harris: May I ask the hon. member for Lethbridge whether his remarks are directed to the air force or some other subject?


John Horne Blackmore: They have to do with the air force publications that are issued to the troops.


Walter Edward Harris: Perhaps if you made your remarks now and they had to be answered, we could answer them tomorrow.


John Horne Blackmore: That is all right.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Chairman, I understand the hon. member will take at least half an hour. I feel there will be some more comments after that, too, that will take us beyond 10.30. If there were any chance of


finishing up I would say do so by all means, but we cannot do that unless we want to go to eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.


An hon. Member:: There is not unanimous consent.


Walter Edward Harris: Let us see what we can do anyway.


John Horne Blackmore: The matter I wish to discuss, Mr. Chairman, is the matter which I raised on the 17th of June. It has to do with morale in our forces. I raised several matters on that date and indicated that I did not feel that a sufficient amount of care was taken as to the kind of people we brought into contact with our boys in the forces.
I think we have to be extremely careful about this matter in times as dangerous as these. I should like to read the remarks of Mr. Claxton, the minister who preceded the present minister, as they appear in the introduction to volume I, No. 3, the 15th November, 1951, issue of Current Affairs. It is to be borne in mind that this periodical, Current Affairs, comes out twice a month, if I am informed correctly, and goes to all men and women in our services. The result is that whatever is in these pamphlets very likely has a considerable influence on the boys and girls in the forces. Here are the words of Mr. Claxton:
Men and women serve best when they serve from conviction-
May I mark the word "conviction".
-when they know what they stand for and believe in what they know. Particularly they should know as much as possible about Canada and the countries and peoples joined with us in the great effort to prevent a large-scale war.
Further down I read:
The bureau of Current Affairs will carry out its work by the production of pamphlets dealing with current affairs of national and international concern, Canadian citizenship and topics of a general nature.
Further down I quote the closing paragraph:
It is a primary responsibility of commanding officers to make every possible use of this information program and to make available all the facilities required to ensure its success. Its success can be a real factor in the efficiency of our armed services.
Those are important words. They have an important meaning. One can see the amount of responsibility they place on the officers in the forces. Consequently if a copy of Current Affairs such as some of these that I think we shall bring to the attention of the committee goes into a unit and the officers do their duty as it is placed upon them by these words, then there will be a definite undesirable influence created on the boys and girls who are under their charge.

I should like to draw to the attention of the committee that we are in a cold war and surely this does not need to be repeated- and that a cold war is a war for men's minds. The side in this struggle that is going to win is the side that is going to win the other people's minds. Let us bear that fact in mind. The enemies we are fighting do not particularly care whether they attain their objective this year, five years from now, 10 years from now or 20 years from now, so long as they attain it. They have been working on this thing for hundreds of years now, and a few more years will not make any difference so long as they can keep on winning. I do not think there is anyone in this chamber who will express doubt that they are winning. They have been winning for 20 years and we are just sitting ducks for them to practise on.
Some of the things that have been done to the thinking of the Canadian people and the United States people strike me with absolute horror and amazement. I would not have believed that such an effect could have been produced on our people as that which has been produced by the clever devices used in this cold war.
So we are being attacked with the weapons of a cold war, a war for men's minds. Our enemies are seeking to establish in the minds of our people certain false conceptions, impressions and attitudes. Each of these conceptions, impressions and attitudes is a weapon against us. If it finds its mark, it produces its effect; and they are finding their mark. Most of us do not seem to act as though we realized that.
Yesterday or the day before yesterday we had an example here that amazed me, when the Leader of the Opposition rose and raised the matter of headlines which appeared- and which were carefully designed, I would imagine, two or three years ago

concerning the terrible danger of atomic bombs and the like, and people were called on either to avoid war or be exterminated. The matter was raised here and you would have thought the house had been struck by a tornado from the effect that was produced.
Then up to his feet got the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, and continued the general impression. The house just looked almost stupefied because of the effect of that clever move on the part of our enemies. It was designed just to produce a softening effect on us; to make us ready to give up almost anything rather than get into a war; to make us go to the big conference and be all ready to say to them, "Now, what do you want? Just tell us and we will pass it over to you".
50433-386}
Supply-National Defence
That is just about the attitude that was manifested by a great number of members in the house, as far as I could judge, and by a great many people across the country. Mr. Chairman, we cannot go on having these things happen for too long without being destroyed. That gives the general idea I wish to develop. Anyone writing or speaking in such a manner as will lead to establishing any of these conceptions, impressions or attitudes, through weakening us and strengthening our enemies, is following the communist line.
There is a good deal of question as to what constitutes the communist line. May I say that the communist line is anything that is getting people into the idea that they will give the communists what the communists want. That is the communist line. If it appears in a newspaper editorial it is a communist newspaper editorial, in effect, no matter what kind of man writes it or what paper contains it; and if it appears in one of these books it is the communist line just the same.
What are some of the things that communists want to establish in our minds, and certainly in the more or less tender minds of our servicemen? Here are a few of them. They wish to establish that the bolshevik ascendancy in Russia was a revolution. It was not a revolution; it was a conquest. The men who in 1917 went into Russia and beat down the Russian government came from the United States and Switzerland in armoured trains, after they got to Germany. Those who do not know that just do not know anything at all of what they are talking about in respect of Russian communism. The objective of these people is to establish in our minds that it was a widespread revolution in Russia that produced the bolshevik regime in Russia.
That is not true. If we have going into the hands of our youth a document in which that idea is inculcated or, to use a common expression, is "put over", then that document is not a desirable document to go into the hands of our armed services. I am preparing the groundwork so we can judge some of these Current Affairs pamphlets that have been going into the hands of our boys and girls.
The second thing communists wish to establish is that the bolsheviks were genuine Russians. They were not Russians. The men who established the communist conspiracy in Russia were not Russians. They were aliens, and they came from outside Russia, one body of them from New York city and one from Switzerland. Those who are well informed
6100	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence on these matters know that. It makes all the difference in the world to the way in which we look at that government over there in Russia whether or not we know the facts concerning this single matter.
The third thing they wish to establish is that communism is a way of life rather than a conspiracy. If people think it is a way of life they will say, "The time will come when these people, these Russians and Chinese, will have enough territory and they will be satisfied. Let us give in to them just a little bit more". But if they know that the people who established themselves in Russia were a body of alien men, both in Russia and in the United States, they will know that these people will never stop until they bring the whole world under their feet. Consequently to establish in the minds of our boys and girls the idea that they are Russians that are in charge of Russia and China is to put them in a wrong frame of mind altogether and to weaken their morale, to cause them to come home and produce false impressions at home, and cause them to write home and do that.
Another idea they wish to establish is that Chinese communism was a Chinese revolution. Nothing could be further from the fact. I established that in my speeches in this house on April 21 and May 5, beyond peradventure of a doubt. It was not a Chinese revolution. It was a Russian conquest of China. The men in charge of China today are the agents of Russia and were put there by Russian force and Russian armaments and assistance. Anyone who indicates in any one of these pamphlets anything to the contrary probably does not know any better; but to entrust men like that with the responsibility and the privilege of writing one of these pamphlets is certainly a dereliction of duty on the part of those in charge.
Another thing they wish to establish is that communism liberates people. They are always talking about how they liberated this country, that country and the other one. They talk about how they liberated China, and all the rest of them. You have never seen a country on the face of this earth that was liberated by communism. They have been enslaved, every single one of them. They might have established governments, but they are under the ultimate domination of Russia. Even China is. There is another communist line.
Here is another one, that communist states need friendly neighbours for protection. Maybe they do, but what about ourselves? Do we not need some friendly neighbours? Does Britain not need some friendly neighbours?
[Mr. Blackmore.l

Has not the glorious record of Britain over the last 1,500 years justified her in having friendly neighbours? Why should an arrogant Mongolian outfit in Russia undertake to tell Britain she has to have on her borders states that are friendly to Russia until Russia gets us completely surrounded, until she can destroy us? That is the situation. That is exactly what they are trying to do now. This big four conference at the summit is designed to soften us up and get one or two more friendly neighbours for Russia. The arrangement with Austria was with the object of getting a friendly nation. Surely all of it has been to get friendly nations, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and all the rest.
That is another communist line. Every other nation needs friendly nations and neighbours too. Who thought up the idea that it is the communists especially who need friendly neighbours, that the poor dear Chinese cannot be safe unless they have a friendly Formosa alongside them; and then Indo-China, Malaya, the Philippines, Japan, until they finally get to Vancouver and establish a hold on the mainland in order to have friendly neighbours? That is an astonishing thing. You would not think that would be imposed on anybody who was not asleep, but it is imposed on our people. Anyone who conveys that idea in an article is following the communist line.
Another communist line is that red China ought to be recognized. We are not going to enter into a discussion of the matter, but in my judgment the reds in China have never done a thing under the sun to justify being recognized except being ugly, monstrous conquerors in the crudest possible way, dispossessing people of their freedom. They have enslaved 450 million people in China and subjected them to the most outrageous tyranny they have ever had.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On a point of order, the discussion at the present time is one on foreign affairs. I submit it has no relation to the air force, which is the subject for consideration at the moment and therefore it should either stop or the speaker should get back to the air force.


John Horne Blackmore: May I express my point of view? I am talking about what goes into these pamphlets that get into the hands of our boys and girls. If foreign affairs are discussed in these pamphlets that get into their hands with a slant that stresses the communist line, is that not something that has to do with the air force and the other military services of Canada? How could you have anything more directly pertinent to this matter? That is why we are discussing it.

I am referring to foreign affairs in order to establish the truth of what I am saying.
The general idea that red China ought to be recognized is a communist line pure and simple. The next one is that red China ought to be admitted to the United Nations. The same thing is true. She has never done a thing in the world to justify being admitted to the United Nations.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: Now we come to the next one, that red China should be given Formosa. She has never established any right to Formosa.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: On a point of order, I think the point of the hon. member for Calgary North is well taken. I have followed with a great deal of interest what has been said, and it appears to me that when we come to external affairs would be the time to discuss these questions. If they do appear in Current Affairs I think the hon. member for Lethbridge should be documenting his speech as he goes along. It appears to me so far that he should be making this speech on external affairs.


John Horne Blackmore: I can understand why this man interferes.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: I asked you to call it ten o'clock.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Let me make it clear immediately that any member of the house has the right to raise a point of order as a point of order without any imputation of motives being justified. Let me say also that when the hon. member for Lethbridge began his remarks he was entirely in order. There is a large item of expenditure in the main item we are discussing dealing with the publication of material. The hon. member for Lethbridge stated he was criticizing, as he has a right to do, the material being supplied to the armed forces by the Department of National Defence. In that argument he was justified and was within the rules of the house.
The last two statements referred to by the hon. member which he wished to dispute were that Formosa should be given to red China and that red China should be admitted to the United Nations. Whether these statements were or were not made in the material printed and circulated by the Department of National Defence is very pertinent to the point of order. I do not know whether they were. Either the hon. member for Lethbridge or the Minister of National Defence can undoubtedly advise us. But if these
Supply-National Defence statements or arguments were not made in material published by the Department of National Defence, then this is not the time or place to meet them.
I cannot rule the hon. member out of order for discussing and claiming false or inadvisable any statements appearing in material published by the Department of National Defence. But the hon. member cannot go further than that on this item and extend it to include arguments or statements made by other people in other connections, even though they may lead to the same conclusion in the long run.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, your position is exactly the position I have taken. I am prepared to give documentation from the various issues of Current Affairs. We have a volume of it right here on the desk of the hon. member for Peace River. I could document everything I have said thus far and show you examples of cases where this thing has been done.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Recognition of communist China?


John Horne Blackmore: Suppose you let me finish what I have to say? Would that not be the sensible thing?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: On a point of order, the hon. member referred to the recognition of communist China. I think before he accuses the Minister of National Defence with respect to a statement of that kind being found in any publication he should read the reference in Current Affairs. I have been following the issues of Current Affairs very carefully each month, and I have never seen any reference of that sort.


John Horne Blackmore: It is impossible to blame the present Minister of National Defence, because the ones we are dealing with go back to 1951 and 1952; but what was done at that time is likely being done today. All hon. members know how busy members of the house are and how rarely they are going to have the opportunity of reading the Current Affairs pamphlets. I have given some attention to the issues in this volume, and I can document everything I have said. Otherwise I would not be mentioning it. All I am trying to do is to lay down what constitutes a communist line, and certainly what I am doing is perfectly in order. The very things I am listing are the things the communists want to make the whole world believe.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but I must point out to him that in this particular discussion it is not open to him to lay down what is or is not the communist line. It is
6102	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence only open to him to deal with what is or is not published by the Department of National Defence for the use of the personnel of the air force and the other services, and criticize that.


John Horne Blackmore: It just depends on whether we start with the hen or the egg, Mr. Chairman. In my judgment it is a lot better to lay down what constitutes a commu; ->st line. Then a person can take a given issue of Current Affairs and say that on page such and such, paragraph 3, you will see that this document advocates so and so. It is, therefore, teaching the communist line. If a person does not do that, then he has to take the issues of Current Affairs-I can do that, because I have them right here-read a paragraph and say, "Now, there is a paragraph which follows the communist line and should never be put in the hands of our forces. It is bad enough to let that go into the hands of university professors."
I believe the method I am following is a sound one. I shall endeavour to be just as expeditious as possible in getting to another aspect of the question. I think, Mr. Chairman, this matter I am discussing here is so important that if our defence department continues to indoctrinate-not intentionally, because it is carefully said at the bottom of every one of these articles that the views expressed in this article are not necessarily the views of the Department of National Defence. Yes, it says that every time. But to turn over a cleverly written article-


Ernest George Hansell: That is the escape clause.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes; but to turn over an article cleverly written by a man of considerable eminence as a newspaper editor or in some other field, and leave him to do the dirty work on the boys and girls in the forces while the Department of National Defence stands by and says, "We cannot help it at all; that is his personal opinion", is unthinkable. The Department of National Defence has the responsibility for putting men like that in a place where they can write the articles. Consequently, if we allow this kind of thing to go on we defeat the very purpose for which we are keeping up a national defence effort. If in the long run, 15 or 20 years from now, we are going to have our men in Canada and the United States so developed that they will go over to Russia and China, all our striving, all the effort we are putting forth will be to no avail.
As I said before, if we intend to give up to these Mongolian people why bother about it? Let us tell them to come. If some of us have to be killed, let us be killed. If others have to go to slave labour camps, let them [The Deputy Chairman.]

go. Let the rest be under Russian Mongolian domination; that is the logical conclusion. But let us not go about it in the contemptible way we are doing now, adopting a method which will result ultimately in the communist victory just as surely as we live.
What we are talking about is not just small potatoes, to use a common expression. It is life and death to the great culture for which we stand, for our people, the Englishspeaking people, the Christian people, the people of whose blood and flesh we are. Now, if that is not what we are fighting for, what are we fighting for?
The contention that Chiang Kai-shek is corrupt; the contention that Chiang was driven from China by a Chinese revolution; that Chiang has no legitimate claim to Formosa, all these assertions concerning Chiang are false. They are following the communist line. The idea that it is possible to have a peaceful coexistence, that that could be likely or even possible, is the current communist line. All we have to know is that the men who are in charge of Russia are alien to Russia and certainly alien to us, that they are aiming at world dictatorship, so that all the peoples of the world, including the unhappy Russians and Chinese, will be under the iron dictatorship of one of the wickedest groups of men that ever walked the face of the earth. All we have to know is just that, to enable us to recognize the falsehoods in this communist pretence.
Another communist line is an attempt to scare us. This attempt to scare us with this thing that was brought up in the house the other day, those big headlines about the dangers from the bombs-that was a communist line. It was an attempt to scare us and soften us up for the summit conference within the next few days. Surely there were not very many members of the house who could not see through that. If we could not see through that we need to get a pair of glasses; that is obvious. They even brought up men like Einstein, who has been dead for some time, to tell us about it.
Even suppose nuclear warfare does mean destruction, it means destruction for the communists too. Why, the first tribe that discovered the use of the bow and arrow could have conquered the world if men were not courageous enough to fight them with their bare hands. That is what our fathers did, until they learned the use of bows and arrows. We are facing the same problem. We are in a crisis, but we shall never win through the crisis if we allow ourselves to be scared out of the things our fathers have won for us through 1,500 or 2,000 years of struggle.
Another communist line is to cause confusion. Now, you know these people laid

down the idea of causing confusion a long time ago. They said they would confuse people at the appropriate time until they could not distinguish the truth. There would be confusion everywhere. Judge the confusion that exists today, deliberately introduced and induced.
I have just one more thing to mention, and then I shall go on to another aspect of this matter. One kind of communist line consists of anything tending to make us lose faith in our history. Let us remember that 40 years ago when our boys went out and fought world war I-many of the men here were among the noble heroes who fought that war

what attitude did they have? Why, the greatest things in the world were the British Empire, the British king or queen, the union jack, the crown, the throne, the Anglo-Saxon race, our freedom, our free institutions, our parliamentary institutions; those were the things for which they fought. Ask any of them, those men who have the circular disk on their lapels. Why did they go to fight? That is why they went to fight.
Do you suppose that motivation would not make men fight today? If our enemies can destroy that motivation they will have in large measure destroyed the motivation of the boys and girls who stay in the army and fight. If all those things can be destroyed they will have weakened us inside, just like a whole lot of worms inside a vegetable or an organ. Anything, then, that tends to destroy faith is a communist line, faith in God, in Christ, the Bible, the British commonwealth, the British crown, the British queen, the union jack, democracy, parliamentary government, or private enterprise as a means of production; for it tends to destroy our faith in our history, our way of life, because the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and all these nations who are going to bear the brunt of the future struggle, who have built our glorious civilization today, are capitalist nations and all of them are Christian nations.
Having said that I think it will not be difficult for me to show that many of these pamphlets have been indoctrinating along communist lines in respect of two, three or four of these items. I am sorry to have to spend so much time on this subject, Mr. Chairman, but the knowledge that has come to me has led me to believe this is the most important thing for British people all over the world to know right now. If they do not know it their freedoms and everything else will be sneaked away from them under the table before they know what has happened.
Supply-National Defence
Having talked about the things we do not want, I should like to say a word or two about the things we do want. Should we determine these, then we will be able to judge these Current Affairs pamphlets. I ask the question, does any particular one of these booklets teach any of the things we want taught? Most of them I have read do not teach a single one of those things that are important for our youth to know. Following Brooke Claxton's statement as to what would make them courageous and fight well, they need to know those things about their own people that make them proud to be members of their nation.
Let us see what this struggle is in which we are engaged now. Our troops are being trained to fight in a struggle between Christianity and anti-Christianity. We might as well face up to that; it is Christianity against anti-Christianity.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is just the warm-up.


John Horne Blackmore: This is no subject to deal with in a spirit of levity. If you can prove that is not so, all right; do so. But, so far as I am concerned, I propose to fight on the side of Christ. I do not think there is a man or woman in the house who will not say "That is what I stand for," particularly in this fight of Christianity against anti-Christianity.
See if you can find that kind of talk in China or Russia among the ruling class. No, you can not. This is a struggle between God and atheism. Communist people flaunt atheism. Do you think you will find belief in God in these Current Affairs pamphlets? Would you find anything about belief in Christ there? Not a word in so far as I have read.
This is a struggle between democracy and totalitarianism; we all agree on that.
It is a struggle between the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic nations and their friends; and we have a few friends, thank God. We have western Germany now and a few others, in spite of all our blunders. But it is the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic nations and their friends against the ethnic grouping conspiracy that rules Russia and all communist countries. And they are just exactly the opposite to the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic nations. If there is anything they want to destroy from the face of the earth it is the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples, above all other peoples.
It is a struggle between peoples believing in private enterprise and freedom, and peoples believing in public or socially-owned enterprise. It is a struggle between the British commonwealth and empire and their friends, as I say, and the rest of the world.
6104	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence I think every member in the house will agree with me that 40 years ago, before we had been vitiated by all this propaganda, the British commonwealth and empire was in our minds the greatest guarantor of freedom and peace and security on earth; and it is today. Whether we recognize it or not, it is today. Do you think you will find that in these documents? No, not a word.
The British crown is divinely ordained. The British coat of arms has divine biblical significance. What is the meaning of the lion and the unicorn? Are they just there by accident? It does have real spiritual significance. What is the meaning of the red in the flag? It indicates the covenant people. Who are the covenant people? There will be plenty who do not know, and I suggest to them it would be most entertaining for them to find out. But whether or not we are the covenant people, the British flag has deep spiritual significance. It consists of three Christian crosses, the three Christian crosses that go forth to struggle against the hammer and the sickle. It does not take long to tell on which side Christianity is, does it; or spirituality, or all the priceless things that make men great, and have made them great in the past.
The Bible is true. Many do not believe the Bible is true. The number who disbelieve the Bible is increasing, I am afraid. Nevertheless the Bible is true. Do you think you will find any evidence in any of these pamphlets that the Bible is true? No, not a word. Evolution as the result of mere blind chance is utterly preposterous. Do you think you will find any indication in these to show that, although the world is full of evidence which fairly screams against the very thought of evolution being the origin of man.
Now, the wonders of British history. Do you find any reference here to the remarkable deliveries that have been made for us, as in the case of the Spanish armada, Dunkirk, the time the breeze turned back the poison gas the Germans liberated against our men in 1917; the battle of El Alamein, when Providence just fairly thrust forth a saving hand.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Would the hon. member permit me to ask a question?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did he not read in the pamphlets a most excellent account of the history of Newfoundland?


Douglas Scott Harkness: What has that to do with the air force?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As much as the rest of what the hon. member has been saying.


John Horne Blackmore: I am glad the hon. member raised that question. This whole discussion is brought on to give the minister a chance to tell us where the pamphlets are supporting these things, whether there are any, and to what extent they are disseminated. I will show you one you can readily see from your seats. We have one here in this document entitled "Leninism and Stalinism"; I do not know whether I can turn to it quickly or not. But anyone reading this would think Lenin was one of the greatest heroes in the world. And just look at the beautiful colours on the cover of this book; everything that will have some appeal.


Ralph Osborne Campney: What is the date?


John Horne Blackmore: It is dated 1951. I am drawing upon volumes 1 and 2 of 1951 and 1952. I know that is back a considerable distance, but the same type of man who prepared these is probably in the minister's department preparing them today. I have a strong suspicion that that is exactly so. If the minister finds out how to solve that problem-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. It is my unpleasant duty to tell the hon. member that his 40 minutes have expired.


John Horne Blackmore: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I believe it is my duty at this time to say that it is the responsibility of the Chair to try to so administer the rules of the house that it will be possible to do the business of parliament within a reasonable time of, say, seven or eight months. I am afraid if the Chair continues to permit hon. members to get as far afield from the details of the estimates as has been done this evening we will not get through the business of this parliament within a reasonable time.
I say to the hon. member who has just taken his seat that I ask him, and others, to bear in mind that there are places in the parliamentary year where general speeches based upon matters of principle are fully in order. One occasion would be the debate in reply to the speech from the throne, and often there are other occasions when the departmental administration item is called in a particular department.
However, when we are dealing with the details of the estimates it is not in order to discuss a matter of that kind. The question before the house at the moment is whether or not a certain sum of money should be voted for certain purposes during the ensuing year. To the best of my ability, for the rest of this session I intend to be more efficient in holding the committee to a discussion of the item before it than perhaps I have been in the last few days.


Ralph Osborne Campney: May I be permitted to say just a word. I want to assure my hon. friend and members of this committee that I am just as concerned in connection with the publication Current Affairs as anyone else. I would not be a party to the promotion of communism in this publication.


An hon. Member:: Or permit it.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Or permit it. Since I have been minister I have read almost all these articles before they were printed, and I take it from what the hon. gentleman has just said that he has been referring to issues as far back as 1951.


John Horne Blackmore: 1951 and 1952.


Ralph Osborne Campney: So far as my administration of the department is concerned I do not think I should be subject to too much criticism on that account. I should like also to point out that the money for the publications to which the hon. member has been referring was passed under the administrative vote at the beginning of my estimates. During the general debate the hon. member raised this point and I dealt with it. I do not want to seek to limit debate, but I should like to progress with my estimates if it is possible.


Solon Earl Low: Could this discussion not be related to the items on page 340, publication of departmental reports and other material, $635,000, and films, displays, broadcasting, advertising and other informational materials, $785,000?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The hon. member intimated the other day that he wanted to bring up something about publications, and I pointed out the item to which the hon. member has referred as being the item under which he could raise such a matter. I did not know at that time what he had in mind, but as a matter of fact the vote for the publications which are now under discussion was passed with the administrative vote at the beginning of the estimates.


Solon Earl Low: May we find out whether it is your ruling that such discussion is out of order, Mr. Chairman; because since I have had this volume in my hand I have discovered a number of interesting things about it and I might be tempted to say something. Nothing could possibly induce me to inflict myself upon the members of the committee for any length of time except a subject as important as that which I have seen already in this book. If I should take the floor I assure you that I shall be in order, and I shall take the wraps off some of the things that
Supply-National Defence are in this Current Affairs and show the members what they consist of.
I should just like to have your ruling. As I said, I do not want to be out of order; but if you rule that the subject under discussion is in order I should like to take a few minutes of the time of the committee if not tonight perhaps at some other time, to discuss some of the things that are actually in this and which I would want to quote.


Victor Quelch: Before you give your ruling I should like to remind you that the minister has stated that he did intimate to the hon. member for Lethbridge that this would be the item on which he could raise this matter. Apparently there was some misunderstanding at the time as to what publication was being referred to. In view of the fact that the minister did intimate to the hon. member for Lethbridge that this was the item under which to raise the point, I think in this instance he should be allowed to proceed.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I thought I had made it clear earlier this morning that there being an item covering various publications under each of the services, I had ruled as being in order the discussion of publications for the services, never mind which service was being discussed.
We are now discussing the Royal Canadian Air Force, and I am afraid I cannot rule otherwise than that a discussion of official publications dealing with or distributed to the air force would be in order under any of the three services provided the same publication goes to the three services. I do think we have heard one speech which was not as pertinent to the publications going to the troops as it should have been, by and large; but it was my fault for permitting it to continue.
I do think the discussion should remain strictly pertinent; but if it is material having to do with the Department of National Defence I would not think it was out of order. I do not think I should be called upon to express an opinion as to whether on a discussion of the 1955-56 estimates, references to publications of 1951 or 1952 are pertinent. I think some effort at least should be made to show that the same type of publication is still being published.


Solon Earl Low: Perhaps the minister could tell us whether Current Affairs is still going out to the troops, whether this type of material is still being written and sent out for discussion, perhaps prepared by the same writers?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The publication is still being printed regularly and goes to the troops. As I said a few minutes ago, I endeavour to look

Supply-National Defence over the manuscripts before they are printed and have done so in most cases. So far as I know from such attention as I have been able to give to it, I think the material which has gone out in my time as minister has been satisfactory. I would not say I read every manuscript, but I do try to keep a close eye on them and will continue to do so.


Solon Earl Low: Before I say anything on these pamphlets or publications I should like a chance to look over some of the more recent ones. I must confess that I have not had a chance to examine these very carefully. If I were to speak on the basis of what I have found here I am afraid I would have to curtail my feelings quite seriously if I were to get through in 30 minutes. If you would not mind letting the item stand over until tomorrow so I could have a chance to go over some of the later issues of Current Affairs, then if I find that the minister is keeping his firm hand on them and there is no more of this sort of tripe I shall not speak at all. If I find there is some, I am afraid I shall have to follow up what the hon. member for Lethbridge has started.


Walter Edward Harris: I am grateful to the members of the committee for the consideration they have given during the last 50 minutes. I wonder if this air force item could pass, subject to it being understood that the hon. member will have an opportunity under any other item to make the remarks which he has indicated may be required after further study?


Solon Earl Low: That is agreeable to us.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: On a point of clarification, when the minister speaks of air force is he referring to the heading "Royal Canadian Air Force, regular and general" or is he including other items such as Royal Canadian Air Force (reserve), Royal Canadian Air Cadets and Royal Canadian Air Force, search and rescue?


Ralph Osborne Campney: We are on the item air force, regular and general, but the other items covering air cadets and reserve have been discussed under this item. I should like to ask the indulgence of the committee to clear the air force, subject to the reservation made by the leader of the house, and then we can go on to defence research board and the other small items at the next sitting.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The minister may recall that when we were on the general item I raised some questions in respect to the Royal Canadian Air Force, research and rescue. The chairman at that time referred me to the item under this heading and suggested I should raise the point I had in mind when we reached it. I want to make sure-


Ralph Osborne Campney: I shall be glad to let search and rescue stand.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The reference which the Minister of Finance made was not going to exclude any discussion under that heading. I do not anticipate making a 40-minute speech on the subject, but I have some questions under that particular heading.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: May I ask hon.
members, in order that it may be fully understood, is it the understanding of the committee that the Royal Canadian Air Force, regular, reserve and cadets, be considered as passed; that Royal Canadian Air Force, search and rescue, stands, and that before resolution 236, the over-all resolution, is passed further discussion may be held on departmental publications? Is that the understanding of the committee? Agreed.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: We shall continue with defence tomorrow, and then take trade and commerce.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 14, 1955