1956-02-10

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. How many millions of bushels of surplus wheat does the Prime Minister expect will be sold under the scheme announced in the Free Press by the Minister of Agriculture whereby wheat will be traded for British immigrants?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I have not seen the Free Press story, and I do not expect that any wheat would be sold under any plan such as that referred to in the hon. member's question.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what I thought.


Mr. Drew:: May I ask the Prime Minister if he is aware that according to the C.B.C. news report the minister has confirmed the story?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, I am
not aware that the minister has confirmed the story. All I saw was a paragraph in the Journal last night which purports to be a story relating to some suggestion that might have been made by the Minister of Agriculture. However, that is not to my knowledge, and all I -can say is there is no such plan being considered by the government.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture, with regard to his interesting suggestion to exchange immigrants for wheat, whether it will be on a weight for weight basis, so many pounds of immigrant for so many pounds of wheat?


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. What consideration has he given to the weird plan of the Minister of Agriculture? Is it intended to extend it to people from continental nations? How many immigrants are envisaged as coming in the first year?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, like some other hon. members apparently, I listen to the radio while I am taking my bath in the morning. I heard the same piece of inaccurate news, which the hon. member for Assiniboia has characterized as a question of privilege, which I do not think was really a question of privilege, because I do not think one is entitled to correct in the house a statement made outside the house.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am giving an answer to a question which was put to me, sir.


Mr. Fleming:: And undertaking to act as a schoolmaster.


Mr. Knowles:: You are all wet.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I understood that any suggestions the right hon. gentleman may have made were made in a purely private capacity as someone interested in the development of this country, and he has done a great deal to develop the country.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I ask the minister whether he would make use of a towel?



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO BANK LOANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alisiair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, may I pursue the question I asked yesterday? Will the minister table a copy of the letter sent to the banks giving the basis on which they might make loans to farmers under the impending regulation?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: I should
like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare who, I presume, is acting for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the Canadian Press stories in the morning papers to the effect that Russia may buy $5 million worth of wheat a year from Canada, would the minister

Inquiries of the Ministry consider recommending to the cabinet the accepting of the U.S.S.R. invitation for a Canadian parliamentary delegation to visit Russia, which was transmitted to the Canadian embassy in Moscow on January 6 of this year?


Hon. Paul Martin (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: My hon. friend just gave notice to the office of the Secretary of State for External Affairs a few moments before I came into the house. I suspect that if the Secretary of State for External Affairs were here he would want to take this question into serious consideration before giving a reply, if it really in fact deserves one.


USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS TO PUBLISH SPEECH BY MINISTER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister consider it a proper use of public funds that the information division of the Department of External Affairs should publish the speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the debate in this house on January 31, and no speeches of any of the other members who participated in that debate? I asked a similar question yesterday with reference to the publication of the speech made in the house by the same minister on January 24.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is a question that I should be expected to answer on the orders of the day. I think the hon. gentleman asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs about that matter a day or two ago and that he said he was looking into it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was not the same matter. It was a different speech in a different debate but a similar situation where public funds are used to publish a speech of the minister but of no other member who spoke in the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think these matters could be dealt with when the estimates of the various departments are before the committee of supply.


UNNECESSARY DELAY OF UNION OFFICIALS BY UNITED STATES AUTHORITIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: In
the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, may I direct a question to the acting minister? Would the minister make a statement on the charge by the united fishermen and allied workers' union that a Mrs.


Mickey Beagle and union delegates were unnecessarily delayed and questioned by United States immigration authorities while en route to meetings of the international halibut commission, the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission, and a meeting of local 3, international longshoremen and warehousemen's union, all taking place in Seattle, Washington?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is unusually
long. It may be one of urgency, but I do not think it is the type of question which should be asked at this time. While I am on my feet I will ask hon. members to realize that the rule which allows them to put questions at this time places strict limitations on the type of question which may be asked. I know that there is a tendency to break away from that limitation and perhaps institute a new style. The questions which are to be asked at this time are not to supervise the day to day operations of the government. They are to seek information which later may be used by hon. members in debate, which makes it quite a different proposition. This is the rule the house has adopted and the one you expect me to put into effect.


Frederick George Hahn: With all due deference to your ruling, I would point out that-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry that it just happens that I say something when it is the hon. member asking the question. He does not ask very many questions and is not at fault very often. However, the hon. member stands up and says, "With all due respect to your ruling." This is another very important rule, that rulings of the Speaker are not debatable. To what extent are we going to observe this rule? I would hope that whenever I do make a ruling, hon. members would take it that it is not debatable.

On the orders of the day:


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct another question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or, in his absence, to the acting minister. Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs assure the house that he will examine into the charges I mentioned earlier so that Canadian citizens will be able to choose delegates that can properly represent them?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not hear the question, Mr. Speaker. It may have been directed to some other minister, but if it was directed to me, I shall see that the minister or his parliamentary assistant is advised.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice which I do in the light of an article by Sidney Katz in the current issue of Maclean's magazine. Will the minister, in the interests of justice and humanity, make an immediate further review of the case of Clifford Williams and, if the facts are as stated in the article, order a remission to bring the sentence into conformity with the nature and circumstances of the offence?


Hon. Siuarl S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: 
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. May I say that I attempted to file this question yesterday and was informed that it was an improper question to ask because the matter did not come within the purview of this parliament. I am glad, however, that the question has been asked and that it has been answered to the extent that it has been answered.



INQUIRY AS TO PROGRESS OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH RUSSIAN DELEGATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: In the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister care to comment on the report in this morning's press that trade negotiations involving a sale of many millions of dollars' worth of wheat with the Russian delegation are now in the final stage? Can the Prime Minister say when the negotiations will be finalized and the results made public?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I cannot say when the negotiations will be finalized. They have not yet reached a point where it would be appropriate to make any statement. I do not think it would be
Inquiries of the Ministry helpful for me to make any comment whatsoever one way or another on the story which is in the press this morning.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the government preparing to take any necessary steps to make provision for continuation of all certifications under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act regardless of any changes of union names that may result from the coming merger of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada and the Canadian Congress of Labour into what will be known as the Canadian Labour Congress?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend kindly sent me notice of this question which I received this morning. The information he desires is, of course, related to the work of the Canada labour relations board and a matter in which the heads of the national labour unions are interested. I think I should like to have further time to discuss the matter with the chairman of the board and with the heads of the congresses before I make a statement on it.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: I should like to address a question to the Postmaster General or in his absence to his parliamentary assistant. Is the article in the Montreal Gazette of this morning under the heading "Ottawa" correct wherein it is stated as follows:
Informants say that the Post Office Department has reluctantly decided against applying its Peterborough T.V. snooping experiments in post offices elsewhere.


Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Parliamentary Assistant to the Postmaster General):: Unfortunately I have not seen the article in the Montreal Gazette and the notice of the question just reached my desk since the orders of the day were called. If I were to answer the question, I would be forced to remove two of the qualifying words. I do think that the report given by the Postmaster General on Tuesday, January 24, is very full and very accurate.
1052	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry



BURNABY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: In
the absence of the Postmaster General, may I direct a question to his parliamentary assistant? The municipality of Burnaby's population is over 80,000-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. gentleman be kind enough to put his question.


Tom Goode: I am putting my question, Mr. Speaker, but I have to put that part. That is my question. Orders have been issued by the Postmaster General-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Tom Goode: This is part of the question. I am going to show you I must put this before I can put the question. Orders have been issued by the postmaster at Vancouver that all mail sorters in the Burnaby South postal station are to be removed to the Vancouver post office and that mail is to be sorted in Vancouver for Burnaby. Will the Postmaster General countermand those instructions until the two members of parliament from Burnaby have a chance to make a protest?


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that a protest is now being made through the very question the hon. member is asking. These matters are part of the administration of the department and they should be held until the estimates of the department are before the committee of supply.



INQUIRY AS TO PAYMENT OF REMOVAL EXPENSES OF EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Postmaster General. At such times as the post office changes the place of employment of hundreds of its workers, does it assume any responsibility for the cost of those workers moving their families into the city of their new employment?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be glad to draw the Postmaster General's attention to the question.



PRIVILEGE

[Stage Direction]
MR. ARGUE-CORRECTION OF NEWS BROADCAST On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I wish to correct a radio news broadcast this morning 

reporting that I supported the suggestion of the Minister of Agriculture that Canadian wheat be exchanged for immigrants from the United Kingdom. Yesterday in this house I termed the suggestion "bankrupt" and in no way supported it.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Miss Margaret Aitken (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the recommendations made yesterday by the Ontario attorney general, urging that reforms of the Criminal Code regarding sex deviates be instituted, is it the intention of the government to look into those reforms at once?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, it is always our practice to give careful consideration to any recommendations which provincial attorneys general or law enforcement officers may make.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, and in his absence, to his parliamentary assistant. Is the Pratt and Whitney turbo jet engine a more advanced design than the K-57 to be installed in Canada's first supersonic fighter aircraft?


Mr. P. T. Hellyer (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think this question is one which could properly be answered when the estimates of the department are before the house.
I shall take the question as notice and see what information I can find.



INCOME TAX


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue? Will his department consider publishing a form to enable income tax payers to take advantage of section 36 (1) which provides special treatment for the lump sum payments received from a pension fund?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I will direct the attention of the officials of the taxation division to this matter.



195B SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. (Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Administration service-
1. Departmental administration (including advisory committee on agricultural services). $496,998.
['Mr. Speaker, you and the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Enfield) are familiar with my views on that form of immigration. Those of us who are Canadian citizens, those of us who, like the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Fairey), have lived in this country either for a long time or those of us who have lived here all our lives, can do a great deal to make newcomers feel that they are acceptable and accepted in the community, or we can do the reverse. I do not think that there are many organizations in Canada that are more socially useful and more nationally useful than the citizenship committees which exist in so many centres in this country.\nOn several occasions I have had the opportunity to meet with citizenship committees in various cities in Canada. These committees are generally composed of the representatives of a great variety of voluntary', 'Immigration Act\norganizations. It is remarkable the difference that these committees make in the attitude of the whole community toward the newcomers. In that respect it is very different from what I remember as a schoolboy in the days before the first world war, when almost no one paid any attention to the newcomers except those who had business dealings with them, or unfortunately sometimes something worse.\nI do think that the extent to which the newcomers are welcomed and accepted into the community will be accurately reflected in the statistics of citizenship certificates granted by the courts in those communities. I feel that in that respect we can take a certain amount of credit-I am not claiming this for the government but for the Canadian people-from the fact that for the last four or five years not only has there been a steady rise in the number of applications for citizenship and the number of certificates issued, but that rise is greater proportionately than the rise in immigration of five years ago. Of course it is hard to measure these things accurately because some immigrants wait for more than five years-some wait lot a great many more than five years -before making their applications.\nI hope we never will have to follow every newcomer in order to keep track of his every movement and find out whether he intends to stay or whether he goes to another country. I have been told by newcomers that one of the things they find strange about Canada when they first come here is that people let them do what they want to do. Sometimes I think a lot of them would feel easier-I would not say happier -if they were told a little more about what they had to do, but after most of them have been here three, four or six months they do not want to be pushed around or told what they have to do.\nI have been told by these people that the greatest thing about this country is not the job they have, not the car they have been able to buy, not the house they have purchased, not any of these material things but the fact that as long as they behave themselves the police will not interfere with them and neither will anyone else.\nThat is really why I feel that the right way to proceed is not the way which my hon. friend has suggested. I have the highest regard for him, but sometimes he is in a little more of a hurry than those of us who are older and more experienced feel it is wise sometimes to go. I feel that my hon. friend from Lambton-Kent has the right destination in mind, but he is not on the right road. Instead of doing anything that would even smack of putting pressure upon newcomers I feel we should redouble our efforts to make them feel at home in this country, and in that way we will achieve far more than would be achieved by the passing of this legislation.\nOn motion of Mr. Harris the debate was adjourned.']
Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Chairman-


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Chairman, the estimates for the Department of Agriculture for this year are down slightly but only slightly, and one could say they are practically the same as they were a year ago.
There will be explanations to make as we go along with regard to the different items and it is not my intention at the moment to deal with the different items further than to state what I have said.
Two or three matters which have been discussed rather freely since the beginning of the session concern agriculture. I did not discuss them on the address because they had already been listed for discussion on the order paper and two of those matters have since been discussed and I do not intend at this time to say anything with regard to them.
One of these matters was the 5 per cent loan and another was the payment of storage costs. There were other matters which could more properly have been brought up on my estimates which have also been discussed. I have mentioned the first two and the others have to do with farm production and marketing problems in general, all of which affect farm income across Canada, and I intend to confine my remarks largely to those matters which have had some discussion from day to day but no complete discussion.
We hold a conference in Ottawa in December of each year which is attended by ministers and officials from right across Canada from the different departments of agriculture across the dominion, and last year we had a representation of the farmers' union from two provinces, the province of Saskatchewan and the province of Ontario. In addition to that we have representatives of the different countries with which we trade in agricultural products either through importing agricultural products from those countries or shipping agricultural products to those countries, and then we have the press, particularly the agricultural press, represented at that conference, who take down any of the discussions and make them known to the public.
Supply-Agriculture
We have had papers prepared on Canadian and world conditions as related to the purchase of Canadian farm products and the possible production to meet known markets at home and elsewhere. The reading of these papers has been followed by discussions which have resulted in the leading agriculturalists from across Canada carrying a message to farmers from wartime until now which has brought about certain results. The first is that areas utilized for the production of apples, potatoes and most special products excepting tobacco have not changed greatly. Surpluses of these products go to the United States, Britain and South America and we do make some exports in small amounts to other countries.
The second is that while there has been little change in the production of milk there has been considerable adjustment in the use made of milk in order to meet the condition under which our dairy products are marketed in Canada.
The third is that it was found advisable to adjust our production of eggs and pork to the requirements of the Canadian and the United States markets.
The fourth is that considerable surpluses of farm products have been confined almost entirely to cattle, barley and oats, and these have gone chiefly to the United States, and to wheat which has gone to Britain and to some other countries.
In 1954 we exported $236 million worth of farm products to the United Kingdom and $235 million to the United States. There is just a million dollars difference between the quantities that we sent to the two great countries to which we export goods. To other countries we exported $382 million worth of agricultural products. The greater part of our exports to the United Kingdom are wheat and flour and the greater part of our exports to the United States are grains for feed, seed and brewing. In addition to that we export live animals and animal products.
I wish at this time to spend a little more time on dairy products and particularly butter than any of the others that I have dealt with in the distribution of problems which concern us at the present time.
Those problems are concerned first with the production of farm products and later with the marketing of them.
There is one which has raised quite a bit of controversy in the country and that is the question as to how our plan has been developed in connection with butter and what the present condition is in relation to it. I thought it best to deal with that at once in order that the information might be on the record to be
1054	HOUSE OF
Supply-Agriculture
dealt with by others as we go along with our estimates and particularly at the time when we come to the dairy item.
There has been considerable discussion about butter. In order to get a correct background it is necessary to go back over the records. I have done so by going back 20 years but I shall just deal with the record at the end of each five years.
The production in 1934 was 334,974,000 pounds of butter and the stock carried on the first of January of that year was 22,027,000 pounds. The production five years later in 1939 was 356,972,000 pounds and the stock carried as of the first of January was
45.120.000	pounds. In 1944, five years later, the production was 336,257,000 pounds and stocks on January 1, 1944, amounted to
46.683.000	pounds. In 1949, five years later, production was down to 313,827,000 pounds and stocks at the first of the year stood at
37.649.000	pounds.
Then I am going to ask the committee to note that in 1954 we produced 334,343,000 pounds of butter, while in 1934, twenty years before, we produced 334,000,000 pounds. So that the suggestion that there has been a great change up or down, particularly up, in the 20 years that we have gone through is hardly borne out by the facts. The statistics indicate that production was the same in 1954 as in 1934, and at the end of the five-year intervals two years were higher and one year was lower than that figure.
For the 10 years immediately after 1934 the production figures were higher than in 1934, while for the next 9 years they were lower than in 1934 or in 1954. But the variations were within a range of 75,000,000 pounds annually and were due to differences in grass or variations in price or increased production of cheese or some other product made from milk. There was a variation up and down for that 20-year period of around 75,000,000 pounds, but generally speaking production was on a fairly level range.
During the six years of lowest production from 1947 to 1952 we imported 42,500,000 pounds of butter. During the first two years the average monthly price of butter at wholesale at Montreal varied from 40 cents a pound, while we were importing butter, to 68 cents a pound.
I give that background in order to indicate what the situation was at the time the present plan was worked out and put into effect in this country. We had just imported very considerable quantities of butter and when we were importing that butter, which was in the wintertime when the farmer required a higher return for the butter produced during that period if he was ever going to require

it, that butter was down to around 40 cents per pound wholesale. Then later in the same year it was up to 66 cents per pound wholesale and in the next year it went up to 68 cents a pound. So it was in order to stop these variations and get a plan under which we could have something which would work better that the present policy was brought into being.
We brought the present plan into effect in
1949.	We agreed to buy butter in storage at 58 cents a pound, grade A, Montreal and Toronto. Butter in storage jumped to 56 million pounds by January 1, 1950. You will note that in the last year of the record I gave a moment ago the amount was 37 million pounds, and in the first year of price support, whether that was the reason or whether it was something else, storage jumped to 56 million pounds on January 1,
1950.	The result was that we were stampeded, you might say, into reducing the floor to 53 cents and largely because of poor pasture, although the price might have had something to do with it, we had to import 22 million pounds of butter in 1950 and 1951 in order to meet the requirements in Canada.
During the shortage in February, 1951, while butter was being imported, the price went up to 85 cents to the consumer on most markets and as high as 90 cents a pound on the Toronto market. This proves that we needed storage of at least 78 million pounds of butter, the 56 million pounds in storage on the first of January and 22 million pounds more imported, in order to supply the needs of this market under the conditions which prevailed, and those conditions were largely brought about because we had poor grass in 1950 and 1951.
I wanted to lay that down in order to say this. This proves that we need storage of at least 78 million pounds of butter on January 1 in order to be absolutely sure we can hold butter at a stabilized price to the consumer based on 58 cents a pound to the producer. I think the facts prove that conclusively and therefore there is not much more I need to say with regard to that point.
On January 1, 1954, we were carrying 71 million pounds. That is 6 million pounds less than the figure I used. On January 1, 1955, we were carrying 91 million pounds of butter, which is about 13 million pounds more than the figure that has been proved to be absolutely necessary. This year, although we were only carrying 81 million pounds on government account as of January 1-it is recorded that the trade is carrying 19 million pounds-we have decided we can reduce our holdings by some 10 million to 20 million pounds by disposing of that much butter

and thus keeping ourselves in a safe position in connection with the plan which was put into effect back in 1949.
Since 1950 the cost of the plan, including the $1,600,000 paid to the trade to reduce the price from 58 cents to 53 cents, has been over $6 million, and when we take into consideration all the moves that have been made this year to reduce the holdings to a lower level the figure will probably reach $8 million by May 1, although I am not certain whether the figure will be a little higher or a little lower. This would indicate that the cost per pound to the government may be between a third of a cent and half a cent a pound over the period that the plan has been in operation.
This will be our most costly year because we have been disposing of the accumulations over five years which we held to make certain there could be no manipulation of the market to the detriment of either the producer or the consumer. Again I repeat we are quite satisfied that that condition requires us to have at least 78 million pounds of butter as of the first of January each year in order to maintain the position that was established under this particular plan. All I want to say with regard to that is that is exactly what I have had in my mind when I have stated from time to time that there is no troublesome surplus so far as we are concerned.
The fact that there may be a considerable amount of butter in May, probably 40 million to 50 million pounds, is not a new thing. The record I have read indicates that we had 56 million pounds in storage on the first of January when we started and in other years the amount in storage has been very close to that figure. The fact is that our production is up and down owing to grass and pasture changes from year to year, just as wheat yields change from year to year, and because it goes up and down there has to be some provision made for the years when we may not have butter on hand.
Under present conditions, with approximately 78 million pounds of butter always oni hand as of the first of January, we can make fairly certain that it is not going to be necessary to import butter into this country, and I am sure that will meet with the approval of members on both sides of the house. Members on this side of the house recall when a government composed of members of the official opposition first allowed margarine to come into the country and first allowed it to be made here. As a result of that action we had a real, live political issue which affected candidates right across the country and we had a change of government. Then
Supply-Agriculture
prior to 1930 a Liberal government composed of members from this side of the house allowed the importation of butter and 42 million pounds came into the country, pretty much the same figure I referred to a few moments ago that we are trying to prevent coming in again.
Forty-two million pounds of butter came into Canada from New Zealand and Australia, and I still remember trucks going up and down the roads at election time carrying the cartons in which the butter came. I am quite sure that the members of the opposition who were so anxious at that time that we should not create conditions under which butter would come into this country will be most helpful now in order to see that that kind of thing is not done. We think it is absolutely essential to have 78 million pounds, which is close to 80 million pounds. Right now we have only 70 million pounds of butter. We think it is important to have that much butter on hand in order to see that this policy is carried into effect.


Mr. Brooks:: May I ask the minister a question?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: How long can butter be safely kept in storage? For what period of time?


James Garfield Gardiner: 
Mr. Dufresne:: Will the minister permit a question?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Has the minister the figures for each province?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Can he say whether, in the province of Quebec, this arrangement of giving butter to institutions at 40 cents a pound has increased the consumption of butter?


James Garfield Gardiner: I had better look at the first sheet as well as the last one in order to answer that question. I have them all here for every month of the year that we have been operating. As of March 4-that is the first report we had-in Quebec the number of institutions there then was 236. Of course the numbers may be different now. They used 154,000 pounds of butter that month; the figure is closer to 155,000. If the hon. member is taking them down, maybe he had better put the round figure at 155,000. They used only 6,000 pounds of margarine. Then they had other fats, neither margarine nor butter, amounting to 53,000 pounds.* Just to keep the records close together so that I do not have to go back over too many, may I give these further figures. In Ontario, the next province, they used 118,000 pounds of butter, or closer to 119,000 pounds,
31,000	pounds of margarine and 36,000 pounds of other fats.
Now, those are the figures for the two provinces. Coming down to the last month I have on hand, there are 777 institutions in Quebec now which is about three times as many, and in the last month they used 297,000 pounds of butter, 13,591 pounds of margarine and 103,146 pounds of other fats* In Ontario there are 403 now where they
*For explanation of italicized words see page 1097 et seq.

had 276 before. There is not as big an increase as there was in Quebec. They used
141.000	pounds of butter-nearly 142,000- 33,324 pounds of margarine and 61,550 pounds of other fats. There is no great difference in the proportions used in the institutions in the first month as compared with the last month except for the fact there are more institutions in the last month of the year than there were in the first month. In total, the number of institutions that were in in the first month was 1,068-that is right across Canada-and those 1,068 institutions used 426,000 pounds of butter; 75,000 pounds of margarine and 140,000 pounds of other fats. In this last month 2,001 institutions used 629,000 pounds of butter; 104,000 pounds of margarine and
235.000	pounds of other fats.
I believe when you analyse that you will find there is no great difference in the proportions of butter and margarine that were used as a result of the reduction of 21 cents in the price of butter. That is something that is worth knowing, but I do not know whether it is worth $1 -5 million to find it out. We have not yet determined whether it is something we should continue for another year in order to assist in doing some of the things some people think we ought to do, that we ought to distribute more butter in Canada and less elsewhere. This point will be fully considered by the government as we go along, and some decision made with regard to it.
I believe those figures form the most of what I wanted to say with regard to the position on butter. There is only one other thing that I think should be said at this time in order that hon. members might have the information upon which to base discussions, and that has to do with the consumption of margarine and butter. The fact is we are consuming in Canada as much butter now as we were before margarine was permitted to enter the country. However, there are more people consuming it. If we are not going to increase our production of milk or increase the production of butter, then the farmers who are producing butter are able to get rid of it in about the same quantity as they got rid of it before margarine was permitted in the country. On the other hand, if it is our intention to try to increase dairy production in Canada, the fact that margarine is here no doubt has some effect on our efforts.
The effect of margarine is pretty well indicated by the figures that were brought out the other day by the hon. member for Lanark. I only heard one figure that he used which I thought was slightly out of line with the figures I have here and which are in my own mind. When margarine was permitted to 67509-67
Supply-Agriculture
come into this country we were using 28 pounds of butter per capita. We now use 21 and a fraction. The most important fact in my opinion is that the reduction from 28 down to 21 and a fraction came about during the first year that we had margarine. The per capita consumption has remained at 21 and a fraction since that time. I think the hon. member for Lanark said that last year consumption of butter was down by 8 pounds, or margarine up by 8 pounds, but my records indicate, so far as I have them up to date, that it was 7 and a fraction every year for margarine and 21 for butter. The consumption of butter per person, therefore, dropped about 25 per cent but because of the increase in the number of persons the total amount of butter being consumed in Canada is about the same as it was when margarine was permitted in the country.


The Chairman:: I am extremely sorry to interrupt the minister, but it is my duty to advise him his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


William Alfred Robinson: Has the minister unanimous consent to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sorry. I suppose I did not read the rules carefully enough and I did not realize that in this case one introducing a subject had to be within the limit.


Mr. Blair:: Before the minister leaves the statistics, I may say that I have a question on the order paper and in view of the fact the minister has the statistics here could he s-ay what were the total stocks of butter on January 1, 1952; 1953; 1954; 1955 and 1956. The other question is, what were the government-owned stocks on those dates? If the minister has those figures, I should like to have them.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know that I can give the figures for the government-owned stocks. I would have preferred to bring out the figures at the time we were discussing the item. What were the years the hon. member mentioned?


William Gourlay Blair: I mentioned 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955 and 1956.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have not 1956 as yet, and I have not 1955 here on this list which is the regular list that is published. The stocks as of January 1, 1950, were 56,134,000; 1951, 39,319,000; 1952, 64,974,000; 1953, 54,497,000; 1954, 71,312,000. I think I gave those figures in my earlier remarks. The one other which I also gave was 91,000,000 on January 1, 1955.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You gave 10 million for 1956.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is 1 million for 1956, 1,300,000, I think. I gave a figure a week or

Supply-Agriculture
so later after we had sold some few million pounds to Germany, and it is still lower. You will find the figures with regard to that on Hansard. In addition to giving the figures now, I wanted to say those things with regard to butter.
Then, there was one other question which had been discussed here. People have said that I said certain things and I did not say other things. The other day we had some little discussion about what had been said in an article in the Winnipeg Free Press, so I brought the article along because it does set a point at which I can start a discussion on farm income. I can quite understand why the hon. member for Moose Mountain was misled by the statement he was reading from.


Edward George McCullough: Apparently the farmers were, too.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, they were not at all; but if you go back to it you will find that it is one of those things-I know my friends will laugh about it, but I had nothing to do with it. Therefore, you can laugh at somebody else. If you go back and read the article which emanated from Hamilton you will find you read the word which was there, and it is* quite proper that you should do that. The word is "not", but if you read the article through you will see it is a typographical error. The word is "net", not "not". It goes on to say that I dealt with both net and gross cash income and indicated that maybe something else should have been done. They said the figures were correct, which is more, and the figures were correct.
The article which caused the discussion down in Hamilton is headed; "Not so hard up". You cannot find that in the article at all, even as reported in the press; except by leaving off half a sentence. Here is the sentence:
Right Hon. James G. Gardiner, federal Minister of Agriculture, Monday stated that farmers are not as hard up "as some people would try to have us believe".
That is what I said. That does not really mean that they are not hard up. It does not really mean that they are not having difficulties, but it does mean they are not as hard up as some people are saying they are.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: How hard is hard up?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, my hon. friend was not so hard up when he could pay income tax on his farm earnings, as he told us last night. I do not know anyone in Saskatchewan who should be harder up than the hon. member for Mackenzie when he is farming. You can figure that one out later.
IMr. Gardiner.)
Here is what they report me as having said:
Mr. Gardiner said total income for Canadian farmers in the last five years was $13,037 million, the "highest by far we have ever had". For the previous five years gross income was $10,359 million. He noted there had been a 30 per cent increase in the most recent period. He added that the net farm income in the last five was $8,349 million compared with $6,636 million for the previous five years.
Then it goes on to say that I said something about butter.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Has the minister the figures for the last two years, because the five years would be unfair?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am going to deal with all those figures and, with the permission of the committee, I shall put them on the record because many people who have not read them need to read them. I have read them all.
If I have the permission of the committee to do it, rather than read them all, I should like to put the figures on the record.


The Deputy Chairman:: Has the minister permission to put the figures on the record?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Garfield Gardiner: It seems a little difficult for some to analyse those figures when they are all on one big sheet. This is gross cash income. This is the sheet as published by the bureau of statistics. It gives all the provinces separately. By adding up the figures in the different periods you can get the results.
The net income is given on this sheet. It might be interesting to some hon. members to know that prior to 1938 they did not show net returns. I wondered whether that is owing to the fact that in the five years previous to that the highest cash income for farmers was $536 million, and the lowest was $412 million. I can quite understand that with that little cash coming in farmers probably did not have any net income. They probably had less than a net income. Therefore, I have no figures back beyond 1938 for net income. The figures of gross cash income are here right back to 1926.
In cfrder to answer some of the things that have been said-and before doing that may I say I read it in the Regina Leader-Post which came yesterday. It was not put out by me, it was put out by the organization that my friends from Saskatchewan have been quoting in the last couple of weeks, namely, the Saskatchewan wheat pool. They call attention to the fact that there was a drop of $400

million in farm income in this country in the years referred to. They refer to the $400 million drop in income in the three prairie provinces, and they say there was an increase in all the rest of Canada.
Supply-Agriculture
I want to put on the record the figures that
I have here which were taken from the farm cash income and net income sheet published by the statistics branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce.
FARM CASH INCOME: RECEIPTS FROM SALE OF FARM PRODUCTS, 1936-1955
(million dollars)
Maritime Provinces	Ontario & Quebec	Total for Eastern Canada	Prairie Provinces	B.C.	Total'35	258	293	272	25	59038	292	330	283	29	64237	293	330	293	30	6531939 	35	309	344	342	30	71638	329	367	338	30	73544	415	459	386	40	88558	529	587	467	45	1,09970	585	655	694	58	1,40775	628	703	1,058	68	1,82979	691	770	851	75	1,69687	738	825	835	82	1,74290	831	921	950	94	1,965105	1,021	1,120	1,234	103	2,463100	1,028	1,128	1,264	101	2,494108	1,039	1,147	973	100	2,220121	1,224	1,345	1,362	109	2,816126	1,154	1,280	1,465	104	2,849110	1,112	1,222	1,449	105	2,776115	1,113	1,228	1,045	105	2,378120	1,133	1,253	995	109	2,357
1 Excludes Newfoundland.



[Stage Direction]
________(Million Dollars)	_____________________________
Maritime Provinces	Ontario and Quebec	Total for Eastern Canada	Prairie Provinces	B.C.	Total11938 	26	188	214	141	16	3711939	24	207	231	207	17	4551940 	24	217	241	226	18	4851941 	27	273	300	190	27	5171942 	42	400	442	617	29	1,0881943 	57	408	465	372	41	8781944 	53	471	524	674	42	1,2401945 	52	469	521	404	46	9711946 	61	536	597	491	51	1,1391947 	55	520	575	581	50	1,2061948 	68	691	759	866	56	1,6811949 	66	707	773	810	58	1,6411950 	66	709	775	630	43	1,4481951	81	892	973	1,127	54	2,15477	725	802	1,082	40	1,9241953 	63	709	772	884	44	1,7001954 	02	652	714	376	36	1,126
'Excludes Newfoundland.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
I shall deal with the maritime provinces by themselves. In the first year we have here they start out with income of $35 million, and they finish up with income of $120 million. There is a gradual rise every year, beginning with 1936. There is not a single decrease until you get to 1948, and then it is $105 million. In 1949 it is $100 million. It goes up again in 1950 to $108 million. As one goes along-
Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I ask a question? Can the minister tell us the difference between the purchasing power of a dollar in 1935 and 1950?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sure you will do that; I do not need to.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It makes quite a difference, anyway.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a gradual increase in farm income from 1936 until you get to 1952.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Gross or net?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is gross. The net is here, too.
In 1951 it took quite a jump in the mari-times. It went up to $121 million; and in 1952 it went up a little higher, to $126 million; and then it dropped down again to $110 million, just $2 million higher than it was in the peak year before, 1951. In the next year it went up to $115 million; and the following year to $120 million. What are the facts in relation to that? The facts are that in the only two years in which it is out of line at all with the gradual increase are the two years when it went up higher. How is that going to hurt the farmer? What were those two years? Those two years were the years of the Korean war, and anyone could give the reasons why there was a higher income then. But whenever my friends make a comparison they take 1951, which, in any place but the maritimes, was the highest year of all. They take that year and then they calculate what it was last year, and they say it is down 23 per cent. Well, to say the least, that is not very helpful reasoning. I was almost going to say it is dishonest reasoning. I am inclined to think that that term could be applied, but if I applied it to any particular individual I suppose I would have to withdraw it.
But what about Ontario and Quebec? I have lumped them together. They start out at $258 million and they gradually go up every year from $258 million until 1950 when they reach $1,039 million, and there has not been a slump any time all the way up, and this government has been in power all

the time, and not even the Duplessis government has been in power through all the time during that period.
In 1951 the income jumped by almost $200 million in those two provinces; it reached $1,224 million.
In 1952 it dropped down to $1,154 million and then the next year it started in at $1,112 million. The next year it was $1,113 million and the next year $1,133 million. There has not been any lapse in the advance at all except for the two years of the Korean war when it went up higher.
And so, as the wheat pool says in Regina, there has not been any going down of farm income on farms in general across Canada; the farm income has been higher year by year.
Now, coming to the prairie provinces, we started out at $272 million and I might call your attention to the fact that by 1944 we had got up to $1,058 million, all of which indicates that we had a very good crop in the years 1942 and 1943. We sold a lot of wheat and we had a much higher cash income that year than during any of the years up to then. It was $272 million in the first year and it gradually rose to $694 million in 1943 and then jumped to $1,058 million in 1944. That did not hurt us out west. We all recall that we have been boasting about the 1942-43 crop ever since, basing the enormous crop we did get on the fact that in 1941 we paid farmers to take their land out of crop and put it into summer fallow. In other words, we stored the grain not in elevators but in moisture in the land. The next years we produced wheat and did not have to pay any storage on it because the wheat was there. I should not say we did not pay any storage because we carried it until pretty near the end of the war but in that year we were producing a much bigger crop because we stored moisture in the ground to produce wheat and feed. We exported grain through hogs.
In 1945 we went back somewhat, to $851 million. We went down about $150 million and took a fresh start after those crops and we gradually went up again until we got to $1,264 million in 1949; that is a cash income.
You will remember that the 1949 crop was one of the poorest crops we ever had. Statistics show it was just as poor as some of the poorest crops we had in the drought period. The only reason we have not heard anything about it in this house is because wheat was so high in price at that time that it did not have the same effect on farmers that it had in the thirties. Nevertheless the crop was poor and this is shown in these figures.

In 1950 when we were selling a considerable part of that crop we dropped down to $973 million. In the next year, 1951, we went up higher than ever; $1,362 million. In 1952 it rose to $1,465 million and in 1953 we dropped down a little to $1,449 million although this is not too great a drop. In 1954 it was $1,045 million. Why? There are two reasons. One is the fact that we could not get all the wheat we had into the elevators and get anything on it and the other reason is that the crop was rusty all over the west.
I should like to remind those hon. members who, think that is funny that what we did about it was to pay $32 million into western Canada under prairie farm assistance and $21 million of it, as much money as is now being paid out at 10 cents a bushel on the 1954 crop, was paid out in Saskatchewan in prairie farm assistance during the year 1955.
I think that is something that ought to be referred to when we are discussing this particular question concerning cash income and it has something to do with the fact that the income in 1955 was as high as it is, namely $995 million.
I have the British Columbia figures here which rim pretty much along the lines of the figures for the maritimes and I shall just turn them in to be printed.


Edward George McCullough: Is the
minister including the figure paid under prairie farm assistance in the figure for 1954?


James Garfield Gardiner: They were paid on account of 1954 but they were paid in 1955. We did not get the payment out in 1954 for reasons that are well known to hon. members, because of the rust. It took a long time to get the figures lined up and the payment was made in 1955.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman-


James Garfield Gardiner: Please let me finish and then I will answer questions. I wish to point out what the wheat pool said in the last statement it made which was just this week. It indicated that the $400 million drop represented in the figure for 1953 which was $1,449 million and in the figure for 1955, $995 million, represents the whole drop in farm income for the Dominion of Canada. No one can dispute those figures; they are there. And if you are going to quote from the statistics of the statistics branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce, then the figures ought to be quoted as they are and not as someone gave them in Hamilton or anywhere else. Those are the correct figures and I do not think any hon. member from western Canada, whether he sits on this side of the house or on the other, is helping the western farmer when he tries
Supply-Agriculture
to apply that situation to all the farmers in Canada; it is brought about by a situation which developed on the prairies in relation to wheat.
There is one other fact which ought to be kept in mind. When I was speaking-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Before the minister leaves the statistics I wonder if during the recess he would get the percentage of farmers in all of Canada who paid income tax and also the percentage of Canadian farmers who had a net income of less than $1,000 and between $1,000 and $2,000. Would the minister get those figures?


James Garfield Gardiner: My friend put that on the record twice this session within my hearing and I do not know why I should put it on again. In any case the work of the Department of Agriculture is to encourage production of a proper kind, to see that our production is properly graded and then arrange for the sale of products which are sold within Canada. Then we have the Department of Trade and Commerce arrange for the sale of products outside of Canada if we have surpluses.
I am going to say what I said a few moments ago. I know where my hon. friend farms, I know his farm. He said yesterday that he paid income tax. I am going to repeat that is probably the explanation for some of the figures he gave as to why there are so many farmers in Saskatchewan who have had to pay income tax. But they are not paying that income tax this year unless they did what most good farmers in Saskatchewan do. Good farmers in Saskatchewan, since we have had income taxes to pay, carry their wheat along knowing that they can average their income over the years by not delivering all the wheat that they happen to grow in a good year; they can deliver some of it when they would not have any income at all if they did not have that wheat.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thought all farmers were good farmers.


James Garfield Gardiner: Most of them are, but there are a few who are exceptions or who use up too much of their time doing something else to be really good farmers. But the fact of the matter is that these farmers are getting a certain income and we should indicate that they are getting it. Because income is down $400 million in the three western provinces because of wheat, we should not come out and say that everybody else is suffering, that as a result of that every other farmer is suffering. It is all very well to say that the implement dealer is suffering as a result of not being able to sell so many implements;

Supply-Agriculture
it is all very well to say that others are suffering, that people in business are suffering; but to say that the farmers down in Nova Scotia or Quebec or Ontario are suffering because the returns for wheat are down $400 million is going a little too far.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Will the minister permit another question? I gather that the minister has been trying to establish that farmers in Canada on the whole are in a strong economic position, that they have not been affected by conditions in the west.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not trying to establish anything, I am giving the absolute facts and hon. members should establish them in their own minds. These are the only facts anyone can get because they are put out by the only organization that is putting out such facts. Those facts are there.


Mr. Zapliiny:: Will the-


James Garfield Gardiner: If you will just let me continue. I did not have a very nice time last night trying to break in on some of you chaps. If you will let me go on and finish then you can ask your questions.
That is the position in so far as that matter is concerned. I wanted to say it and I wanted to add to that the figures on net income. I am not going to read this if I can have permission to put them on Hansard. They tell pretty much the same story. I did ask the officials in the department why they did not produce a net worth statement. You got me by the point you wanted to get me by, but I must come back to it.
I made a statement the other day which was questioned by hon. members on the other side. I stated at the conference held last December that real income,-not cash income and not net income-which appears on these sheets-in 1955 would be just as high as the real income of the farmer in 1953. Since those returns came out I have found editorial writers right across Canada coming out and saying that Gardiner was wrong again.
They did not use the real income, they did not use the term total income. After quoting it in the first line of their statement of what I said, they ignored the term and criticized on the basis of cash income. Every farmer in western Canada knows that there is very little relationship between the cash income today of a farmer on the western prairies and his real income. He is not getting cash in spite of the fact he is getting wheat. I therefore come back to the thought that net worth gives a better check than gross or net cash income.

The figures given to me based on that thought are these:
The attached copy of "Balance Sheet of Canadian Agriculture" contains all the information available to arrive at net worth of Canadian farmers. Much of the information is missing, such as farmers' investments outside of the farm and debt other than to mortgage companies and government loan agencies.
However, the available information indicates that in 1950:
Farmers' physical assets were (excluding off-farm investment)	 $8,696,303,000
Known debts were	 458,155,000
Known net worth	 $8,238,148,000
While in 1954:
Farmers' physical assets were (excluding off-farm investment)	$10,381,438,000
Known debts were	 558,858,000
Known net worth	 $9,822,580,000
What I want to point is that that statement indicates what men have in their minds when they are talking about net income. It is not total income at all. The net worth statement is the statement which indicates the advancement the farmer has made in that period. While in 1950 it was $8,238 million, in 1954 it was $9,822 million, or $1,500 million higher. That to my mind is a conclusive answer.
When I asked our people why they did not have a net worth statement such as they have in the United States the only answer I got was that it costs a lot of money to get it, that you must have quite a set-up in order to get it. Up to now we have not considered it to be worth while.
What I want to say to hon. members is, as I stated at the conference in December, that the real income of the farmers of Saskatchewan in 1954 and 1955 is the wheat which they grew multiplied by the value of that wheat per bushel, whether the wheat is on their land or wherever else it is. What this government is doing is attempting to have it made more valuable for them by taking up some of the costs of carrying it. I do not know how anyone can work out any better plan in order to deal with the situation as it exists.
I should have quoted another sentence on this sheet which is as follows:
Some of the increase in net worth is due to increased land values (almost $1 billion) while some is due to increased investment in machinery, $616 million. Livestock inventory values, however, have declined by $180 million since 1950.
Put those facts all together and you get some idea whether the farmer is advancing or whether he is going backward in connection with his operations up to the present. When I talk to farmers out west I always have in my mind a statement made by Sir Wilfrid the first time I ever heard the old gentleman making a speech. He repeated that statement

in this house many times. It was made at a settlement where there were some half-breed people, some French-speaking people and some English-speaking people. He said something that one of those people repeated to me the first time I went around looking for votes in 1914. A person said, "When Sir Wilfrid was here in 1895 he said to us, 'Your pony is worth $25; put us in power and it will be worth $100' He said when Sir Wilfrid came back in 1910 we were getting $100 for a bronco. He went on to say, "A cayuse is worth $100 to me; I am going to vote for you." Sir Wilfrid said more than that. He said, "People are going around trying to tell you that you are no better off than you were before." He said, "All I know about it is that when we came in, all you had to do to find out whether you were wealthy or not was to put your hand in your pocket and there was nothing there, but now when you go to town or go out and want to play pool or do some of the things you like to do you can put your hand in your pocket and you find coins there." Exactly the same situation exists today.
If one wants to compare the present period with the period before this government came in he will recall that when we were at a public meeting all they talked about was the fact that they had no cash, whether it came from-


An hon. Member:: You can play pool.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think I could beat my hon. friend at that. The fact is that at that time we did not have cash. Our friends in the official opposition did do something about it, they paid 5 cents a bushel on all wheat.


An hon. Member:: That was a compensating adjustment.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, 5 cents a bushel on all wheat produced in the province of Saskatchewan in that very difficult year, 1931, I think it was. The result was that the people who were farming in the community that the hon. member for Mackenzie comes from got $2 an acre because they had 40 bushels to the acre whereas people living down near the district that the hon. member for Assiniboia comes from had nothing and did not get anything. That is the way it was handled at that time. I do want to point out that in the way it is being handled now it does not have that kind of result. Farmers in areas where there is a good crop do get a price eventually even if they are not able to get it all in one year. In the areas where the farmer has little or no crop there is prairie farm assistance to the extent of the $32 million that he got last year and he has other assistance as well which
Supply-Agriculture
helps him and puts him in a position where he has cash in his pocket. The policies we have been discussing for the last two or three days do the same thing.
I am going to conclude by saying that I think the department has done a very good job over the last 20 years and it is a very simple matter to show anybody that they have because we are spending ten times as much to assist agriculture now as any government, Liberal or Conservative, ever spent before. You may argue that it is not all being well spent, as I suppose some of you will, but nevertheless most of the farmers think that it has been at least fairly well spent and that the intention to do something for them is just ten times as great as it was under any other government we have had, Liberal or Conservative. Therefore they are fairly well contented when the right picture is put before them. I suggest to my friends that when they get Hansard tomorrow with the tables therein they examine the tables very carefully. I think they will find the argument I have made is absolutely sound. As we go along through the estimates I will be prepared to discuss any of these matters in detail.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: In order that there may be no misunderstanding, is it agreed that the minister has been given consent to place on Hansard the various tables of figures from which he has been quoting?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I see several hon. members rising to their feet and I propose to recognize the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand to make the next speech, but if there are pure questions of clarification of the remarks made by the minister and they are restricted to that I think it might help if we had them now.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: With respect to the net worth calculations that the minister gave, what basis was used for calculating the physical assets of the farmers of Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: What basis did I use? I did not use a basis at all. The bureau of statistics used it, and I suppose they used the same basis as any similar organization uses in figuring these things.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The question is, what was the basis? Is it the basis that the income tax department uses or did they have a basis of their own?


James Garfield Gardiner: This is not from the income tax branch. It is from the statistics branch.


Mr. Cardiff:: I should like to ask the minister this question. Can he give us the percentage

Supply-Agriculture
of the gross national product according to population that the farmers got in the last year or two?


James Garfield Gardiner: I cannot give that offhand. I gave the total figure but I did not give it in proportion to the gross income.


Frederick George Hahn: I have tried on more than one occasion to get the minister's attention to have him put the British Columbia figures for ag'riculture on the record as he did for the maritimes, the central provinces and the prairies. I would appreciate it if we could have that.


James Garfield Gardiner: It will be all on the record tomorrow.


Frederick George Hahn: It does not help very much today when the figures for the other provinces have already been given.


James Garfield Gardiner: I could give you one copy but I have not got one for everybody.


Mr. Carter:: I should like to clarify one point arising out of the figures the Minister of Agriculture put on the record this morning. The figures indicated a steady increase in net income over a period of years, but certain members of the opposition said that during that time the purchasing power of the dollar had depreciated. Can the Minister of Agriculture tell us whether the number of farmers sharing that net income has decreased to a point where the average individual income of a farmer would be keeping pace with the depreciation in the dollar?


James Garfield Gardiner: In the first place I should like to correct the suggestion that I read the net income figures on the record. I did not read them. They are to go on the record, but the figures I read were cash income. The net income figures will be included in the table. I did say that the net income figures bore out the same argument I was making. With regard to the number of farmers, if you just take the two figures that are given the statistics indicate that there were not as many farmers in Canada in 1951 as there were in 1941. However, I am not too sure that gives the right picture because in 1941 all the land you had to have in order to be a farmer was one acre whereas under the 1951 census you had to have three acres. I believe those are the figures. That lops off a lot of persons who some people would say at once are not farmers. I am not too sure whether or not it is correct to do that, but that was what was done. I cannot say definitely how many farmers there are in any particular province now compared with the past, taking exactly the same basis to check them, but in looking at the situation in my own district I find it is pretty difficult to get

anybody off the farm. I have been trying to buy one for quite a few years and I have not been able to do so.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Come down to New Brunswick.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is too far away for me. However, tha.t is the indication in our area. The same farm families who homesteaded the land are still on it in most cases, which is another fact that should be remembered. Whether or not that applies to New Brunswick I do not know but it applies in Huron where I was born. I go back there to visit the people living there now and the people living on the old Gardiner homesteads are nearly all relatives of mine.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: That is the best place you have ever lived.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, it is a good place.


Mr. Philpolt:: Could I ask one question about the figures for margarine in Quebec? Some of us were under the impression that the sale of margarine in Quebec was illegal.


Edward George McCullough: In
view of the fact the committee has given unanimous consent to the minister to extend his remarks, and since he has explained the situation with respect to butter at some length but has not made any reference to hogs and eggs, I wonder whether he would give us a resume of the situation regarding those two important commodities and the question of floor prices.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Before the minister answers, in fairness to the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand, whom I indicated I intend to recognize, I think I should reiterate that I thought the committee as a whole would like me to enable members to clear up some points they tried to raise during the course of the minister's remarks and which he requested be left to the end. However, the hon. member is raising entirely new subjects and as I do not think we are going to complete this particular item before lunch I now see the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand.


Mr. Charlton:: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know we are all very much interested in the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture. He said, of course, that the figures he gave were irrefutable, but I will say that they can be very misleading. I am not going to try to refute any of the figures the minister has given. However, I just want to point out to him that he ignored or practically ignored the fact that margarine came into this country about 1948 or 1949, I believe it was, and that those butter figures have increased considerably ever since then. I think probably he is ignoring that fact when he figures out how much butter must

be held over in order to-according to the expression that has been used-keep the pipe line filled. The minister has coined several new expressions today and they are extremely interesting. But when he says that they need 78 million pounds of butter in order to make sure that the consuming public will have all the butter they need, I still say he is losing sight of the fact that the consumption of margarine has increased to almost 10 pounds per capita, as I understand it.
In reference to the dominion-provincial conference-and the minister made some slight reference to it-I should like to suggest sincerely that that conference has been of great value-and I will admit that-for the purpose for which it was set up back in the war years. But now I would say that it has simply become a listening conference, to a great degree; it has become a conference listening to dominion officials with long speeches and masses of figures. I think it could serve a useful purpose if committees were set up and some solutions to the various problems were worked out when all these various ministers and officials are here from all across the dominion. I think it would be advantageous to the minister himself and to his departmental officials to have the results which might be achieved by these committees meeting and working on the various problems.
We now come to the statement the minister made on farm income. As I said before, Mr. Chairman, figures can be most misleading. In the first place, all the figures the minister gave to us were gross figures, as he suggested just previously in answer to the Newfoundland member. Does the minister realize what the net position of the farmers is? I should like to ask the minister to define this term "real income". I do not know, but apparently it is a net worth statement. I have always heard of gross income and net income but I had never before heard the term "real income" used. I should like to hear the minister define "real income" and to find out whether it is other than a net worth statement.
This gross income figure means little. I will leave it to the good judgment of the farmers in eastern Canada to answer the minister and to say whether they agree with him when he says that they are better off now than they ever were before. The figures that he gave would indicate that situation. They would indicate that their income has increased practically every year since he became Minister of Agriculture. Of course he forgets that the country has been going ahead in spite of the fact that any particular government was in power and that the value of a dollar now is less than 50 per cent of what it was in former
Supply-Agriculture
years. I should also like to ask him if he agrees that there is a parity price. On one occasion previously he admitted in the house that he did not know the definition of parity and that probably nobody else did.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not exactly that. I said that none of us agree as to what it ought to be.


John Alpheus Charlton: That could be said for many things other than parity price. I am using the figure set forth by Dr. Hannam of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture when he says that at the present time-and he made this statement last fall at the dominion-provincial conference-we are back within one point of the position we were in back in 1940. He was referring to the parity price position of the farmers across Canada. That is the only meaningful statement that we can take for actual net worth, namely that the parity position of farmers across Canada is within one point of the position we were in back in 1940. Would the minister suggest that the eastern farmers are now in as good a position as they have ever been in?


James Garfield Gardiner: You will notice that I did not say that. It was you who said it. I said that the figures spoke for themselves.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Chairman, the minister often misleads with figures. By the use of figures he certainly intimated that the eastern farmer was now in better condition or in a better position than he had ever been in previously because he said the $400 million loss was entirely in the western provinces.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is a different thing. I proved that he had more cash than he ever had in that period of time but that does not prove that he is better off.


John Alpheus Charlton: I am glad to hear the minister make that admission, because I am going to leave it to the farmers of eastern Canada to say whether or not they are better off. I do not care what the minister says. I do not think many people will agree with him. I notice that the minister just patted his own back a little bit for the fact that these figures were so good since he had come into power. I suggest to him sincerely that he is probably the only one that is patting his back because few farmers across Canada today are doing so. I wonder whether the minister deducted the 5 per cent interest they are going to have to pay on the loans before he came to the net worth statement of the western farmers?
Then we have the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce made the other day in the House of Commons. I know that I am not supposed to quote from a previous debate in this house but I can at least put it
106b

Supply-Agriculture
in my own words. I would hate to agree with the minister when he stated in effect that the Canadian economy was travelling in the highest gear possible at this time. I would hate to think that we are going to stand still from now on. In spite of what government is in power, I think Canada has a great future and that it is going to go ahead and not stand still.
He also suggested that if we had had a dry spring or a dry summer last year, the situation would have been far different than it was in relation to wheat and butter, that there might have been a deficit position or a scarcity in the supply of wheat and butter.
I was under the impression that the minister was here in Ottawa last May, June and July. But apparently he was just in the city. Never in the history of the Ottawa valley has there been a drier year than last year, practically speaking. That statement applies not only to the Ottawa valley but to practically all of the province of Ontario, and the province of Quebec. Last spring and last summer were practically the driest in history. Yet the minister apparently did not know it or did not realize it. He said that if it had been a dry year last year we would probably have had a deficit in butter. I suggest to him that it did not make much difference to the farmers and apparently it does not make too much difference in their production figures. They now have other means of feeding cattle and are not dependent purely on pasture.
We have heard a considerable amount about the crystal ball, Mr. Chairman. Apparently this is just another case where the ministers and the members on the other side of the house are still gazing into the crystal ball. Few people have any faith in that form of political daydreaming and the conjuring up of mythical pictures. They are too easily beclouded with political expediency.
During the depression years the farmers survived, and in many cases only survived, by living on their capital and allowing their properties to deteriorate practically to the point of destruction. That is the only way they existed. Then, the war came along and the demand for food was increased tremendously. They had very good prospects of recouping some of the money they had lost during the previous years. But what did the government do? They set a ceiling price on all farm products. They froze prices. It was, therefore, impossible for the farmers to recoup during those years. Then, scarcities began to arise and the government was forced into a position of paying subsidies to induce greater production of farm commodities.

At that time the Prime Minister of the day assured farmers across this country that if they would not expect high prices, would not squeeze the last nickel for farm products, they would not suffer after the war. Prices would be sufficient to give the farmers a good income. The farmers across Canada accepted the challenge and produced more than they ever produced in history. They made a handsome contribution to the war effort by working long hours, sometimes under conditions	that were not	too good.However,	the	government	could not
control costs, and what happened? The price-cost position became poorer and poorer, and the net income of the farmer diminished. What did the farmer do? He did what he always does when he arrives at that position: he tried to produce more on the land he was using in order to make up the decrease in income. By hard work and improved methods, yields were increased considerably.
Then, we found we had surpluses. A very small surplus, Mr. Chairman, can cause a great depression in price. Around 1949 I had the privilege of visiting the western provinces. At that time and previous to that time we had been suggesting from this side of the house that we were losing, as a matter of fact, had lost, many of our British markets. This government laughed at us. They did not say we were lying, but they said everything else that meant the same thing. They said it was not true. In the west apparently the Minister of Agriculture and the various cabinet ministers travelling out there had the people believing there was no truth in that statement. Election time came, and you know the results.
The minister was in my home town of Brantford on December 7 of that year. At a meeting there the minister finally admitted what he had known for two years, and he admitted it not in the House of Commons but in a speech at Brantford. The speech was made to the Brantford board of trade on December 7, 1949. The minister said, and I quote:
During the last two years a very decided official effort has been made to drive every one of these products (pork, cheese, beef, eggs, etc.) off the British market. And now that the four-year wheat contract is drawing to a close an effort is being made to drive off a considerable part of our wheat as well.
Before the election, Mr. Chairman, we were called practically every kind of prevaricator for even suggesting that was the case. After the election the minister admits the truth of the situation and then blames officials, apparently, from Great Britain for trying to push these products off

the British market. It is for that reason I made the suggestion many times that members of this government, particularly members of this cabinet, are paying more attention to politics than they are to the country. It has been said often that only big men will admit mistakes. This government has no agriculture policy. It just has a carpetbag appeal to various sections of the country. Apparently when ministers are going to visit various sections of the country they grab the bag for that particular section and go and make their speech. What a grab bag that is. One thing is quite clear: politics is always uppermost in their minds.
Now, we have the famous cheese import fiasco of last year. I notice it is one o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
John Alpheus Charlton: to them. The farmers of Canada want a definite statement of policy, not a piecemeal day-by-day scheme.


Mr. Bryson:: I am sure that after listening to the extended remarks made this morning by the Minister of Agriculture all of us feel that we have been pretty well buttered up. That is one of the products which is bringing some real benefit to agriculture because it is supported under the Agricultural Prices Support Act and I am only sorry that other livestock products are not receiving the same consideration.
I thought it was rather significant that the minister did not bring up in the house this morning the question of supporting the price of hogs in Canada. I am not going to deal with any aspect of the minister's department other than that. I am bringing this up with a view to getting some clarification from the minister because I am sure that throughout the country there are grave doubts particularly in the minds of hog producers as to why things are as they are in respect of this so-called support price we have been led to believe is in effect in this country relative to hog production.
I think we will all have to agree that the production of pork in Canada is of considerable significance in the over-all economic position of agriculture. I have a few figures here which I am going to quote a little later on to bear out that statement. This, of course, is not a question which is of particular concern to any one section of the country; hog production is pretty well scattered over the entire dominion. However, it is of some extra significance to those of us in western Canada in the light of the fact that we have great quantities of feed grain in the west which we can dispose of to our advantage through feeding that grain to hogs. Sometimes when we look at the price of pork it appears on the surface that the possibilities of obtaining a profit are remote, but when we look at the price in relation to the price of barley and the difficulty of getting rid of barley and other feed grain then the question of hog production begins to take on a completely different complexion.
I think we are all interested in seeing that prices for hogs are maintained at the highest possible level because of the fact, as I mentioned a moment ago, that we can get rid of thousands of bushels of feed grain by feeding it to hogs.
In 1946 we had a tremendous export market for hogs. In fact, I think we exported to Great Britain alone some 694 million pounds of pork in round figures. However, since that time our export markets have fallen off

sharply; as a matter of fact, we are not exporting any pork to Great Britain at the moment.
In 1951 hog marketing in Canada amounted to $251 million; in 1952 it amounted to $263 million and in 1953 it amounted to $238 million, a small drop in the returns for that year.
During the years 1951 and 1952 the hog-barley ratio-and that is something I shall mention a little later on-was quite favourable toward the production of hogs. The hog-barley ratio is something that has been developed over the years and it has become a sort of yardstick by which hog producers can ascertain with some degree of accuracy what the chances are of their realizing a profit out of feeding feed grains, especially barley, to pigs.
The hog-barley ratio is the number of bushels of No. 1 feed barley that equals 100 pounds of grade B1 pork plus the premium and over the years it has become an established principle. In these two years 1951 and 1952 the hog-barley ratio was such that there were fair prospects that the farmers could make a profit. In this regard I should like to mention that the hog-barley ratio is also used in the maritimes and other places in Canada to calculate the prospects of making a profit out of hog production.
On this point I should also like to mention a matter raised by the hon. member for Westmorland who yesterday continually reminded us of the fact that the taxpayers of Canada were subsidizing the western farmers in respect to the storage bill with which we were dealing. In this connection I would point out that we in western Canada have shipped $234 million worth of grain to the maritimes and to eastern Canada all of which received a freight subsidy paid for by the taxpayers of Canada. I believe that is a good principle and I hope it continues. I was sorry last year when the minister cut his appropriation in that regard. This is one of the things which eastern members possibly overlook.
Early in 1953 the government reduced the floor price on hogs across Canada to $23, 100 pounds for grade A hogs f.o.b. Toronto and Montreal. I feel if we are going to have a support price and if that support price is to mean anything, then this drop to $23 from the original $26, which it was prior to 1953, was completely unjustified if we are going to live up to the spirit and the letter of the act as laid down in 1944. I refer, of course, to the Agricultural Prices Support Act.
We must remember that in 1953 barley was worth $1.22 a bushel and the long-term average for the hog-barley ratio is 18 bushels.
Supply-Agriculture
In other words, it took 18 bushels of No. 1 feed barley to equal in value 100 pounds of B1 pork. With a little calculation you can see it would have taken $29.77 worth of barley to equal 100 pounds of B1 pork at that time. Nevertheless in the face of that the government thought it necessary to drop the support price from $26 to $23 and I say it was completely unjustified if they are going to live up to the letter of the regulations in the Agricultural Prices Support Act. I am going to refer to that a little later on in order to elaborate and expand this point.
The question now arises, why did the government drop the price from $26 to $23? Obviously there must have been some reason; at least we must assume there was a reason.
In the November issue of the Current Review, which is a publication of the economic division of the Department of Agriculture, the minister's own department, we find that in 1955 the price of hogs dropped disastrously. As a matter of fact, some of the figures I have, indicate that pork dropped $7.77 from June 1 up until a month or two ago.
In this review which I have mentioned and which was sent out by the minister's department, we find that in 1955 there were 18 per cent more hogs on farms in Canada than there were in 1954. In the province from which I come there were 32 per cent more hogs than in 1954. Immediately it will be said that much of the reason for the drastic drop which I mentioned in hog prices was because of that increase, but if we look further into the review which I mentioned a moment ago we find that that is not exactly the case.
We find that the total disappearance of meat in Canada in 1955 amounted to something over 119 million pounds more than in the year before. It is interesting to note that of the 119 million pounds of meat which disappeared in 1955, 86 per cent was pork or
102.568.000	pounds. The total estimated pork production in 1955 according to their calculations was about 105 million pounds more than in 1954. Taking into account exports in 1955, which were in the neighbourhood of
4.500.000	pounds, we find that Canada ended up with about the same pork stock in 1955 as she had in 1954.
As I pointed out earlier, the figures for 1955 in connection with production disappearance, etc., were the same as in 1954, but the price at Winnipeg averaged $29 a hundred pounds for grade A in 1954. However, in 1955 the price steadily declined from $29 to $20 or less.
Here we see a completely unwarranted dislocation of pork prices because of the government's refusal, first to introduce a national

Supply-Agriculture
livestock marketing act, or in the event that they could not see their way clear to do that to implement the provisions of the floor price legislation which was passed in 1944. The same thing can be said of other agricultural products, but I am not going to deal with those at the moment.
The minister will say, as he has said in this house, that we have a floor price under hogs. A great many other people are saying that. There is not a farmer in my part of the country, and I doubt if there is a farmer in the whole of western Canada, who does not believe that this government has established a floor price under pork. It is for that reason that I have brought this discussion before parliament today. I should like the minister to make some definite clarification, something he has not done in the past to my knowledge, to show just what the case is in respect to floor prices.
To justify my statement that people by and large believe that there is a floor price I should like to indicate what was stated at the dominion-provincial agricultural conference held in Ottawa on December 5, 6 and 7 last. Representatives of the ten provinces were present and it was stated that those ten agricultural representatives had argued that it was necessary to continue support prices for butter, eggs and hogs and the freight assistance on feed grain. Even those ten representatives of the provinces believed that there is a floor price under hogs. I question that very much and I hope the minister will clarify his position before this debate is over. If there is a floor price, why was it, in the face of the evidence which I produced a moment ago, that the price of $26 should have dropped to $23 when there was absolutely no justification for that drop?
The minister will say, as he said on one or two occasions just lately, that until the provinces enter into marketing agreements and set up marketing boards the hands of this government are tied in respect to floor prices. I wonder to what legislation the minister was referring when he said that the federal government will give assistance to the provinces when and if they set up marketing legislation.
I wonder if he was referring to the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act. Apparently he was, because of what he said in Saskatoon on April 24 when he was speaking to the members of thd farmers' union. They had been giving a great deal of consideration to establishing a marketing board out there and the minister went out to give them some advice and answer a few questions. He outlined what the present

federal legislation provided for if a marketing board was set up under provincial law. The report of this meeting continues:
The co-operative marketing act of 1939 allowed the federal government to enter an agreement with a producer marketing board, whereby the government could guarantee up to 80 per cent of the average price over the preceding three years as an initial payment to the producer.
However, Mr. Gardiner made it clear this was not a support price, and that the federal government would not wish to enter an agreement of this type whereby it would be continually subsidizing the producer.
Then the minister went on to say that the federal government did not have legislative power to set prices for producers. I challenge that statement. If the minister was indicating that if a province went ahead with a livestock marketing scheme the federal government under the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act, would come into the picture and that that would have some stabilizing influence on the price of hogs, then I have completely misinterpreted the act itself.
The Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act does not set floor prices. They only assume some responsibility; they give some assurance that if the price of a product falls below the average wholesale price for the past three years the government will come to the assistance of that organization to a maximum of 80 per cent. In the past that has been scaled down on a sliding basis and in reality it has been more like 60 per cent and I understand that at times less than 25 per cent. Therefore I suggest that no province is going to benefit from this legislation and to say that it will is a pretty nonsensical statement. I should like the minister to state if this is the act he had in mind when he said the other day that the federal government would assist the provinces if they set up marketing schemes. I hope he will make that clear today.
Then I wonder if the minister is referring to the Agricultural Prices Support Act which was introduced in 1944. There is nothing in the estimates this year to indicate that any money is going to be paid out under that act. I should like to see something in that respect. In the first instance this act was conjured up by the government during the war with the idea of giving some support to agricultural products. The government was given complete power to introduce such legislation during the transition period from war to peace. As has been quoted here on many occasions, Mr. King, the prime minister at that time, 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 first method of support provided in the act is the power to buy any designated agricultural product at a defined price. A second method of supporting prices is also provided for in the act and involves the determination of a price which is regarded as fair for a particular product for a particular period of time. Under the act how are they going to ascertain what is a fair price? I think this is the nub of the whole situation. The act has this to say in that regard:
... in prescribing prices . . . 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.
It would seem that the government has completely evaded its responsibility in this respect because every time that the price of hogs starts to approach the floor the floor is immediately dropped. We have seen that happen and we may see it happen again. I hope we do not. I hope the government is going to make some attempt at least to maintain some semblance of a floor under hogs throughout the country. I should like to see it go a little further than that. I should like to see the act really have some teeth in it.
There was a discussion in the house the other day regarding this very question, and I have yet to hear the minister make a clear and forthright statement as to just what the situation is. It seems to me there is a great deal of confusion in the mind of the minister and also in the minds of producers.


Mr. Sluder:: In the minds of the socialists.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I am very glad to see that the hon. member-


Irvin William Studer: The only place where there is confusion is in the minds of the socialists.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: -for Swift Current-Maple Creek has at last got over the terrific case of laryngitis he has had for the last two or three days-


Irvin William Studer: I do not make socialist speeches.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: -during the debate on wheat. On January 31 it was brought to the attention of the minister that hog producers were receiving less than the floor price and at that time the minister said, as found at page 708 of Hansard:
In any case where the matter is brought to the attention of the Department of Agriculture the officials see to it that the proper price is paid and, of course, the farmer will not settle until he gets his premium and all the rest of it. That is all checked. The proper procedure is for the
Supply-Agriculture
farmer or anyone receiving the certificate from the farmer to immediately send it to the prices board.
I am wondering how many farmers know that. Why is it that the farmers are continually receiving less than the floor price? I am still getting these receipts and they are from different companies, Canada Packers, Intercontinental Packers, Burns and others. Why is it that the farmers are not made acquainted with this regulation? It looks to me as if the floor price is being maintained because of some tacit understanding between the government and the packers. I have never seen instructions posted anywhere advising producers that they have this recourse.


Mr. Trainor:: You advise them.


Irvin William Studer: Why do the socialists not go into the packing business?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Of course we know that the minister was quite concerned about it. This is not the first time it has happened. It happened in 1953 when the floor was dropped from 26 to 23 cents. I hope the minister will make a clear and forthright statement today as to just what the condition of affairs is with relation to the floor price, because I know that not one farmer in western Canada realizes there is any such machinery set up whereby he can be recompensed for the difference between what he receives and the so-called floor price.


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend will permit me, when he says there is not a farmer in western Canada who knows what the condition is he is saying there is not a farmer in the pool organization of western Canada because the pool has all the information and they are in a position to inform individuals as to how to proceed.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I am still not satisfied.


James Garfield Gardiner: You never will be.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: In reply to a question by the hon. member for Yorkton the minister said, as found at page 790 of Hansard:
The floor price is made available at the stockyard. Any person delivering hogs in Saskatchewan can get the floor price at the stockyard and there is no excuse for anyone not getting it provided he takes the hogs there.
This again I cannot understand.


Irvin William Studer: Where do you take your hogs?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I have delivered quite a lot of hogs in my time.


Irvin William Studer: Where do you take them now?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I take them where 90 per cent of the farmers take them, to the local stockyard. I unload them there and I dc not go to Winnipeg. I do not know what

Supply-Agriculture
the grade is going to be until they are hung up on the rail and the government grader grades the hogs.


Irvin William Studer: Is that a pool stockyard?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I should like to know what instructions the farmer has ever received that he can get the difference between the $18.75 as found on this slip I have-


James Garfield Gardiner: If, instead of getting up here, you will ask every farmer to be sure to go to the pool organization at the stockyard in Melfort they will tell him what the situation is.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Why should they send these slips to members of parliament if there is provision made for them to get the money through the regular channels? I cannot see any reason.


James Garfield Gardiner: I can give you some reasons but I will not insult you by doing so.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: In any case, I think it has to be admitted that there is a great deal of confusion and I still wish the minister would explain to me how he can get up in the house and say there is a floor price when the price of hogs starts to go down below the floor. He does not maintain the floor price. He drops the floor, as he has done on one or two other occasions. In my opinion we are in exactly the same position today as we were 20 years ago so far as the orderly marketing of hogs, cattle-


Irvin William Studer: You are in the dark.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: -or any other livestock product is concerned. Until the government is prepared to introduce an over-all national livestock policy I do not see how we are going to get anything different from what we have today. A certain pattern has been followed for a great many years. It is the same old pattern and the losses and hardship suffered by the prairie farmer because of price instability are impossible to calculate. We know that they are great. Long-term production planning is impossible. It is not even practical to contemplate it in the face of price instability. When prices are low- this is the pattern we have seen over the years-breeding stock becomes scarce and the market appears to be rather favourable from the point of view of farmers going into the livestock industry, and tfiat is jxactly what they do. By absorbing stock from the market for breeding purposes the narket is further depleted. Then we begin ;o see an increase in the price of livestock. Prices start to go up.
Instead of buying at high prices the packer ;akes advantages of the low prices and fills
TMr. Bryson.]
his lockers full of meat. His storage capacity is filled. When the farmer has completed his breeding program and starts to put his product on the market the packer will not buy it because in the meantime the price has started to rise. The packer uses the products he has stored in his plant during the period of low prices. That is the situation we face. The same cycle of events has taken place for the last 20 years. The farmer cannot hold back his product because it is perishable. He has to put it on the market, but the packer will not buy it because he does not have to buy it. He has plenty of meat in his locker.
Then we have the inefficient producer who went into the livestock business in the hope of high profits, and because of the price situation he cannot maintain his herd now that prices are falling. He has got to sell it, lock, stock and barrel. This further depresses prices to the point where the efficient producer is no longer able to carry on. These are the problems that we must face up to. Nothing that I have heard the minister say and in nothing that I have read in any of the acts that have been passed by this government do I find anything that will solve the problem. There is only one solution and it is this. We must have in this country an agricultural prices support policy on a national basis. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, before this debate is over I hope the minister will get to his feet once again and see whether he can give us a clear and forthright statement as to what constitute the support prices about which we hear so much.


Irvin William Studer: You would not understand it anyway.


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Chairman, I believe that all hon. members enjoyed the minister's opening statement. Ever since I came to the house 20 years ago it has been a matter of astonishment to me how enthusiastic the minister always is over what he has to tell.


Irvin William Studer: He has something to boast about.


John Horne Blackmore: He becomes so completely optimistic that he convinces himself. In my particular area I do not find much justification for the glowing statement which the minister made pertaining to agriculture. However, it is not my purpose to undertake to find any particular fault with the minister's statement.
I wish to raise four matters which I believe the Canadian producers ought to face up to without much more delay. Many hon. members have brought to the attention of the house this year already the fact that

there are vast numbers of people in the world who are not able to get the necessities of life. Some people say that one-half of the world's population is going to bed hungry every night.


Irvin William Studer: Tell us a new one.


John Horne Blackmore: I am not saying that is true. I said that some people have said that. Will the hon. member question that statement? Mr. Chairman, we seem to have two or three members over yonder who are bubbling over with some sort of effervescence.


Irvin William Studer: We should like to hear something new.


John Horne Blackmore: When I get through there is going to be plenty of time for the hon. member to get to his feet and talk.


Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):: He is afraid to do so. He would show his stupidity.


John Horne Blackmore: What we are going to do as a nation in respect of this hunger is something concerning which I think we really should form some notion before it becomes too late. Either we are going to endeavour as a nation to participate in a movement to help to solve the problem of hunger among the peoples of less favoured lands or we are going to endeavour to live entirely to ourselves in the main and to limit our production to what we ourselves are able to consume.


Irvin William Studer: How much are you producing?


John Horne Blackmore: As matters stand at the present time we are just about half-way between the two general attitudes. We talk about FAO and international distribution but we never do anything about it.


Irvin William Studer: You cannot eat words.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I should sit down and let the hon. member have the floor?


Irvin William Studer: That is a good idea.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: Would the hon. member like the floor to himself?


Irvin William Studer: Do something because you cannot eat words.


John Horne Blackmore: Would the hon. member like the floor to himself?


Irvin William Studer: Talk sense and we will listen.


John Horne Blackmore: Would the hon. member like the floor? Some people are a standing reflection on the constituencies that send them here.


Irvin William Studer: They produce more than words.


Mr. Weir:: There is one man standing now.
Supply-Agriculture


John Horne Blackmore: My general feeling is that since hunger in the world is one of the major causes for unrest which can easily contribute to a state of world disorder that might sweep civilization off its feet, we should be contemplating the means whereby we can help in solving the problem of hunger among the underprivileged. If we are going to do that in any organized sort of way, I submit there are four main considerations which we ought to have before us in this session of parliament and from now on until we find a solution.
In the first place, we should give a great deal of study to storage. In due time I should like to ask the minister a number of questions with regard to his policy with respect to storage. Then we should consider orderly production. The hon. member who has just taken his seat has pointed out how difficult it is for anyone who desires to go into the hog producing business to know what to do. It seems that the prices stay up for a little while until men go into the production of hogs, and then they go down, resulting in tremendous loss to those who have invested in the hog producing business. Then they go up again and then they go down again. Several years ago we had a fall in prices which caused a tremendous amount of loss to the people in my area. I do not see any reason why we should not devise some means whereby all our producing could be on an orderly basis and not nearly so much a haphazard concern as it has been hitherto.
Then the matter of fertilizers is one which I think should be given the utmost attention. If we propose to pass this nation on to our descendants in anything like the condition of productivity which prevailed in the nation when we took over, we should give most careful attention to how to maintain the fertility of the soil. Then I think it is time that we knew something of the minister's ideas with respect to marketing abroad. I will give the minister credit for being the only member of the cabinet up to the present time whom I have heard say anything that indicated he was aware that there was need for devising means whereby to market abroad. I believe it was in 1952 that he made a statement something like this: If we cannot learn how to get our goods into the hands of those who need them, there must be something wrong with our ideas. I wish the minister had felt free to elaborate on the concept which he had in his mind when he made that statement because I am certain that the inability or the failure to get our goods into the hands of those who need them constitutes an evidence that the whole nation of us is lacking in ideas.

Supply-Agriculture
I should now like to give just a little bit of attention to each of those four general topics I have mentioned. We need to know what the minister is doing in respect of storage facilities. I have been greatly interested in the wheat problem as I believe have all members of the house. I have held that, in order to deal adequately with the wheat problem in a long-range manner, we ought to have storage on the farm so that the government could advance payments on grain stored on the farm. That storage ought to be such that the government could approve it. I should like it very much if the minister, not particularly now but when the time comes, will give the house a statement concerning the discoveries which his department has made in respect of storage facilities. We would like to know what is the best kind of storage facilities to put on the farm. Is it the quonset bin or what kind is it? What has the minister's department learned? What is it prepared to recommend? What would be the cost of erecting farm storage facilities capable of storing say 5,000 bushels of wheat?
Then, what has been done in respect of storing other kinds of food? Has the minister's department given consideration to the possibility of storing honey, for example, on the farm? Has the department considered storing dried beans, peas, corn and the like? If it has given attention to these things, what have been the findings? I find myself somewhat at a loss to appreciate the fact that we talk so glibly about the possibility of nuclear war; we spend a lot of time and money devising how to defend ourselves in a civic way, and yet we have given no public indication that we have any kind of plan for the important matter of having some food stored so that in case of a nuclear war there would be food available for those of us who happened to survive. That is why I mentioned storing such things as honey, sugar, beans, peas, corn and other things that could be stored.
I should like to know to what extent we have progressed in the dehydration of food, the dehydration of milk, eggs and various other kinds of food to make them suitable for storage in that form. I should like to know what progress has been made so that we might possibly devise some sort of policy in this respect. Now, the next aspect of the storage question is, have we planned any kind of overall storage program? If not, then I must say that certainly the government is failing to meet the responsibilities which the situation forces upon any government in any democratic country in the world today.
I turn now to the matter of production. We have a commission which is studying the IMr. Blackmore.]
matter of the potential of Canada's resources. I wonder if the government has had a survey made of the whole of Canada to determine the productive capacity of the country, and where that capacity is particularly located? By way of illustrating what I have in mind, I might point out that in my particular area from High River south to the border of Alberta, we can produce more sugar from beets than could be used by the whole of Canada every year. We now have three splendid sugar factories in operation, but we have a tremendous potential for the production of sugar beets. Probably there are other areas in Canada, since I have mentioned sugar, in which sugar could be produced. Has the Department of Agriculture gone over the ground, so to speak, to find out how much sugar we can produce in Canada in case we found we needed to produce sugar?
Now, having learned the capacity we have, what can be said concerning the actual production in Canada? Of course, that is very well known. I wonder if the information has all been brought together so it can be read in a comprehensive detailed report? I wonder whether or not the federal government, working in co-operation with the provincial governments, takes pains to plan the production of Canada in a general way? If I might illustrate, I would say it would help very much if we in Alberta knew about how many hogs it would be in the best interests of Canada for us to produce; how much sugar; how many potatoes, and probably how much of every one of the major agricultural products. If we knew fairly well how much would likely be expected of us, and each province knew this, then we would have a target before us to aim at, namely the production of that amount of goods. I believe it would save us from a good many costly experiences which arise because of our producers going at the problem in a haphazard fashion.
I am told that in one of the constituencies in Ontario they produced a very fine crop of Bartlett pears, grapes and an equally fine crop of peaches last year. When the time came to harvest those commodities it was found that those fruits could not be sold. I am told that they heaped up the peaches in piles and paid men to stand and watch those peaches spoil. People were forbidden to eat one of the peaches. The same sort of thing happened to the pears and the grapes. It seems to me that there was a colossal waste there of the agricultural potential of that particular area in Ontario. I feel we could avoid a great deal of that kind of waste if we planned more carefully, both the dominion and the provinces.

I should like to know to what extent the minister and his department have canvassed this aspect of our production. The next question would be the matter of economic guidance. It may be found that it would not be economical to have one province produce a certain kind of product when that product perhaps could be produced much more economically in some other province. If there were some guidance given through the district representative of the Department of Agriculture, under the direction of the provincial government, I believe we could use this great asset called Canada to far better advantage than we are now using it.
The next important matter is that of protecting home producers. The things that have been said by certain members since this session began concerning what has been happening in respect of potatoes indicates we are still very far from attaining anything like the ideal with regard to protecting our potato producers, particularly those in British Columbia and the maritime provinces. I think that, in so far as such measures are possible, they ought to be taken to avoid disappointment and losses of that kind.
I turn from this aspect of the picture to that of fertilizer. I should like the minister to be ready to tell us when the time comes what progress has been made by his science organization in the perfecting of fertilizers, ones for the replacement of each and every one of the different kinds of soil nutrients; how successful they are, and so on.
Then, I would like to have him tell us what measures have been taken in an orderly sort of way by his department to have factories established for the production of such fertilizer; whether there is any understanding between the government and those engaged in such manufacture to see to it that the manufacture and the marketing of fertilizer are accomplished in the most economical fashion, so that those who need the fertilizer to restore the fertility of their soil will be able to obtain it at the most economical price.
Then I would like to have him tell us just what are the costs of the various kinds of fertilizers in the various provinces of Canada.
I pass now from that question to marketing abroad particularly. I wonder first of all how co-operation is effected between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce with respect to marketing abroad. Is there an understanding, is there co-operation between those two departments, or does each one of them more or less carry on in an independent way by itself? I think we ought to know about this. I should like to know just what progress has been
67509-69J
Supply-Agriculture
made with respect to the FAO and the creation of a world food bank, or food organization.
I should like to know what the holdups have been. As I have gathered from the press, the Minister of Agriculture has been to a very large percentage of the meetings of FAO and of international distribution of food. I am sure the members of the committee and the people of the country would like to know what has been done about establishing an international food bank, and what has been the hurdle in the way of accomplishing the setting up of such a food bank. What is the matter? Is it lack of money? Certainly it is not lack of food. If it is lack of money, why was that hurdle not foreseen when the United Nations and all the people who are behind the United Nations and other international organizations were doing so much talking about setting up a food bank? Why did they not foresee this difficulty and make some provision for solving the problem? If they did make some provision, what was their provision, and how comes it about that today, ten years after the enthusiastic talk about international distribution, we are apparently just as far from it as we ever were in the history of the world?
I think the minister will tell us that the difficulty is a financial one. We in Canada do not feel that we can give our wheat, our oats, our barley, our rye, our sugar and all the other things that we can produce. We cannot distribute those to an international food bank until we can get money from the food bank to pay for those commodities. Well, where is the food bank going to get the money with which to pay it?


Irvin William Studer: From social credit.


John Horne Blackmore: Social credit is right. You said something that is correct, but I have not noticed the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek advocating social credit.


Irvin William Studer: Send your missionaries over there.


John Horne Blackmore: What we want to know is whether or not there is any financial provision in the minds of the Canadian leaders, or of the leaders of any of the other free nations, whether there is any idea in their minds as to how this problem can be solved. If there is not, and they are all agreed that it is impossible to set up an international food bank, then let us stop talking about it and settle down to the idea that we simply must live to ourselves, and the hundreds of millions of luckless people who happen to be living in areas in which they are unable to produce the things that they want, or that the United States wants, or that any one of the free

Supply-Agriculture
nations wants, will just have to die of hunger unless they can do something to solve the problem in their own countries.
I have not endeavoured to go into any particular detail in respect of those four problems, but I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Agriculture ought to go into each of these matters with a great deal of care. He should call together his experts and be ready to tell us at the appropriate time all that he has available for the use of the country in respect of storage and production in an orderly way in Canada, and fertilizers and marketing. In due time we shall ask him to give us the information which he has accumulated in respect of these matters.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I have not been a farmer lately; but as I sat in this house and listened to the farmer members from Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, and even from Brant-Haldimand, I felt sorry for the plight the farmers of Canada found themselves in. I did see considerable hope in the fact that they are not in as bad a position today as they were 30 years ago. My proof of that is the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture today that the growth was steady. I think I am guilty of speaking on what I know, and I am looking to find out the X, or what I do not know.
There are a good many farmers in the Fort William district, Mr. Chairman, 50 miles south and 125 miles west. We have had the champion potato grower of all of Canada in our district. Therefore, I say we do not need to take second place to any place, not even to Saskatchewan, for good farmers. I have respect for our farmers. They are intelligent; they are faithful workers and they do not spend all their time on the highways burning up gas. I know the farmers in our district have to pay a considerable amount in income tax, which shows that they have something left to live on.
We have two men in our district who do a great deal to help our farmers. One represents the government of Ontario, and he is a good man even though that government is Conservative. He goes everywhere. He keeps the farmers posted with up-to-date information; he helps them in a good many ways, and the farming in the district is greatly helped and production is greatly improved because of his services. The other man is the federal man, Mr. Knight, who has charge of the agricultural substation. He is just like his fellow worker. They work hand in hand, co-operating thoroughly. The farmers around Fort William are doing a splendid job. They have a potato club. They set a mark of 500 bushels to the acre.

Hon. members will be surprised to know how many men go over 500 bushels. I knew one man who had 773 bushels to the acre. They have an oat club. Competition amongst the farmers is very keen.
It is a great pleasure to go out in the country in the summertime and meet the farmers at a baseball game. It is very fine to go out in the winter, too, and see their hockey clubs in competition among themselves, which shows that the young people on the farm are enjoying themselves.
I rose to ask the minister a question. I congratulate the hon. member for Lethbridge on the number of questions he asked. The more questions that he asks the Minister of Agriculture the better the minister will like it and the more information the hon. member will get.
Somebody from Saskatchewan said that the farmers of Saskatchewan paid more income tax than all the other farmers in Canada. I am not sure whether I am right in saying that, but if my impression is correct I can tell you, judging from the farmers around Fort William, that the farmers in Saskatchewan are not so terribly hard up.
I am going to ask the minister to comment on that situation. If a man can pay income tax he certainly has something left to live on.
I congratulate the minister on the statement he made today. I was going to make some criticism of certain aspects of it but I would only make myself look foolish in the face of the statement the minister made today which was straightforward, clear cut and according to the facts. Thank you for your patience.


Mr. Thatcher:: This morning the Minister of Agriculture devoted a good portion of his time to dealing with the Canadian butter situation. I should like to comment on that policy again, as I have done on previous occasions.
I think the minister can take pride in the fact that most parties in the house appear to approve of his butter policy. Certainly the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand expressed approval this afternoon; members of the C.C.F. group agree with it, and I think with certain modifications the Social Credit group also is in accord. However, although I realize that very few hon. members agree with me-


An hon. Member:: Hurray.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: -I think the government's butter policy is shortsighted and economically unwise. As the house knows, it is, in the first place, costing the taxpayer directly a good deal of money. I believe the minister

said this morning the figure would probably come to about $8 million during the current year. Of course, that figure is only part of the picture because indirectly, by holding the ceiling price higher than it otherwise would be, the policy is costing the average Canadian a good deal more than that amount. Even if the differential was only five cents a pound, let us say, on the production figure of 1954 which was 334 million pounds, the cost to the consumer would be $16,700,000 and if the differential was ten cents it would be twice that amount. Of course the exact sum can only be a matter of conjecture but it would be substantial.
I would not object to this subsidy in any way, Mr. Chairman, if I was convinced that it was helping the butter producer. But I am convinced it is not, for a number of reasons. The minister said this morning that we have no troublesome surpluses so far as butter is concerned. I find it difficult to understand how he could come to such a conclusion. Every time the dominion bureau of statistics releases figures on butter in storage, the total seems to be higher than it was for the same comparable period a year ago.
On January 1, 1956, our butter surplus was over 100 million pounds. Butter spoils fairly easily so I think there is danger that we may be in trouble before too long if we do not take some kind of action.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I might interrupt the hon. member, I should like to clarify a point. I am sure that my hon. friend used the term unintentionally but he said our butter surplus on January 1 was 100 million pounds. The amount of butter in storage was 100 million pounds and that is not all a surplus.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: That is a fair correction and I accept it. The amount of butter in storage is over 100 million pounds. As I say, I know the minister has been concerned about this problem and he has taken three steps in the past several years to deal with it.
In the first place, last February he brought in legislation whereby hospitals and orphanages could buy butter at a discount of 21 cents a pound. Today it is rather obvious that the legislation was not successful. This morning the minister said, if I understood him correctly, that while it cost the taxpayer about one and a half million dollars to give the institutions the discounted price, they did not use very much if any extra butter because of the reduced price. If such is the case, if the experiment is not helping the producer of butter, it seems to me that the government surely should consider discontinuing that policy.


An hon. Member:: In Saskatchewan the government prefers margarine.
Supply-Agriculture


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: You could have a point there, too, I do not know. The second step the minister has taken to dispose of the butter surplus is to sell it to countries behind the iron curtain. I think he mentioned this morning that the amount of recent sales was about nine and one-quarter million pounds. I cannot help feeling there is something ludicrous about a policy that sells butter to the Canadian housewife at about 64 cents a pound retail and sells it to a communist housewife for 37 or 38 cents a pound.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I may just correct the hon. member's statement again, sir, I would say it is just an impression that has been created. By the time the butter reaches Germany it sells at approximately the same price for which it sells here. When all the costs are added the housewife there pays about the same for butter as the Canadian housewife.


An hon. Member:: You know these retailers!


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: The fact is we are selling it to countries behind the iron curtain at 37 cents per pound, as I understand it.
The third step the government has taken is to commence paying the charges for handling butter in storage. I believe the cost of this action will amount to about three cents a pound, which the taxpayer will be called upon to absorb. It does, in turn of course, mean a saving to the consumer. In spite of these three steps our surpluses of butter have been steadily increasing and it is pretty obvious that sooner or later we will have to take some other kind of action.
I think and I may be alone in so thinking, that our trouble is that the government floor price is placed at a level which is unrealistic. It is too high for the good of the consumer and it is too high for the good of the taxpayer. I think it is also too high for the long term interests of the producer.
I realize that originally this legislation was brought in by the government in good faith,, and in an effort to help the dairy industry.. But I also contend that the legislation is actually having the opposite effect. High butter prices today are doing little more than driving the consumer into the hands of the manufacturers of margarine. The net effect of the government's policy has been to force hundreds of thousands of Canadians, who otherwise might be eating butter, into eating margarine and other substitutes because the price is cheaper. Strangely enough, Mr. Chairman, I think it is Mr. Duplessis and the Quebec government who are actually saving the government's butter policy at all. The fact that he put a ban on margarine several

Supply-Agriculture
years ago has prevented the surplus from getting out of hand altogether.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: What about the spreads we have in Quebec?


An hon. Member:: You are really spread at times.


Pierre Gauthier: They call it butter spread; they do not call it margarine.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You mean price spreads.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I maintain that the artificial floor price on butter is not doing the job for which it was designed. I think I have support from certain people in the dairy industry. For instance the president of the national dairy council of Canada, Grant M. Carlyle, seems to share my views.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is he a farmer?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Speaking at the dairy council's annual meeting in Toronto a few months ago, Mr. Carlyle had this to say:
Holding prices of dairy products at an artificially high level to the consumer involves a conflict of aims which can only be harmful to the dairy industry in the long run.
He warned. Again I quote:
Holding an umbrella over the heads of producers at the expense of the dairy business by curtailing markets in Canada was poor business.
He went on to say:
'These are the only markets on which we can Tely with a degree of certainty and they ought not to be sacrificed by a policy intended to benefit dairy farmers, but which works against their long-term interests.


Edward George McCullough: Does the hon. member realize that the man he is quoting is not a farmer?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I said a moment ago that he was president of the national dairy council, and I assume he is a man of some importance in the industry.
The export market for Canadian butter has long since disappeared because our price was about one-third higher than the world price. It is true that if we want to subsidize butter, we can get into the export market, but it can be done only in that way.
It seems to me that both the government and the dairy industry must face certain harsh economic facts. If our producers want to regain their share of the domestic market, if they wish to get back some of the market which has been lost to margarine, they will have to accept a floor price at least a few cents lower than the present level.
Speaking to the annual meeting of the Canadian dairy council, Madame H. E. Vautelet of Montreal, president of the Canadian association of consumers, warned them
fMr. Thatcher.]
of this fact, and pointed out that consumer resistance was building up to high butter prices. In my opinion the most effective way in which the government can deal with our mounting surpluses, outside of banning margarine, is to reduce the floor price by 4 or 5 cents so that butter will be brought to a point where it will be competitive with margarine.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, a few
moments ago the house had the privilege of listening to the hon. member for Fort William making a contribution to this discussion and in it he referred to the member for Brandon-Souris as one of those who joined in the cry of havoc so far as the western prairie farmer was concerned. I make reference to the hon. member's remarks because in any statement I have made in this house concerning our prairie agricultural problems as they exist at the present time I have always taken extreme care not to be unrealistic in drawing the attention of the Department of Agriculture to the matter. In fact I have always stressed that Manitoba is in a slightly different category than Saskatchewan, for example. In commencing my remarks this afternoon I should like to say that if the record is read I do not think it will show that I have indulged at any time in irresponsible criticism of our agricultural policies as they exist today.
I listened this morning to the Minister of Agriculture as he made his state of the union address so far as agriculture is concerned. I must confess that from time to time as the minister addresses hon. members his oratorical ability seems to have a somewhat soporific effect upon his listeners and it would seem that the hon. member for Fort William has been a very apt pupil in this regard.
I enter the discussion this afternoon because I fail to grasp the significance of the minister's new category of real income. Perhaps he will clarify this point before we finish the discussion on this first item.
According to the category set up by the minister on the basis of real income the farmers are enjoying a relative degree of prosperity at the present time. That is entirely at variance with the representations I have had from agricultural groups such as the Manitoba federation, the Manitoba farmers' union, as well as from individuals. They all stress, I think with a great deal of responsibility, that in proportion to the total productive level of the Canadian economy our prairie farmers are in a relatively depressed condition. Notwithstanding that fact the Minister of Agriculture endeavoured this morning to suggest that the farmers do not know what they are talking about.

It is true, and we often hear this theme re-echoed from the other side, tha't the Canadian economy as a whole has enjoyed an unprecedented level of prosperity since the end of world war II, in fact since the concluding years of world war II. That was due to the obviously favourable geographic position of Canada in relation to the war-torn countries and to the backlog of consumer demand which had accumulated during world war II. It was due also to the fact that the economy of our neighbour to the south had changed radically. She had exhausted to a large extent her primary resources and had begun to call upon Canada to an increasing extent for the replacement of those primary resources. As a result Canada was drawn into an economic vortex which led to a continuing level of prosperity.
Considering the minister's remarks, there is one point that needs to be made in connection with the level of prosperity of our farm economy. I am including not only our prairie agricultural economy but the farm economy right across Canada. I am sure that Ontario farmers as well as those from the maritimes will be able to speak for themselves in this regard. The total farm economy has been placed in a position of declining prosperity as a result of the fundamental changes which have taken place in the Canadian as well as the entire North American economy.
I do not think that anyone, either by statistics or by any amount of verbosity, can demonstrate successfully that our Canadian agricultural economy is in a prosperous state at the present time. In recent days we have been discussing some particular aspects of the problems on the prairies. In particular we have been dealing with the difficulties encountered in connection with the marketing of our surplus grain. The Manitoba federation of agriculture has pointed out repeatedly in its representations to Manitoba members of parliament that there has been a severe relative decline in the net income of Manitoba farmers.
The figures have been given many times but it would seem that they need repetition. By 1954 net Canadian farm income had dropped 47 per cent compared with 1951, and in the prairie provinces the decline amounted to 67 per cent. Admittedly that is due to the fact that a large part of the wheat has not yet been marketed, and I would conclude from the remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture that in his new economic category of real income he includes total grain production, that is, grain still in the hands of the farmers as well as the grain already marketed through the wheat board in order to arrive at the figure he refers to as the real income.
Supply-Agriculture
If such is the case, such a calculation is completely out of touch with reality.
It has been suggested by the hon. member for Fort William that western farmers are always at the wailing wall crying over their sorry state of affairs. That again is not an accurate description of the situation, and in that regard I would emphasize particularly the position of our Manitoba farmers. We in Manitoba have gone a long way towards selfhelp. We have diversified more extensively, I suppose, than either of the other two prairie provinces. We have, for example, constantly decreased our total production of wheat. Last year total marketings of wheat from Manitoba sources were only 9 [DOT] 4 per cent of total prairie wheat marketings. Therefore it is obvious from that figure that wheat production in Manitoba is not making any substantial contribution to the growing surplus. In fact, it is hardly aggravating that particular problem in any way.
In recent years we have been moving towards the production of barley, and during the past three years Manitoba farmers have actually produced more barley than wheat Last year for the first time the value of the barley crop was greater than that of the wheal crop. Having mentioned these aspects of the trend towards diversification in farming ir Manitoba, I think we cannot be included ir the group who are supposed to be crying havoc in the House of Commons.
Although I have no direct knowledge of the situation, I am informed that in the othei provinces too, when the government has failed to move rapidly to deal with the verj critical wheat marketing problem, the farmer! have demonstrated initiative, in so far as thej are able under the terms of the wheat boarc act, in helping to bring ready cash into th< coffers. For example, I understand tha farmers in Alberta have been bartering graii quite regularly for consumer goods and th< merchants in the towns and cities have beer encouraging this process. Advertisements ar< appearing in the papers offering consume: goods, furniture and so on, in exchange fo: the delivery of grain. Unfortunately, how>
ever, the price received is a very small prici indeed when compared with the world marke today. It runs around 60 cents per bushel and when we consider the inflation that ha prevailed in Canada since the war it woul< actually be somewhere around 30 cents ii terms of pre-war purchasing power.
Thus the prairie farmers, within the limit of their ability, are trying to cope with tb unfavourable position in which they fini themselves, a position that is growing in creasingly difficult because they are caught ii

Supply-Agriculture
the squeeze of the basic transition in our Canadian economy. There are other solutions than those that have been put forward by the government. One of the basic solutions of the agricultural difficulties in the prairie provinces was outlined by the prime minister of Great Britain during his visit to this country last week end when he emphasized that trade is a two-way street and that if we are going to recover the former position we occupied in the markets of the United Kingdom we must in turn be willing to increase our imports of manufactured goods from that country.
I was glad to note that in a speech in southern Ontario recently the Minister of Agriculture also raised this same question when he suggested that Canada was going to make an earnest attempt to get back into the United Kingdom market. That was the first time there had been any acknowledgment that we had lost the United Kingdom market to any considerable extent. We must have stable export markets for our agricultural products, and certainly the traditional source of stable markets has been the United Kingdom rather than our neighbour to the south. Our farmers are considerably disturbed as they watch with each succeeding year the growing imbalance of trade with our neighbour to the south.
Another solution that has been proposed from time to time to assist the agricultural producer, particularly the prairie agricultural producer, in successfully negotiating the period of transition in our economy has been a demand for parity prices. In fact, I understand that one of the theme songs of the farm organizations on the prairies during recent months has been a parody on the well-known popular song, "Faith, Hope and Charity". The farmers have been singing "Faith, Hope and Parity, that's the way to live successfully." The essence of parity, of course, is to place the farmer in a position where he will enjoy a reasonable level of prosperity in proportion to the extremely high level of prosperity being enjoyed by other segments of the Canadian economy. That of course demands a much firmer price support program than we have enjoyed hitherto in Canada.
At the present time No. 1 northern wheat has an initial price of $1.40 per bushel, but in some years only a small part of the wheat crop is graded No. 1 Northern, which means that on the average the initial price would be considerably lower than $1.40 per bushel. If the wheat producer on the prairies, and he is our major agricultural producer, is going to enjoy a reasonable share of the farm income he has to have a much more substantial return for his product in relation to relative
fMr. Dinsdale.]
world prices than that which is offered by an initial payment of $1.40. For example, we have here a little publication produced by United Grain Growers Limited, in which they give up to date figures on the prices of wheat in other countries of the world.
The international wheat trade-
Says this publication.
-has not grown in proportion to population increases in wheat-consuming countries. Practically all of these have been stimulating domestic wheat production by guarantees of high prices to their own farmers. Equivalents of such prices, in U.S. dollars, were recently reported as follows: 'Algeria $2.64; Argentina $2.72; Austria $2.63; Belgium $2.56; Chile $4.50; Egypt $2.18; Finland $3.95; France $2.64; West Germany $2.72; Greece $2.40; Ireland $2.39; Italy $3.05; Japan $2.61; the Netherlands $1.86; Norway $3.46; Peru $1.83; Portugal $2.85; Spain $2.73; Sweden $2.35; Switzerland $4.19; Turkey $2.49; Union of South Africa $2.75; United Kingdom $2.30; Uruguay $2.96.
* Extract from South Western Miller, April 12, 1955.
In every case the price for grain produced in those countries is considerably above the price that our western grain producer has been receiving for his production during recent years.
Mr. Slu,der: How many of those countries are exporting countries?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Very few of them are exporting countries. But these figures indicate the inferior economic position in which our prairie farmer finds himself as compared with producers in these other countries. Unfortunately for us, some of these countries have been endeavouring to become more self-sustaining in grain. For example, France has been exporting during recent years, and even India and Pakistan are in a much more favourable position so far as the production of wheat is concerned.
I therefore think there is a real need for a complete re-examination of our price support program in Canada at the present time. It may be, as has been suggested by many hon. members who have spoken, that the present phase through which we are passing is merely temporary and that within a year or so the prairie grain producer will find himself in a much more favourable competitive position in our Canadian economy. But as the result of radical changes in technology and of a more businesslike approach to the matter of grain production, it seems to me that we are in for continuing surplus production down through the years; and until we have a large enough population on the prairies and introduce other phases of industrial activity there so as to build up a more stable internal economy, it seems to me the farmer is going to need considerable assistance from the federal government.

So much for the general problem of wheat and the position in which the prairie farmer generally finds himself in the economy at the present time. There is one subject matter that I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture-in fact there are two-and I shall do so briefly. The problem of flooding in Manitoba has been under continuous discussion in this house during the past three or four years. When the estimates of the department have been before us, whenever we reached the section dealing with the activities of P.F.R.A. we have had one or two casual questions concerning the progress of diking and flood control on the Assiniboine and Red rivers, and the minister has told us in casual terms that the work is proceeding according to plan.
Last spring, however, the problem of flooding reached unusually severe proportions and there were demands for immediate action from the farmers affected. They were so greatly disturbed that they organized a flood control association, which has been meeting regularly since then in order to bring this problem directly to the attention of the government. The hon. member for Portage-Neepawa made an effective presentation last year in regard to this question. He went back to his own constituency in order to review the situation for himself, and he came back thoroughly convinced that immediate action was required to deal with the situation. If the minister replies to the various questions that are thrown at him during this preliminary discussion on the first item of the estimates, I would appreciate it if he could inform us what action has been taken or what plans there are for the immediate future to deal more directly with this problem.
Then there is also the matter of assistance to the farmers who were affected by the flood last year and in the previous few years. Under the federal-provincial flood formula I understand that no consideration is to be given to the loss of livestock, grain or chattels. Under the assistance program I believe that only building damage is recoverable.
If that is the case it completely avoids the issue, because most of the farmers somewhere in their farm area have a relatively high level of ground, and they have seen to it that their buildings were placed on that high level. Almost without exception the flood damage did not cause any difficulties in connection with the houses, barns and other buildings. The damage arose largely because of inundated fields and inability to sow the crop last spring. There was also some injury to the farmers' livestock. Therefore if it is true that the
Supply-Agriculture
federal-provincial flood formula covers buildings only, it makes no contribution at all toward solving the problem of the financial loss suffered by the farmers in the recurring recent floods.
I understand also that the formula applies only to farmers who have been flooded by what are described as foreign waters such as the Assiniboine river, the Red river, the lakes of Manitoba and so forth. Again, much of our problem was caused from excessive rain damage. Of course if we were going to consider the difficulty in all its aspects, this would lead us to a consideration of the P.F.A.A. program. I believe there is in store for us at a later date some legislation with regard to P.F.A.A. I shall therefore leave any further remarks I have to make on that score until that legislation is before us.
There is one final item to which I wish to refer, and it is a recurring one. It is a problem that has been considered thoroughly by the committee on agriculture during the past two or three years. It is a problem that it seems we have not begun to solve even after all the careful deliberation which has taken place. In dealing with the question of the allocation of box cars the agriculture committee of last year came to this conclusion:
Your committee gave particular study to the difficulties of moving grain at this time of relative congestion and the inherent problem of the equitable distribution of box cars.
Your committee was seized with the present necessity of wheat board shipping orders having overriding priority. This committee recommends that the wheat board allocation of shipping orders be carried through, by the wheat board issuing instructions to the railways to spot box cars at elevators at each shipping point in proportion to the wheat board orders approved for that point.
At the time that seemed to be an adequate solution, but I have had more letters of protest than ever before on this box car problem. It would therefore seem that there is still something lacking. I know the question comes more directly under the Minister of Trade and Commerce but I trust the Minister of Agriculture, because of his professed interest in the welfare of the western grain producer, will use his influence in bringing about a more satisfactory solution to this difficulty.


Chesley William Carter: I want to say how happy I am to learn that so many farmers are in a position where they can afford to pay income tax; My primary interest, of course, is fish because I am the representative of a constituency composed almost entirely of fishermen. I am looking forward to the day when the fishermen of Burin-Burgeo will also be in a position to pay income tax. I only want the farmers to be in a position to keep on paying

Supply-Agriculture
income tax, and we want to bring the Newfoundland fishermen up to the point where they can pay income tax.
In order that these happy results may be achieved without detriment to the farmer, I am rising today to issue a word of warning to my friends from Saskatchewan. I want to suggest to them that they warn their farmer constituents against expanding the production of wheat, because a method has now been found whereby bread can be made from fish protein. Everybody knows that protein is far more essential to health than starch.


Edward George McCullough: At the
outset, Mr. Chairman, I want to say this party has stood firm for a national agricultural policy comprehensive enough to embrace all phases of agriculture in Canada. We are simply not satisfied with the hit or miss, hodgepodge policy of this government.
I was most astounded this morning when the Minister of Agriculture, in introducing his estimates in this house, failed to mention two of the very important phases of agriculture, namely livestock and hogs, eggs and poultry. In spite of the fact, that the committee gave unanimous consent to allow him to continue his introductory remarks, he did not see fit to deal with these topics. Perhaps he had some reason for it; I do not know. But I want to say that until we do have a comprehensive system of parity prices and other formulas by which the Canadian agriculturist is assured a fair price, I feel we have not a suitable agricultural policy for Canada.
Now that some segments of our Canadian agricultural economy are really in a price squeeze, I think it is important that this house give careful scrutiny to certain aspects of the agriculture situation. Once again this morning the Minister of Agriculture took axception to some remarks I made in a former debate, when I indicated that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture had criticized him with respect to his statement concerning the welfare of the agriculturist in Canada. I want to deal with that matter before proceeding with my remarks concerning policies in general. The article to which I referred in a former debate was carried in the Western Producer of February 2,	1956, and was
entitled, "Making Monkeys out of us; Delegate Criticizes Gardiner".
At the Hamilton meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture a delegate got up and took exception to remarks the minister had made at a previous meeting in Winnipeg in respect to the income of farmers in Canada. This delegate asked that the. Canadian Federation of Agriculture pass a resolution, and took exception to what he claimed

was a misrepresentation by the minister. I want to read from the article. Incidentally, this delegate told Dr. Hannam, C.F.A. president, that he was evading the question which he had put to him earlier in the session and asked that he make a direct answer. The article says:
Dr. Hannam said he had answered it the first time when he referred Mr. Stauffer to his presidential address in which he said that while most Canadians were enjoying prosperity, the farmers were not sharing in it and this should be recognized in the national picture when 1956 programs were being made.
Then the Canadian Federation of Agriculture passed a resolution criticizing the statement of the minister, and this is what it says:
The 20th annual meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, in session today, noted with regret a press dispatch reporting a speech made by Mr. Gardiner, federal Minister of Agriculture, at Winnipeg. He is reported to have said that farmers' cash income for the past five years has been "the highest by far we have ever had".
His comparison of cash and net farm income in Canada for the two most recent five-year periods, while technically correct, tends to leave an entirely erroneous impression with the public. During the past five years the annual cash farm income of Canadian farmers has declined by $480 million and net farm income by $700 million. This situation reflects not only the sharp decline in farm prices, which has been experienced by Canadian farmers, but also some increase in farm costs during the five-year period.
The farm price situation is most simply reflected by the ratio of prices received by, to prices paid to farmers during the period. This ratio has dropped from an average of 110 in 1951, to 80 at present, and is now at the lowest level since 1940.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is only one thing involved in what I said this morning. I pointed out that my hon. friend had said I had not discussed net income, and that report indicates I did.


Edward George McCullough: I will accept what the minister states, if he wants to say he discussed net income. Even so, he knows quite well he is leaving a false impression with the general public when he makes the statement, taking a five year period-


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not do any such thing. My hon. friend said yesterday I never at any time, and especially at Hamilton, discussed net income. Is he going to be honest enough to say he was wrong?


Edward George McCullough: When the minister had the opportunity to take the floor, by the unanimous consent of this committee, he refused to make a further statement. Now in my 30 minutes I want to deal with this, and he can reply at a later date.
The Winnipeg Free Press of January 28 referred to the statement the minister made at Winnipeg. I am going to quote the article

in full because I think here again this newspaper is reporting what the public, and at least this newspaper, think about statements the minister makes at some of these meetings. It is headed, "Mr. Gardiner Figures Again", and reads:
The federal Minister of Agriculture seems absolutely determined, at any cost to his own reputation, to misrepresent the true state of the wheat farmers' income. Speaking to the western Canada fair association's annual meeting in Winnipeg earlier this week, Mr. Gardiner paraded an armful of arguments that could only be designed to mislead his audience.
The income figures he quoted were for all farmers in Canada. The argument is about the income of the prairie wheat farmers. By including a large body of people not included by anyone else, Mr. Gardiner fortifies his argument. But this alone is not enough to indicate that the income of the wheat farmer has not shrunk. So Mr. Gardiner figures in five year averages, and says that, on the average, farmers in Canada have been more prosperous in the past five years than they were during the previous five years.
This, of course, is simply a gimmick. Averages cover enormous variations. Mr. Gardiner's broad sweep of averages cloaks the whole point: which is that for the last two years farmers have been much harder up on the prairies than they were for many years before. This is an incontrovertible fact. Mr. Gardiner's figures do not attempt the impossible and deny it. They are just chosen to cover it up.
The liberties taken by the minister are so flagrant that they have drawn formal criticism from people who have historically been friendly to him. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, in annual meeting in Hamilton, on Thursday passed a resolution criticizing the speech; their resolution pointed out that from 1951 to 1955 the cash income of farmers has declined by $480 million, their net income by $700 million. And they charge Mr. Gardiner with leaving an ''entirely erroneous impression with the public." It is to be hoped that rebuke from this source will at last show Mr. Gardiner that he is beating his head on a brick wall.
I think that pretty well answers the statement, if there had been any confusion before. The fact is that farm income has dropped and farm costs have continued to rise. I wish to quote the closing sentence of an article that appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of December 3, 1955, which states:
For every dollar of actual cash income that the farmer had in 1951, in 1954 he had only 60 cents.
These figures illustrate exactly the price squeeze which is developing each day in western Canada and making it more difficult for the farmer. There must be farmers throughout Canada who are likewise feeling the financial pinch. We of this party do not want policies only for western Canada. We think we must have policies which will embrace the whole Canadian farm economy. While I am dealing specifically with the situation in western Canada, I think it is one which reflects the whole Canadian farm incfime.
Supply-Agriculture
I hold in my hand figures taken from the dominion bureau of statistics record which indicate that while the national income increased from 1930 to 1939, and again from 1946 to 1954, the share of the national income going to the agriculturists or farmers lessened in that period. We find that in the period 1951-1954 the farmer's share of the national income dropped so rapidly that in 1954 it was a mere 5-6 per cent, which was even smaller than the average figure in the depressed 1930's.
I hold in my hand a clipping from the Winnipeg Free Press, which deals with some of the farmers' problems. The article is entitled "Squeezing the Farmer". It deals in particular with some of the farmer's costs and refers to him having to pay one-third more on certain items than formerly because of tariff regulations and classifications. It illustrates that in tariff board rulings there is often more than one interpretation and consequently, as it states here, the tough interpretation is to be preferred. It would seem that is the way they operate. The article goes on to point out:
Sales of parts in Manitoba in 1954 dropped by 12 per cent from the 1953 figure: parts sales in Saskatchewan dropped by 30 per cent.
The reference is to machinery repairs and parts. In that connection I may say that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, as reported in the wheat pool report of January, 1956, asks that tariffs be cut on certain items the farmer must buy. It includes in the article a list of products on which it feels the tariff should be taken off.
The situation in respect of the whole western economy is getting worse. It is affecting our merchants, our retail sales trade and also the livelihood of the people. I hold in my hand an article from the Journal, dated August 15, 1955, dealing with the falling sales of farm machinery. This article states:
In 1954 sales of all farm implements across Canada dropped 38 per cent, or more than $92 million. Even the sales of repair parts were down 14 per cent, an even surer indication that farmers are pressed for ready cash.
In reference to Saskatchewan it says:
For instance Saskatchewan sales last year dropped by more than one-half, Alberta's by 45 per cent.
Hon. members who are not acquainted with conditions pertaining to western agriculture in particular can understand why some of us are very disturbed about the cost-price squeeze facing the western farmer. As I said at the beginning, we in this group have fought in the past and shall fight in the future for Canadian national agricultural policies which will have adequate parity prices for all the

Supply-Agriculture
different phases of agriculture, and by which the farmer can be assured of a fair standard of living.
As I indicated earlier, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture did not deal with two very important subjects. In the last few months the western farmers have been quite concerned over two matters; first, the falling prices of hogs and the fact that in some instances they are getting lower prices than they believed and were told were the floor prices, and also in respect of the selling of eggs.
I want to deal first with the matter of floor prices for hogs. Perhaps I should first deal with a matter that came to my attention last year. I recall that the Minister of Agriculture spoke to the agricultural fair in the coliseum in Ottawa. In the course of his speech he had in his hands the presentation of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in which they asked for a flexible parity structure for Canadian agriculture. At that meeting the minister read from that brief and intimated that on each occasion the farmer was already receiving a flexible parity price, namely the 85 cents asked for by the federation at that time. Since that time the marketing and pricing of hogs has become more treacherous, and I think the western hog producer is realizing it may well be that he will not get the price which he has been told he is guaranteed under the floor price system of the federal government.
I have in my hand two copies of receipts Erom farmers who have shipped hogs to packing plants. One of them is from Burns and Company and the other is from the Swift Canadian Company. I want to say that I take ;xception to the way in which these receipts ire filled out. The statement from Burns md Company illustrates that this farmer shipped four hogs and got a price of $18.75 per hundredweight. The other receipt is for ;wo grade A hogs for which the farmer reserved a price of $18.85 per hundredweight. There is no indication on either receipt as to vhat the farmer paid in respect of freight, rucking, transit insurance, yardage, yard fire nsurance, commission or prorating. All he las is a net statement made out in his name.
' maintain it is quite impossible for a farmer ;o know whether or not he is receiving the loor price.
Recently in the house I asked the minister low a farmer should go about getting the loor price for his hogs and the minister re-ilied, as recorded at page 708 of Hansard, hat all the farmer has to do is take his eceipt and send it to the prices board. Later in in answer to the question he said he hould send the slip to the Department of Vgriculture.

I maintain, Mr. Chairman, that there are no floors to the producer of hogs in western Canada, and that under the policy of this government it is not living up to its undertaking to provide floor prices on hogs as guaranteed to farmers under the Agricultural Prices Support Act. This indicates to me that this government has been taking credit where no credit was due. Up to the present time we find that due to the demand for hogs there has been no move for any policy of federal support to come into play by which the government would of necessity have to provide floor prices for hogs.
In 1953 the so-called support price for hogs dropped from $26 per hundredweight for grade A hogs to $23 per hundredweight. We now have a situation where more pressure is being put on the market, and it would seem that farmers are getting a price below what they thought was the floor at Winnipeg, Regina, and Saskatoon. Under the Agricultural Prices Support Act this government has the power to provide adequate floor prices for the western hog producers. I am now asking this government to take some concrete action by which the hog producers will get a floor price in conformity with the cost of production.
There is no use having floor prices which are in the cellar, and there is no use having the so-called floor prices go down to a point where the Agricultural Prices Support Act will not come into play, and where the $200 million provided under this act would not be used in order to support adequate prices for the hog producers. I maintain that so far as western Canada is concerned, and indeed in Canada as a whole, there are no floor prices as far as hog producers are concerned.
The same thing is true of eggs in this country. The other day I directed a question to the Minister of Agriculture concerning eggs. I referred to a newspaper account of a charge made by Charles Walls, secretary manager of the British Columbia federation of agriculture, that in his province egg inspectors have secret instructions which nobody but themselves are allowed to see. Mr. Walls said that the inspectors were inspecting eggs on such instructions rather than the printed regulations about which everybody knows.
Illustrating his point that uncertainty about floor prices each year ruined the good work they were supposed to do, Mr. Walls said that in that period this year in two centres the price of grade A large eggs had dropped 16 to 20 cents. That, Mr. Chairman, clearly indicates that there is no floor for the producer. I have tried to get as much-


James Garfield Gardiner: Where were they when they started to drop?


Edward George McCullough: I do
not know; Mr. Walls does not state that in his charge. I know for a fact, however, since this so-called price formula came into being producers in the west have sold their eggs for less than 25 cents a dozen.


James Garfield Gardiner: Eggs were 85 cents a dozen.


Edward George McCullough: I do
not care what they were to the consumer; that is not the point I am making right now. That is the reason I think this government does not have an adequate floor price, certainly not to the producer.
What is the situation with respect to this matter? There is a guaranteed floor of 38 cents a dozen to the people who store the eggs. And how is the price to the producer arrived at? The producer stands all the shot for every single cent of the cost in relation to the eggs, with plenty of spread for everyone. Today the producer pays for the transportation, the washing, the oiling, the fillers and the crates, and for the interest on all the money involved. In addition, when these eggs go into storage and come out six or eight months later they are degraded; about 20 per cent of them are "rots" or cracked. The producer pays for all of that, because the cost of degrading is deducted.


James Garfield Gardiner: Will my hon. friend tell me why it is that in the province of Ontario they have 18 or 20 boards to look after the kind of thing he is talking about in order to see that it is done properly, and can he tell me why we have none in Saskatchewan?


Edward George McCullough: I will tell you why-


James Garfield Gardiner: Because you have a C.C.F. government, that is why.


Edward George McCullough: In
Ontario it is done under the co-operative marketing act. Last year united farmers' organizations in Saskatchewan tried to promote the idea of marketing boards, and we had the packing companies through their stooges throughout the province discredit that type of organization to the producers. That is why we do not have them.


Irvin William Studer: Why didn't the government do it?


Edward George McCullough: The
fact is that we have not-


Irvin William Studer: Why didn't the government do it?


Edward George McCullough: Has
the hon. member for Swift Current got verbal constipation, or what is wrong with him? If he wants to make a speech he can do so when I am finished.
Supply-Agriculture


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think he has verbal diarrhea.


Edward George McCullough: We in
this group, and I think it will be supported by all hon. members in the house, hope the government will see tit to bring in a comprehensive national agricultural policy by which we can provide parity prices for the producer. That is all we are asking for. We want a fair price for the producer that will give him a fair return for his labour, and I do not think that is asking too much. I believe it is not good enough to just have a floor price to the packer. We need a policy that will provide a floor price to all agricultural producers. I think this can be done under the Agricultural Prices Support Act and under the co-operative marketing act.
I dislike to receive letters like the one attached to these receipts, which is a case where a producer is caught in the price squeeze. As I have indicated, he shipped four grade A hogs to the packing plant and got a net return of $18.75 per hundred. That is not all, Mr. Chairman. I wish to point out an even greater injustice than that. In the degrading of hogs when there is a heavy run on the markets, the packers can pick up hogs pretty well at their own grade.
I am not satisfied to have the minister get up and say that we have government graders and all the other nonsense. I should like to see some way by which the producers can know they are getting a fair deal in respect to the sale of their hogs. I would like to see something done so the producer would know that he was getting a fair deal in respect to the sale of his hogs.
The receipt I have here shows that this man shipped two hogs which were graded as C. Their weight was in the 120-185 bracket the two weighing a total of 241 pounds. Bu1 the price received was $3 per hundredweighl less or $15.35 less than for grade A hogs On the other side of the receipt are se' out the classifications under which a farmei must sell his hogs. I am all for the grading of hogs, but I submit that the weights are most unfair to the producer. The grades are A, Bl, B2, B3, C. D. lights, heavies, extrs heavies, sows No. 1 and sows No. 2.
If a hog is sent in that is one pound over weight, in other words if it weighs 17: pounds, it would be outside the grade A classi fication and the farmer would automaticall; get $3 per hundredweight less. I think thi is something the minister should look into Last year we had a debate during which w tried to determine whether the producer wa getting a fair price for his livestock products I am sure that in this country there is injustice or fairness in what the producer get

Supply-Agriculture
and what the consumer pays. I am speaking more particularly of the hog producer. As I have indicated, neither in the case of hogs nor in the case of eggs is there a floor in this country which will guarantee the producer a fair and just price or even a stated price for which the government has taken credit for a number of years.
Surely in this year of 1956 this parliament, faced with a gross national income of over $26 billion, should not have to look into the dim past for an agricultural policy. We should be able to bring forth a policy which will meet the needs of a progressive country, a country which can produce not only for its own people but for hungry people abroad. Under that kind of policy the producer would be protected and have a guarantee of justice and a fair income.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Mr. Chairman, 1 rise to take part in this debate because the minister has given us a program to follow of which I for one do not entirely approve. The Minister of Agriculture has proved himself to be a much setter political adviser to the government ;han a minister of agriculture so far as the 'armers are concerned. I have listened to aim for the last 16 years, and I give him :redit for being a clever minister. I appre-:iate his ability in a great many respects, and :ertainly would not attempt to analyse the igures he has given us at one time or mother. The fact is that he is a marvel vith figures and pretty hard to tie down when le is quoting them.


An hon. Member:: He is telling the truth.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I was not intimating that he loes not tell the truth at all times. I have ;reat respect for the minister in that regard, >ut he has the happy faculty of twisting igures.


An hon. Member:: Figures do not lie.


James Garfield Gardiner: I just give them, I do not wist them.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: The minister has placed on lansard, certain figures. We have not had an ipportunity of seeing for ourselves what hey mean, but when it comes to telling the armers that they are in a better position han they ever were, that is a different story. Anyone who knows anything at all about arm income knows perfectly well that the armers of this country are the only group /hich has not prospered as the national in-ome has gone up. All other groups have rospered under that increase, but the farm-rs have not. They are the ones who have een taking the brunt of this thing from start d finish. They always get the last rise in rices and when prices start to go down they rMr. McCullough (Moose Mountain).]
take the first fall. We have been taking falls for almost three years. We have been going down instead of going up at a time when everything we have to buy has gone up. The price we get for what we produce does not constitute something that is real. What we have left after we have bought what we have to buy is our profit, and we have not had very much profit.
I do not intend to talk about wheat, but if I were going to I would say that the government is to blame to a large extent for the fact that we are out of the British market with our wheat. We refused to let the British dealers sign for $2 wheat because we insisted on $2.05. As a result we have never sold any wheat at that price. We could just as well have held the British market as lost it. The British are smart buyers, and they know when they are offered a good price.
When we held our wheat at $2.05 we lost the British market, and since then they have not been buying very much wheat from us. I heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce state that we had not lost the British market, that they would have to buy wheat from us, but they have not had to buy wheat from us. They bought their wheat from Russia, where they could buy more cheaply than here. Not only that, but countries in Europe have been forced to grow their own wheat because ours was too expensive to buy.
Had we in the east been able to buy feed wheat at a price we could afford to pay we would have bought many thousands of bushels. That would have made more space available in the elevators for wheat now lying out on the prairies. That is one reason we have such a surplus of wheat, because we in the east could not afford to buy feed grain.
When we found we could not buy feed grain at a price we could afford to pay we had to buy screenings, which up to that point had not cost anybody anything but had been taken off the western farmers as dockage. We had to buy those dirty screenings that should have been burned, at a time when there was plenty of surplus grain in the west. We could easily have bought a lot of that grain and thus made storage space available for thousands of bushels of wheat now lying out on the prairies.
Progress reported.


IMMIGRATION ACT
Mr. H. A. MacKenzie (Lambion-Kenl) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 7, to amend the Immigration Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to propose this amendment to the Immigration Act I am

fully conscious of the fact that it affects the citizenship act because the two are inseparable and so interwoven that it affects both. Therefore I want to talk mainly about the citizenship part of the amendment.
For some years now I have been rather dissatisfied with both the regulations and the attitude of some of the new Canadians who have come here from time to time. I appreciate that this country is really a land of immigrants. Many of us in the house today are immigrants ourselves, and in the great majority of cases our parents or our grandparents were immigrants who came to this country. I should like to put on the record a summary of the number of immigrants who have come to Canada since the war years. These are round figures, and are as follows:
Year
1947
1949
1951
1953
1955
Number
71.000
64.000
125.000
95.000
73.000
194.000
164.000
168.000
154.000
109.000
In the ten years from 1946 to 1955 a total of 1,222,319 immigrants have come to the shores of Canada. I should also like to put on the record comparative figures of immigration and naturalization. New Canadians are required to live here five years before they can apply for citizenship papers. I have taken the five years from 1946 to 1950 and then the five years from 1951 to 1955. In 1956 71,719 immigrants came to this country and five years later, when they were eligible to take out citizenship papers, 12,553 obtained their papers. In 1947 there were 64,000 immigrants and in 1952, five years later, 10,000 obtained their papers.
During the five years from 1946 to 1950 some 430,000 immigrants came to Canada, and in the period from 1951 to 1955 116,375 took out their papers. Less than one-third of the immigrants who came to Canada from 1946 to 1950 took out papers in order to become naturalized Canadian citizens. With your permission I should like to put these two tables on Hansard, because I have not given them in detail. They are quite short and I do not think anyone will object.


Mr. Green:: May I ask the hon. member a question. Do these figures of the number of immigrants who came to Canada include immigrants who are British subjects?


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: Certainly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Has the hon. gentleman leave to place these tables on Hansard?
Immigration Act


Edmund Davie Fulton: Could I ask him the source of the figures? Are they from the bureau of statistics?


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: No, I got the figures from the department of citizenship, and I assume they are correct. They are for the calendar year and not the fiscal year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have no objection. I just wanted to know the source.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: The tables are as follows: Post-War Immigration to Canada by Calendar Year
1946		 71,719
1947		 64,127
1948		 125,414
1949	___	 95,217
1950		 73,912
1951		 194,391
1952		 164,498
1953	      168,868
1954		   154,227
1955		 109,946
Total	 1,222,319
Comparative Figures-Immigration-Naturalization Immigration (Calendar year)
1946		 71,719
1947		 64,127
1948		 125,414
1949		 95,217
1950		 73,912
Total
430,389
Naturalization (Calendar year) Five years later
1952
1954
12,553
10,749
13,528
19,545
60,000
Total	 116,375
That is probably not a true picture. It cannot be said it is an accurate picture, because we do not know how many of the immigrants who came to Canada went to the United States or some other country, and did not remain here long enough to take out naturalization papers. However, there is a trend there revealing a situation that in my opinion should not exist. I wondered if it was the fault of Canadian citizens, or should we revise our immigration regulations to make them more elastic, more strict, or at least to make the immigrants who come here more citizenship conscious.
The process of taking out citizenship papers is not in itself very difficult. Again, in case someone asks me, I got these regulations from the citizenship department. The Canadian citizenship certificate grants specific rights and privileges such as freedom of

Immigration Act
speech, religion, thought and action, the right to vote as you choose and the right to be secure in your possessions. The obligations of citizenship are set forth clearly in the oath administered to each potential citizen. Each newcomer repeats the oath of citizenship, repeating the words in groups of 7 or 8, phrase by phrase as pronounced by the judge of the court. The oath sworn is:
I swear to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors according to law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen, so help me God.
There is nothing automatic about the privilege of uttering this oath and receiving the prized certificate of citizenship. The process of induction really starts in the country of origin, where immigration and visa officers of Canada make a careful selection from among those desiring to enter this country. Before the prospective citizen appears in court for the swearing-in ceremony and the granting of a certificate of citizenship there are procedures designed to check on the suitability of the candidate. I might say here that the department told me that less than 2 per cent of the immigrants who apply for citizenship papers are rejected.
An officer of the court is assigned to assist the applicant in making out a detailed form in two copies, one of which is posted so that any member of the public may make objection if he wishes, and the other sent to Ottawa for scrutiny. Name, place of birth, occupation, arrival in Canada, places of residence since landing, periods outside the country, ability in languages, intention of domicile, - are all covered in detail in the application.
The applicant must disclose "if you have been confined in, or an inmate of any penitentiary, gaol, reformatory, prison or asylum for the insane in Canada." The marital status of the applicant is checked, together with children and their ages. A careful description is given and "your applicant humbly prays for a decision that he is a fit and proper person to be granted a certificate of citizenship".
After a lapse of three months, as required by law, the applicant is called back to be examined by the judge of the court, who must be satisfied about the fitness of the petitioner for citizenship. The judge goes into such matters as residence within the past year, legal domicile, service in the armed forces, if any, lawful admittance into Canada, character of applicant, his knowledge of the English or the French language, and whether the petitioner has "an adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of Canadian citizenship."

The judge of the court then affixes his signature, approving or rejecting the candidate, with any remarks and observations he may care to make. This copy of the application-the second-is then sent to Ottawa. The citizenship branch at Ottawa completes its investigations and, if the petition for citizenship is granted, a numbered certificate is made out and sent to the court.
The prospective citizen is then notified to appear for the swearing-in ceremony, this being the final goal of his efforts. The complete ceremony requires about an hour. The newcomers first have the procedure explained to them by the clerk of the court, who then calls up the judge who presides at the oathtaking. Both the clerk and the judge usually speak in English and then in French. The potential citizens in the oath-taking procedure place their right hands on the Bible.
At each sitting of the court it is the practice to have a representative of one of a large number of voluntary associations, interested in promoting the welfare of immigrants, speak briefly. It is important that immigrants be integrated into community life. Community organizations thus have an important role to play in fostering good citizenship among newcomers as well as among the native-born. The concluding event at each sitting of the citizenship court is an address of welcome to the newly inducted citizens by the judge of the court, who points to the significance of the occasion and expresses the hope that prosperity and all the other accompliments of a full life will be theirs.
I sometimes wonder why the new Canadians who are domiciled here for five years in many cases at least are a little reluctant to make out their applications for citizenship. I have here a letter which I received recently from one of the county court judges, from which I should like to read just one paragraph. He says:
I have for years felt that we as a whole do not take sufficient interest in the welfare of our new Canadians, nor do we outwardly indicate our desire to be of assistance to them. Our naturalization courts on the whole are too cold and lack the personal interest and concern in the well-being of our new citizens.
I sometimes wonder whether our own Canadian citizens are too modest in acclaiming our own land, its opportunities, its privileges and the benefits they enjoy in it. I must confess that I sometimes think we Canadians seem to be in an apologetic mood for the fact that we were born in Canada and that we are Canadians. As a matter of fact, I must confess that I myself had to go to a foreign land in order fully to appreciate the value of Canadian citizenship and what it meant to me.

I remember going one time on a trip, or a mission if you like, with the United Nations relief and rehabilitation administration which took me for two and one-half years to China. There I dealt with people of many nations. At one time under that UNRRA program there were probably 2,000 personnel on the staff in the China field. The majority of them were Americans because after all, while many nations contributed to the program, the basis of the contribution was a percentage of the national income. As the United States had a much larger national income than the others, they made over 70 per cent of the whole contribution that was made. Hence naturally 70 per cent or probably a little bit more of those on the staff were Americans.
I lived and worked with those people for two years or two and one-half years. I was rather amazed at the Americans who were always singing the praises of their country, saying it was the greatest country in the world, the country that had the brightest future, the country that had the highest standard of living and even going on to say- although they could not very well do it now -that it was the country that had a dollar that was worth more than that of any other country in the world. I will admit that at times they made me tired and annoyed me, but I must confess that in many ways I admired them for doing that.
I think we as Canadians can borrow some of that plan from our American friends. Why should we be modest about the country in which we live? Do we not live in a country that has had the greatest expansion in her history in the last 10 or 15 years? Never in our lifetime have we had such great expansion and such development as we have had in the last 15 years. It is the belief of many people who are in a much better position to judge than I that we are on the threshold of a much greater expansion and a much greater development than we have ever had before in our history. Further, I believe the Prime Minister of Britain emphasized this matter the other day.
In my opinion, and I know it is the opinion of many other people, there is no country in the world that is held in higher regard among the nations of the world than is Canada today. I therefore think that we as Canadians should impress on the minds of not only our new Canadians but our associates the great privileges we enjoy and the great future we have in this country.
The amendment I have submitted here to the Immigration Act is a simple one, and it is proposed with the thought in mind of creating among new Canadians who come to our land more incentive to take out their
Immigration Act
citizenship papers. It is true that many who come here are British subjects. Many come here from the British commonwealth of nations. Those people also must be domiciled here for five years before they can take out their own naturalization papers. They have, however, some advantage over the people who come here from other lands owing to the fact that when their five years of residence in this country are up, they may make direct application to the registrar of the citizenship department here and they are issued their citizenship papers without going through the process in court which the other people must do, with a three-month stay before they can finally get their papers.
I find that some of the people who come from the British commonwealth-and I admit that it is a limited field I am speaking of now-feel that as British subjects they do not necessarily need to take out citizenship papers-they feel that it is not required -and some of them are rather reluctant to do so. On the other hand, many of the immigrants that live in my district-and many of them are central Europeans who come from war-torn districts-are extremely anxious to take out their citizenship papers, and they make their application as soon as their five years of residence has been completed here.
While living in China I remember running across some people who came from central Europe. They came through the rise of Hitler and settled in Shanghai, not knowing where to go. Seeing the rise of the communist regime, they wanted to come to Canada or the United States, to the North American continent. One couple over there whom I knew very well decided they would like to come to Canada. I told them to put in their application because I felt sure they would be accepted. I had known them for two or three years, and in my opinion they were a very fine type of citizen.
This summer I visited Vancouver and they met me at the depot. After exchanging greetings the first thing they said was, "Do you know you are looking at new Canadians now?" They were delighted to think they were now Canadians. Sometimes immigrants who come to this country have the mistaken idea that the filing of what is called a notice of intention is going to hasten their citizenship papers. Of course that really is not true. The notice of intention has no bearing at all on the ultimate issuance of citizenship papers. It only means you intend to apply for citizenship papers when you have completed your five years of residence in this country.
There is a somewhat similar situation in the United States. A few days ago I was talking with a consular attache at the United

Imviigration Act
States consulate and he said they have a similar regulation, that you must reside in the United States five years before you are eligible to make an application for citizenship papers. I said I understood they had something called first and second papers which led to citizenship. He said that was something the same as our own notice of intention. It is a notice that you intend to do this some time. It does help one to hold a job if you have filed a notice of intention or first papers showing that you do intend to become a citizen of the country, but it does not necessarily mean you are going to have your citizenship papers. Certainly it does not mean you are going to have them any sooner.


Howard Charles Green: Does the United States have any provision compelling a person to take out citizenship, similar to the proposal the hon. member is asking to have written into our law?


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: I am coming to that in just a minute. As a matter of fact I do not think there is any compulsion in this amendment I am submitting. I did mention to my friend that since we lived fairly close to Detroit I remembered quite well that during the depression some Canadians who had gone to Detroit and taken their first papers were let out of their employment and returned home. I said that I knew some of them had their first and second papers, but they were let out. He said that was not an over-all regulation in the United States, but was really instituted by the city to look after their own relief rolls.
I agree that the most normal, and probably the only, way to have citizenship in the true form is to have a desire in your own heart and soul to become a citizen. A person has to be anxious to become a citizen. You cannot compel a person to become a citizen. I do not believe the amendment I have submitted does compel anybody to become a citizen. There is nothing compulsory about it. If you reside in this country for five years, then normally you have three months to wait before you get your citizenship papers. This amendment proposes that you have one year in which to make up your mind. There is the five years residence, and then you have one full year to make up your mind whether or not you want to become a citizen. If you do not make that application within one year, then you simply lose the first five years residence and start all over again.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask a question at this point? Would there be nothing whatever that could serve as a sufficient excuse or reason, I mean illness or anything, for having let the year expire?


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: There is no such provision in this amendment. This is only a suggestion to the members of the house. It is up to the members to make these suggestions. I would think that if you lived in a country for five full years, and then had one more year making six years in all, you would have some idea of whether or not you wanted to become a citizen. If you put in an application, then that clears you.
If you do not put in an application, then you lose the first five years residence. You can pick it up again, and it is only a matter of extending it five years more. A person may live his life in Canada, may engage in business and become quite prosperous without ever taking out his citizenship papers. In fact, some of them do that. Nobody molests them; nobody says anything about it. It is quite optional.
I cannot see how the amendment I am proposing has any compulsion about it. It is entirely voluntary. It is just an added incentive. If you want to put in your application, all right; but if you do not nobody is going to molest you as long as you obey the laws of the land and do not become a public charge. I believe we all agree that the sooner the immigrant becomes a Canadian citizen, becomes integrated into our Canadian life and assumes the responsibilities which are his as a citizen, just as he accepts the privileges and benefits, the better it is for all concerned. I say again, in submitting this proposed amendment to the Immigration Act, I feel it is something that does not have any compulsion in it. It is a matter of creating greater interest and enthusiasm amongst ourselves so there will be a greater number of enthusiastic Canadians in our country.


Mr. John Decore (VegTeville):: I want to make a few remarks in connection with this proposed amendment to the Immigration Act, Mr. Speaker. Listening to the hon. member who proposed the amendment, it appears to me that probably his prime intention is to get more of our newcomers to become Canadian citizens as soon as possible. This feeling is understandable, because I believe it is a feeling that is shared by many of us in this house. We like newcomers to become Canadians and to assume the duties and obligations, as well as the privileges, of Canadian citizens.
Although I am sympathetic with his intentions, I am afraid I must disagree with his methods. This amendment would make it mandatory, according to the note of explanation-


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: I do not like the word "mandatory"; I am sorry.


John Decore: Well, it would make it mandatory for an immigrant to apply for a certificate of citizenship within one year after acquiring domicile, otherwise he would lose such domicile for an additional period of five years. The hon. member has stated that this does not compel a newcomer to become a citizen. I might go along with him and agree on that, but it does imply compulsion because of the fact that a newcomer would be subjected to this penalty. You might as well put it in the form of a penalty because, by having failed to make his application within the year in question, he would have to wait an additional five years.
If this amendment passed I would think probably more people would become Canadian citizens; that is, newcomers to the country. But is that what we want? We certainly want newcomers to become Canadian citizens, but do we want to use any form of compulsion to require those people who do not apply within a certain period to wait another five years? If we resort to this method we might have more people apply, and in that way the object the hon. member has in mind might to some extent be attained.
I think this is in violation of a very important principle of our way of life. It is simply this. In a democracy we should respect the freedom of the conscience of the individual. Just as religious faith is a matter of conscience, so should citizenship be a matter of conscience in a democratic country. Citizenship is something that is not for sale. Pressure should not be used to make people conform. All the people who come into this country want to become Canadian citizens eventually, but it takes time. The desires of a newcomer are these. First of all he would like to get acquainted with the language of this country. He would like to have economic security. He would like to be socially acceptable in the community or in the area in which he finds himself.
I think we all know that until recently we have not been very effective in selling Cana-dianism to Canadians. In the early days of the settlement of the west many people were told to become naturalized Canadians because that was the only way in which they could obtain a patent or a title to their homestead. Of course that was not the right way to approach this very important matter. I feel that since the Canadian Citizenship Act came into effect in 1947, very important steps have been taken in the right direction. We are becoming more and more conscious of our responsibilities as Canadian citizens.
At this time the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, with the assistance of some of our organizations such as the Imperial
Immigration Act
Order of Daughters of the Empire, are doing very good work in first of all trying to get the newcomer acquainted with the facts of this country, the geography, the language and the economic conditions. Second, they are trying to do their best to create a warm and friendly feeling that he is desirable, that he is wanted and that he is also one of us. We may not be doing enough. Probably more should be done along those lines, but certainly in my opinion if this amendment is passed it will not help the situation.
The hon. member pointed out very well that many of those newcomers who came from that area of Europe where there was turmoil, where they found themselves in displaced persons' camps where they were stateless, when they reached the shores of this country were most anxious to obtain their citizenship certificates as soon as possible because they would have something they were not able to get in other places they ran away from. But the fact is some of these other immigrants have come from Holland. Let us not forget that these people come from a different country. They had been very loyal to their queen and to their way of living. They had their roots deep in that country, and after they come to a new land it takes time to get themselves acquainted with the language, to get their new roots in. The reason they came here was that they wanted to become Canadian citizens.
We would be far better off when any newcomer takes the solemn oath to which the hon. member referred, if we knew that he was not taking it because if he did not take it now he would have to wait another five years. We want him to take the oath because he sincerely feels that he is loyal to this country and wants to be a Canadian citizen.
Many things could be said about this amendment, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid I shall have to vote against it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, like
the hon. member for Vegreville, I have every sympathy with the purpose behind the bill which has been introduced by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. MacKenzie), but like the hon. member for Vegreville it would not be possible for me to support the bill.
Indeed, I would hope that my hon. friend would not feel* like pressing it upon the house at all. It will serve a quite useful purpose to have had this subject raised and to have a little attention drawn to the fact that there is a desire-and I think from the spirit of the house there can be no doubt that the desire is shared by hon. members on both sides of the house and in every corner of the house


Immigration Act
-to have the newcomers who have come to live in this country, to make their homes here, become citizens and share fully and equally with us in all the privileges of citizenship.
I agree, of course, with the hon. member for Lambton-Kent that in the technical sense of the word there is no compulsion about the amendment he suggests. I suppose an argument could be made that there was not even any element of implied coercion; but, as the hon. member for Vegreville pointed out, in the explanatary note the word "mandatory" is used. There is no doubt that there is a penalty imposed for not doing something, and for not doing something that I think none of us would want to see done except as a purely voluntary act.
Therefore instead of doing anything that implies in any way any suggestion whatsoever of pressure upon newcomers to join our citizenship, what we ought to try to do is make our citizenship appear to the newcomers so attractive that the great majority of them will need nothing in the law to urge them, when the five year period is up, to make their applications. I do think there are one or two ways in which the objects of this bill can be achieved very much better by other forms of action both on the part of governments and on the part of ordinary citizens.
Perhaps you, sir, and the house will bear with me if I make one or two suggestions as to what some of these things are. I do not think there is anything basically wrong with the citizenship act. It is true that my hon. friend the leader in the other place has introduced a bill which will later come to this house, which proposes to make some minor amendments to the citizenship act. Without at this time anticipating a future debate I should like to emphasize the fact that they are minor amendments and have nothing to do with the fundamental principles on which the law is based. I do not think there is a need for any fundamental change in the law. I do believe there is perhaps some need for improvement in some of the practices.
As far as my department is concerned we try to make the technical side of acquiring citizenship as easy as possible. I refer to the technical side advisedly. I do not think we want to encourage newcomers to treat citizenship lightly, or to have them regard it as a process by which you can put a coin in a slot machine and have a document come out.
I feel this is perhaps the most solemn, voluntary act, except marriage, that any individual can take; therefore it ought to be vested with a certain solemnity and it ought to be taken seriously and certainly freely.

However, owing to the geographical nature of this country there are many remote places where newcomers are living where it is very difficult for an individual without considerable cost and inconvenience to appear three times in the court, and that is what is normally now required in order to obtain citizenship. Certain amendments have been made to the regulations to make it somewhat easier to fulfil certain of these technical requirements.
I may say, sir, I would welcome any effort that any hon. member can make in his own district to make these requirements better known to newcomers, and to help them in obtaining their citizenship. I should also welcome from any hon. member on either side of the house any suggestions as to further technical improvements which could be made in the procedure of the department.
With the exception of Montreal, Toronto, and the immediately surrounding areas, and certain remote localities, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has not set up courts of its own for the purpose of granting citizenship. I think it would be most undesirable to do so, if for no other reason than because it would be a quite unnecessary charge upon the taxpayer. In the normal case the county or district courts, which are of course under the administrative control of the provincial governments, perform this function.
I should like at this time, if it is not inappropriate, to express great appreciation for the devotion not only of the judges of the county courts and the other judges and magistrates in this country who perform this function but also for the devotion and kindness which is generally shown by the clerks and other officials of these courts. I do think there are one or two places where I would hope there would be a little more interest taken by the judges and the clerks in arranging the ceremonies and in conducting the inquiries, because it does make a great deal of difference, I think, to the appreciation that newcomers have of Canadian citizenship if the formal act of acquiring citizenship takes place in an atmosphere which is at once friendly and dignified.
I have had the good fortune to be invited on two or three occasions to take some part in these ceremonies. I do hope that all hon. members who can find the time to do so on some convenient occasion will try to be present at one of the ceremonies, because they are really quite moving experiences. It is extraordinary the emotion that many of the applicants feel on these occasions.
If I were to criticize the work of my predecessors in preparing the present citizenship act-I know there are many arguments on either side-I would say that I sometimes

almost regret that British subjects do not have ceremonies to attend when they obtain their Canadian citizenship. As all hon. members know, British subjects need only fill out the necessary forms and apply to the department, and they receive their certificate through the mail. I think they miss something in a way.
I think it is also true, as the hon. member lor Lambton-Kent said in his remarks, that there are a great many British subjects who do not realize that there is any particular advantage to them in applying for certificates and many of them fail to do so until some day they require a passport in a hurry in order to travel abroad.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister a question? Has he taken out a certificate of Canadian citizenship himself?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes; not only have I a certificate of Canadian citizenship, but I thank the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra for giving me an opportunity to advertise these excellent miniature certificates which can be procured for a very modest sum. I am afraid I do not remember whether it is $1 or $2.


Howard Charles Green: I will venture that you are one of the few hon. members who have such a certificate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I believe the minister has the right in certain circumstances to remit the charge-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You did not do that in your own case, did you?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I paid for mine, sir. But I think in some circumstances the minister has the right to remit the charge to others; and if there is any hon. member who would like a certificate and who would supply the necessary information and photograph and feels the fee could be devoted to an even better cause, the minister would do his best in the circumstances to meet his wishes.


An hon. Member:: There is no excuse now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The miniature certificate is a very convenient thing to carry around. I have been able to identify myself with it once or twice in this country since I received it; however, I think it is something which all members of parliament might do very well to carry. I find over and over again that people ask me questions about citizenship and about what evidence one can get of citizenship, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has just done, and I suppose I have pulled this card out of my pocket two or three times during the course of each month since I got it to show it to some one-
Immigration Act


Howard Charles Green: How long have you had it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I have had it since they first began to be issued. The issue of these miniature certificates was one of the many excellent reforms instituted by my predecessor, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris). He was not in office as minister of citizenship to see the certificates issued, and I believe all the miniature certificates have been issued over my signature. I think perhaps mine was the fourth or fifth certificate to be issued; one or two were issued to my colleagues.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is a rather serious
obstacle, you know.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it waterproof?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, sir, I have never tested its water-resistant qualities. It is encased in some sort of synthetic substance which appears water-proof.
If I might continue with the more serious observations I wish to make, I feel that it is not so much what is done by the officials of the federal government or the courts that is important in making newcomers value Canadian citizenship, it is what was expressed in the words of the hon. Inember for Vegreville. He told us that immigrants want to get established, they want some measure of economic security; and then the hon. member said-and these are important words-that they want to feel they are socially accepted. That is the real test of citizenship.


Mr. Fairey:: May I interrupt the minister. The hon. member for York Centre has just had a daughter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't you mean the hon. member for York-Scarborough?


An hon. Member:: Where are the cigars?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, you and the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Enfield) are familiar with my views on that form of immigration. Those of us who are Canadian citizens, those of us who, like the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Fairey), have lived in this country either for a long time or those of us who have lived here all our lives, can do a great deal to make newcomers feel that they are acceptable and accepted in the community, or we can do the reverse. I do not think that there are many organizations in Canada that are more socially useful and more nationally useful than the citizenship committees which exist in so many centres in this country.
On several occasions I have had the opportunity to meet with citizenship committees in various cities in Canada. These committees are generally composed of the representatives of a great variety of voluntary

Immigration Act
organizations. It is remarkable the difference that these committees make in the attitude of the whole community toward the newcomers. In that respect it is very different from what I remember as a schoolboy in the days before the first world war, when almost no one paid any attention to the newcomers except those who had business dealings with them, or unfortunately sometimes something worse.
I do think that the extent to which the newcomers are welcomed and accepted into the community will be accurately reflected in the statistics of citizenship certificates granted by the courts in those communities. I feel that in that respect we can take a certain amount of credit-I am not claiming this for the government but for the Canadian people-from the fact that for the last four or five years not only has there been a steady rise in the number of applications for citizenship and the number of certificates issued, but that rise is greater proportionately than the rise in immigration of five years ago. Of course it is hard to measure these things accurately because some immigrants wait for more than five years-some wait lot a great many more than five years -before making their applications.
I hope we never will have to follow every newcomer in order to keep track of his every movement and find out whether he intends to stay or whether he goes to another country. I have been told by newcomers that one of the things they find strange about Canada when they first come here is that people let them do what they want to do. Sometimes I think a lot of them would feel easier-I would not say happier -if they were told a little more about what they had to do, but after most of them have been here three, four or six months they do not want to be pushed around or told what they have to do.
I have been told by these people that the greatest thing about this country is not the job they have, not the car they have been able to buy, not the house they have purchased, not any of these material things but the fact that as long as they behave themselves the police will not interfere with them and neither will anyone else.
That is really why I feel that the right way to proceed is not the way which my hon. friend has suggested. I have the highest regard for him, but sometimes he is in a little more of a hurry than those of us who are older and more experienced feel it is wise sometimes to go. I feel that my hon. friend from Lambton-Kent has the right destination in mind, but he is not on the right road. Instead of doing anything that would even smack of putting pressure upon newcomers I feel we should redouble our efforts to make them feel at home in this country, and in that way we will achieve far more than would be achieved by the passing of this legislation.
On motion of Mr. Harris the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Monday is of course private members' day. On Tuesday we shall start with the second reading of the bill with respect to bank guarantees and after that take the resolutions with respect to committees of the house.


Howard Charles Green: Could the minister indicate in what order? '


Walter Edward Harris: We will take the estimates committee and then the atomic energy committee.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Diefenbaker: What action, if any, has been taken to make changes in and amendments to the regulations passed under the provisions of the Disabled Persons Act to widen the definition of a "disabled person", to the end that in the administration of the said act the act will be interpreted in accordance with the intention of parliament?
Answer by: Mr. Marlin:
The regulations under the Disabled Persons Act were made by the governor in council following discussions between representatives of the federal government and the provincial governments.
Subsection 2 of section 11 of the Disabled Persons Act provides that-"No regulation, by reference to which an agreement with a province has been made, shall be altered except with the consent of the province or in accordance with the regulations to which it has agreed". Agreements with the provinces have been completed and therefore any change in the provisions of the regulations could become operative only with the consent of the provincial governments.
Arrangements have been made to have the federal medical officers connected with the administration of disabled persons allowances meet in Ottawa in February. An invitation to attend the meeting has been extended to medical officers representing the provinces.
When federal and provincial authorities have the results of the discussions among the medical officers further consideration will be given to the present interpretation given by the regulations to the expression "totally and permanently disabled."


MIDDLESEX COUNTY, ONT.  RURAL MAIL ROUTES
Mr. White (Middlesex East): 1.	How many rural mail routes have been extended In the county of Middlesex, in each of the years 1952-55 inclusive?
2.	What routes have been extended during that period?
3.	What is the increased mileage in each route extended, during the above mentioned years?
4.	How many rural mail couriers have received extra mileage pay for the increased mileage covered?
Answer (amended) by: Mr. Lapointe:
1.	1952, 4; 1953, 17; 1954, 31; 1955, 25.
2 and 3. 1952-London R.R. No. 6, 1.4 miles; Melbourne R.R. No. 2, 1.2 miles; Mount Brydges R.R. No. 5, 1.0 miles; Wilton Grove R.R. No. 1, 1.4 miles.
Questions
1953-	Denfleld R.R. No. 1, 2.4 miles; Den-field R.R. No. 2, 1.2 miles; Denfield R.R. No. 3,
2.4	miles; Dorchester Station R.R. No. 1, 0.8 mile; Glencoe R.R. No. 2, 0.4 mile; Ilderton R.R. No. 1, 1.2 miles; Ilderton R.R. No. 2,
0.8 mile; Ilderton R.R. No. 3, 2.0 miles; Ilderton R.R. No. 4, 1.2 miles; Kerwood R.R. No. 2, 4.0 miles; Komoka R.R. No. 2, 1.0 mile; Komoka R.R. No. 4, 1.0 mile; Lambeth R.R. No. 3, 1.0 mile; London R.R. No. 5, 1.8 miles; London R.R. No. 6, 0.4 mile; London R.R. No. 10, 1.0 mile; Strathroy R.R. No. 7, 1.2 miles.
1954-	Arva R.R. No. 1, 1.6 miles; Clande-boye R.R. No. 1, 1.8 miles; Denfield R.R. No. 1,
1.4	miles; Denfield R.R. No. 2, 0.6 mile; Denfield R.R. No. 3, 0.8 mile; Dorchester Station R.R. No. 2, 1.6 miles; Glencoe R.R. No. 1, 1.6 miles; Glencoe R.R. No. 2, 1.6 miles; Granton R.R. No. 3, 1.8 miles; Hyde Park Corner R.R. No. 1, 2.4 miles; Ilderton R.R. No. 1, 2.3 miles; Ilderton R.R. No. 2, 4.6 miles; Komoka R.R. No. 2, 1.0 mile; London R.R. No. 1, 0.4 mile; London R.R. No. 3, 1.6 miles; London R.R. No. 5, 2.6 miles; London R.R. No. 6, 0.9 mile; London R.R. No. 7, 1.5 miles; London R.R. No. 8, 0.6 mile; London R.R. No. 9, 1.0 mile; London R.R. No. 10, 0.4 mile; Lucan R.R. No. 1, 1.0 mile; Mossley R.R. No. 2, 0.8 mile; Mount Brydges R.R. No. 1, 0.4 mile; Newbury R.R. No. 1, 0.6 mile; Park Hill R.R. No. 8, 0.6 mile; Strathroy R.R. No. 5, 1.4 miles; Strathroy R.R. No. 6, 0.8 mile; Thorndale R.R. No. 4, 0.8 mile; Wardsville R.R. No. 2, 1.0 mile; Wilton Grove R.R. No. 2, 2.8 miles.
1955-	Arva R.R. No. 1, 1.0 mile; Byron
R.R. No. 1, 8.9 miles; Clandeboye R.R. No. 1, 0.6 mile; Denfield R.R. No. 1, 1.8 miles; Denfield R.R. No. 2, 1.4 miles; Denfield R.R. No.	4,	0.8	mile;	Dorchester	Station	R.R.No.	1,	3.2	miles;	Dorchester	Station	R.R.No.	2,	5.4	miles;	Hyde Park	Corner	R.R.No. 1, 1.0 mile; Ilderton R.R. No. 1, 1.8 miles; Ilderton R.R. No. 2, 3.0 miles; Ilderton R.R. No. 3, 1.2 miles; Komoka R.R. No. 3, 0.6 mile; Komoka R.R. No. 4, 0.4 mile; London R.R. No. 3, 1.0 mile; London R.R. No. 5, 4.6 miles; London R.R. No. 7, 1.4 miles; London R.R. No. 8, 1.6 miles; London R.R. No. 9, 1.0 mile; Mount Brydges R.R. No. 4, 0.8 mile; Newbury R.R. No. 3, 1.6 miles;	Park Hill	R.R. No. 2, 1.4 miles;
Strathroy R.R. No. 3, 2.2 miles; Strathroy R.R. No. 5, 1.4 miles; Wilton Grove R.R. No. 1, 0.4 mile.
4. All contractors of extended routes received additional payment at pro rata for the increased mileage.

Questions



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Proudfool: What are the functions of the civil aviation medicine division of the Department of National Health and Welfare?
Answer by: Mr. Marlin:
The function of the civil aviation medicine division of the Department of National Health and Welfare is to advise the air services branch of the Department of Transport, the medical profession, and other civil aviation organizations on all problems relating to the health, safety and comfort of civil air crew and passengers.
This includes administering physical standards for civil aviation personnel, training and administering a medical service to examine aviation personnel, maintaining adequate physical records, maintaining liaison with the national research council, defence research medical laboratory, the R.C.A.F. institute of aviation medicine and the major air lines through their medical directors in initiating and applying research projects, representing the Canadian government at international civil aviation medical meetings, etc.



FISH LANDINGS, NOVA SCOTIA, 1955

Mr. Balcom: 1.	What were the landings, by counties, of the main species of fish in Nova Scotia, during the calendar year 1955?
2.	What was the landed value, by counties, of these same species in the same period?
Answer by: Mr. Sinclair:
Landings and Landed Value of the Main Species of Fish in Nova Scotia, 1955 (Preliminary figures)
	Total	Total landed
County	landings	value
	('000 lb.)	('000$)
Victoria 	
11,762	546Inverness 	
8,814	574Cape Breton ....	
53,054	2,432Richmond 	
30,377	1,313Pictou 	
3,561	701Antigonish	
1,495	298Guysboro 	
35,441	1,779Halifax 	
82,785	3,624Lunenburg 	
63,704	2,990Queens 	
8,104	485Shelburne 	
61,830	4,054Yarmouth 	
19,125	2,436Total	Total landedCounty	landings	value('0001b.)	('000 $)Digby 	
31,009	1,548Annapolis 	
2,613	165Kings 	
891	47Hants 	
499	11Colchester 	
707	49Cumberland ....	
1,981	339TOTAL 	
417,752	23,391



&quot;THE AGE OF MACKENZIE KING&quot;

Mr. Bryson: 1.	Was a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation panel discussion dealing with the book, "The Age of Mackenzie King", by Ferns and Ostry, scheduled for eleven p.m. on December 20, cancelled?
2.	If so, on whose authority was it cancelled?
3.	Is it the intention of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to proceed with this program at a future date?
4.	Does the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation intend to air a review of this book in the near future?
5.	If so, on what date, and by whom?
Answer by: Mr. McCann:
1.	Consideration had been given to including in the radio network program "Anthology" a sound recording of a television discussion on the book "The Age of Mackenzie King" if such a television program took place. Since a television program of the kind was not proceeded with there was no such recording available for the radio program "Anthology".
2.	The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has full authority and sole responsibility for all program decisions.
3.	Not at the present time as outlined in No. 1.
4.	Under consideration.
5.	See answer to No. 4.



WHEAT BOARD


Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Did the chairman or any members of the wheat board notify the government at any time since July 1, 1955, that they would resign within a matter of days if cash advances on farm-stored wheat were brought into effect?
2.	If so, which of them did so?
3.	What was the date or dates of said notifications and were same given verbally or in writing?
Answer by: Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.



END OF VOLUME I


[Stage Direction]
EDMOND CLOUTIER, C.M.G., O.A., D.S.P. queen's PRINTER AND CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY OTTAWA, 1956
[Stage Direction]

House of Commons Befiates
[Stage Direction]
Speaker: The Honourable L. Rene Beaudoin
Tuesday, January 10, 1956

[Stage Direction]
The parliament which had been prorogued on the twenty-eighth day of July, 1955, met this day at Ottawa for the dispatch of business.