1956-05-11

HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? A dispatch in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen indicates that there have been conferences between government officials and Mr. Cyrus Eaton concerning the opening of a harbour on Ungava bay for the transport of ore from the Ungava mineral deposits. Can the minister tell the house what the situation is with regard to this conference?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I have not any personal knowledge of the subject which my hon. friend has just mentioned but I shall make inquiries and endeavour to give him an answer as soon as possible.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES DOMINION DRAMA FESTIVAL    INQUIRY AS TO ADVERTISING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to a letter sent out by the dominion drama festival urging the purchase of the products of a certain distillery? Will the Prime Minister make it known to the dominion drama festival that it cannot use the name of the Governor General of Canada for sales promotion?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my attention was directed to this correspondence and the matter is under serious consideration.



INQUIRY AS TO SETTING UP OF CANADA COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question? Is the government also giving consideration to setting up the Canada Council and taking such other steps as may relieve the dominion drama festival from having to rely on this kind of financial support?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: This incident has no direct bearing on
the matter of setting up a Canada Council although it does indicate that if it were unnecessary for such arrangements with private interests to be made by organizations such as the drama festival it might be much more desirable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister advise the house what progress is being made in establishing the Canada Council?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: When there has been sufficient progress made to bring a measure before the house it will be announced in the usual way.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question. Has no progress, or very little, been made?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is a matter upon which my opinion and that of the hon. gentleman would be apt to be different.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege relating to the rights of the house and the rights of members to full and complete disclosure in answer to an order of the house, and also to point out that the house is entitled to an unexpurgated production of documents. On May 8 sessional paper 174-0 was tabled which purported to include a copy of correspondence, telegrams and memoranda of telephone conversations since June 1, 1956 between John Merriam,-I am not going to read the motion.


George Carlyle Marler: Did my hon. friend say "June 1, 1956?"


Mr. Rowe:: 1955.


John George Diefenbaker: The number is 174-0, the date is May 8. That return does not contain a full or complete record of the correspondence. Among the documents filed is one purporting to have been sent from the Northern Natural Gas Company on June 21, 1955 to
3794	HOUSE OF
Privilege-Motion for Papers the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In the first line of the letter are these words:
Attached is a conformed copy of a letter proposal which has been today mailed to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited by Northern Natural Gas Company, Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company, and American Natural Gas Company.
No part of that letter proposal was tabled in the house. It is part of the letter, and I submit, sir, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce should table the full and complete record rather than selected portions, and I ask him to table what is omitted.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for Prince Albert knows that the document which he has mentioned is referred to in the correspondence and wishes to have it produced I would suggest the method would be to put on the order paper a motion for production of that particular document.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the order for production was for all documents. One of the documents filed in pursuance of that order contained an enclosure called a conformed copy of the letter proposal. That conformed copy as part of the correspondence has been omitted. It is to that omission that I direct the attention of the house.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the government of course is obliged to table only correspondence which it has in its possession. The conformed copy was not addressed to the government; it was addressed to the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company. I told the office to put on everything that we had on our file. Now I will ascertain whether that was overlooked, and if it was I will certainly table it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, everything that the minister had on his files with reference to this was not tabled. The letter indicates that there were certain documents included and sent to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Those documents are of importance and I ask the minister to make a further search so that those very important ones be not omitted.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I am going to surprise my hon. friend very much and say that I do not handle documents that are tabled in the house. I have a staff who undertake that duty. I will find out whether the staff overlooked that particular letter and, if so, I will see that it is tabled.


John George Diefenbaker: Fine.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know what my hon. friend can expect me to say. All this indignation-


John George Diefenbaker: Your responsibility is to see that they are tabled.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Thank you for telling me my responsibility. I enjoy this phony indignation.



BUREAU OF STATISTICS REPORT CONCERNING MARCH BALANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the Minister of Trade and Commerce had an opportunity as yet of studying the dominion bureau of statistics report concerning the March trade balance and, if so, would he care to comment upon it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have done that, yes.


Mr. Pearkes:: Have you read this one?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Be careful.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is the report I received from my officers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suppose if hon. members opposite would keep all this in their heads they would not need a memorandum or anything of that sort-these clever men sitting in the front row.


Mr. Fleming:: Don't lose your temper.


William Earl Rowe: Turn around and look at your own crowd.


John George Diefenbaker: Open the private and confidential drawer.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Some of the phoniest discussions I have ever heard in my life have come up in this house within the last few weeks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I hope that some of the citizens who sent these gentlemen to parliament as their representatives feel they are getting their money's worth.
On the basis of preliminary figures, the value of Canada's merchandise exports for March, 1956, is $333 million, compared with $355 million for the same month last year. This reduction is, in part, the result of the influence of the Easter weekend which this year affected the figures for March rather than April. In addition, March figures were affected by a change in the procedure followed in handling customs documents. This year, the Department of National Revenue

have discontinued their practice of having March trade entries from points west of Winnipeg forwarded to Ottawa by air mail rather than ordinary mail. This means that this year there will be some entries carried forward into April which, under the previous procedure, would have been recorded in March.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited's option to purchase pipe in the United States related to the export of gas to the United States, as the minister indicated the other day? If so, in what way?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to obtain from Trans-Canada the option they have on that United States pipe and my hon. friend can see for himself what the option says.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words the minister will table the document when he receives it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Pallell (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister consider calling a dominion-provincial conference at which representatives of municipalities, trustee associations and teachers associations could be present-


Mr. Gauthier (Nickel Belt):: And humane societies.
Mr. Pallet!:	-to discuss the problem
which is facing most municipalities as a result of the tremendously increasing cost of education today?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, Mr. Speaker, the matter of having dominion-provincial conferences with the municipalities has been under consideration at various times and so far the decision has always been that, the municipalities being creatures of the provincial governments, our conferences should be with the provincial governments that would have the
Inquiries of the Ministry role of making such representations in connection with everything under their jurisdiction that they felt it was desirable to have made.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldl-Melfori):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I am sorry I have not given him notice of this question.
Do Indians residing on reserves in the three prairie provinces qualify for guaranteed bank loans on grain stored on their reserves?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I really cannot give an answer to that question without consulting the officials of my department and probably officials of other departments, and I am not going to attempt to answer without doing so.

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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Administration service-
1. Departmental administration (including advisory committee on agricultural services). $670,015.
Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Chairman, just before ten o'clock last night I was expressing my thanks to private members on the government side for the support they had given us in drawing the attention of the minister and the house to the very serious conditions threatening agriculture across Canada. I had not reached the hon. member for Durham, but I want to include him. I wish to thank especially the hon. member for Northumberland because it is most unusual to have a parliamentary assistant take part in the discussion of estimates when cabinet changes are being discussed and an hon. member might expect to be given the nod at some time.
I should like to proceed to ask the Minister of Agriculture to pay special attention to the remarks made on Tuesday, May 8, by the hon. member for Winnipeg North who asked the Prime Minister the following question to which he received the following answer:
Since the government is prepared to subsidize foreigners to build pipe lines, is the government prepared to subsidize Canadians to build the Saskatchewan river dam project?

Supply-Agriculture


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The government has no knowledge of any proposal by Canadians to build the South Saskatchewan dam project.
I have in my hand a letter, not marked private nor confidential, addressed to the right hon. Minister of Agriculture by the premier of Saskatchewan under date of April 28, 1954. In that letter the premier of Saskatchewan refers to the correspondence and discussions which had continued for a long time in connection with the project. The premier stated that the engineers representing both the federal and the provincial governments had reached agreement as to the estimated cost. For the main reservoir and dam the estimated cost was $80 million; for the irrigation system, $35 million; for the power plant, $20 million; a total of $135 million. The premier also referred to the correspondence and discussions about the responsibilities of the federal and provincial authorities. Premier Douglas emphasized again that the province of Saskatchewan does not expect the taxpayers of Canada to have any part in providing power for Saskatchewan. The premier confirmed the discussions that they had previously and came out with the offer for the province of Saskatchewan to pay $73 million and the federal government $62 million of the total expenditure of $135 million.
I ask the Minister of Agriculture to tell the committee whether or not, in his opinion, the people of Saskatchewan should be regarded as Canadians and whether he thinks the discussions between his department and the government of Saskatchewan should not be considered to have been proposals by Canadians. I want to suggest to the minister that he now is in a most important position, and I suggest that he has but one alternative. It is his duty, as I see it, to go to the Prime Minister of Canada and say, "I must take exception to the references you made in parliament on May 8."
Out of a total of $198 million, the federal government is prepared to put up $190 million to build a pipe line, and this pipe-line company is controlled by Americans, who control 83 per cent of the $8 million, which is to go into the pipe line. So the minister should be able to say, if the people of Canada are going to be asked to put up all but about 4 per cent of the $198 million for the pipeline project-


The Chairman:: It appears to me that the hon. member is now dealing more with the matter that we shall be discussing later in the session than the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. On looking at the resolutions, I find that there is a resolution, No. 42, dealing with major irrigation and

reclamation projects in the prairie provinces. In the details, I see that there is a reference to the South Saskatchewan river development. Therefore I feel that the hon. member is in order if he wishes to discuss the South Saskatchewan river development under the general item. He might perhaps contribute to more orderly debate if he chose to discuss it under resolution 42. I do express this conviction, that he is not in order when he commences to discuss pipe lines.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have really nothing more to say about the pipe lines. All I am suggesting is that the Minister of Agriculture has a responsibility to his neighbours and citizens in Saskatchewan in telling the Prime Minister to proceed with the construction of the South Saskatchewan dam immediately.
I suggest that the Minister of Agriculture should have no alternative but to offer his resignation to the cabinet if the government is not willing to meet the reasonable requests that the Minister of Agriculture has made so often in connection with the South Saskatchewan dam. I think it would not be a bad thing for Canada if occasionally members of the cabinet resigned, on important issues such as the issues we had during the war, when Mr. Power and Mr. Ralston resigned, or it the Minister of Agriculture, on a matter that is so important to his citizens of Saskatchewan, would say, "My resignation must be made available if the South Saskatchewan river dam is not going to get the consideration it deserves." That is all I am going to say on the dam at this point.
I want to come back to the general position of agriculture across Canada and I should like to refer to two articles in recent issues of the Ottawa Citizen. In the Ottawa Citizen of April 26 there was a story by Norman Campbell following a meeting of the Anglican synod of this area. The Anglican synod reviewed with a great deal of concern the depressed farming conditions in the-Ottawa valley. Following that the Citizen sent one of their reporters, Fred Inglis, on an assignment to see some of the farmers. In the area north of Renfrew he saw a Mr. Waite, a 40-year-old farmer, near Almonte a Mr. Steele, over at Carleton Place a Mr. Timmins, and then a retired farmer at Hazel-dean. All these farmers told the same sort of story about the price squeeze which is pushing farmers off the farms and forcing them to go to the cities.
When the minister's estimates were under discussion some little time ago he spent some time discussing the lack of accurate statistical information regarding the farm share of the-national income. I agree with part of what.

the minister said but there is enough information available to anyone who wants to seek it to establish firmly that farmers in all parts of Canada are not getting a fair share of the national income. I realize that you cannot establish exactly the number of farmers who depend entirely for their income on their returns from farming and that it is not possible to establish their position exactly to the last dollar, but we have information regarding gross national income, gross farm income and net farm income.
The bureau of statistics has come up with some figures giving the index numbers of the commodities and services used by farmers. They take the period 1935 to 1939 as a base, and on the basis of 100 for that period you find that by 1951 the prices of the commodities that farmers have to use had increased to 230 and by 1955 had increased to 237. There has been a further increase of 3 * 4 per cent in that four year period when farm prices were going down.
If you take the index for farm prices of agricultural products and use the same base you find that the figure for prices received by farmers was 296-8 in 1951 and in 1955 was 226-2. In other words, there was a drop of 24 per cent in prices for agricultural products while at the same time there was an increase of 3-4 per cent in the prices of the things that the farmer has to buy. Between 1955 and February of this year there was a further drop to 218-3 in the prices of agricultural products.
We find that the drop in prices received by Saskatchewan farmers has been even greater than the drop for Canada as a whole. Our prices in Saskatchewan dropped from 268-7 in 1951 to 187-6 or a drop of 30 per cent. Between 1951 and 1954 net farm income for Canada as a whole dropped from $2-1 million to $1-1 million, or 48 per cent, but for Saskatchewan the drop was 77 per cent.
The disturbing feature about this whole business is that while the farm squeeze goes on corporation profits continue to increase. While in the period from 1951 to 1954 net farm income for Canada dropped 48 per cent corporation profits after taxes only dropped 10 per cent, but in 1955, when agriculture continued to be depressed, corporation profits literally shot up. In 1954 corporation profits, after taxes, were $1-2 million; in 1955, $1-6 million or a percentage increase of 30 per cent.
Now, this situation is serious. The farmers of Canada are a very patient and long suffering people. They do not want too much. But they would like to have at least a kind word from the Minister of Agriculture. Surely, that
Supply-Agriculture
is not too much to expect, and yet we get nothing from the Minister of Agriculture or his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce but these bombastic statements that those of us on this side of the house are talking through our hats, that the farmers of Canada have been more prosperous in the last five years than they have ever been in any five-year period before. Nearly every country in the world is up against the same general proposition, but with this difference. Canada is the only country of which I know where the responsible ministries of the government fail to recognize the situation.
In the United States the situation is serious. I noticed an article by Joseph and Stewart Alsop which appeared in the Telegram of March 13 headed, "Farmers Less Prosperous". The article starts out by referring to a speech by an Arkansas senator in which he referred to the decline and fall of the Roman empire. Apparently the language used by the senator could not appear in the Toronto Telegram but the Alsops say:
The decay of Rome quite certainly began when the hardy farm-citizens whose valour had made Rome great, ceased to be able to maintain themselves and their families by farming their small holdings. In hardly more than a generation, over great areas of Italy, the family sized farms were swept away. They made way for vast, consolidated, slave operated, absentee-capitalist holdings, that were the equivalent in those days of what we now call "industrialized" farms.
Then, the Alsops give us statistics which are available in the United States, and which are comparable to Canadian statistics. I shall have something to say to the minister in a few minutes about his ability to make preparations for compiling comparable statistics in Canada. The Alsops say:
The people who are not prosperous are the folk on the family sized farms. They are so unprosperous, in fact, that this nation is virtually beginning to be divided into two nations. A single statistic tells the story. Per capita farm income has now declined to the level of $860 a year, whereas the per capita income of Americans off the farm now stands at the level of $1,922. Farm folk are much less than half as well off as other folk in America.
In Canada the position of our farmers is relatively a good deal worse than the position of United States farmers. I suggest the Minister of Agriculture has failed in performing a valuable service by ignoring these United States statistics and ignoring the fact that the Canadian farmer is in a much worse position than his United States neighbour.
I continue quoting from the article:
If this condition persists for very long, it can produce only one result. All the ambitious, ablebodied members of farm families will do what the Roman farmers did. They will give up the life they have been trained to. They will pull up stakes. They will go to seek better opportunities elsewhere.

Supply-Agriculture
As I said, Mr. Chairman, while these conditions exist down in Dorchester county in New Brunswick, and in Ontario, the Minister of Agriculture says we do not know anything about it. Nobody knows how badly off the Canadian farmer is. The Minister of Agriculture could go to his colleague the Minister of National Revenue who could give him some useful information. The Minister of National Revenue could tell the Minister of Agriculture that of the 601,000 farm families in Canada only 69,000, just over 10 per cent, in the best year the farmer ever had, had enough money to pay income taxes. I ask the hon. member from New Brunswick if he is aware of the fact that in the year 1953 there was not a farmer in New Brunswick who made enough money to pay income taxes? That is the information the Minister of National Revenue provides.
In the same year there were 130 farmers in Prince Edward Island out of 10,000 who paid income taxes. In Nova Scotia there were 110 farmers out of 24,000 who paid income taxes. In Quebec there were 750 farmers out of 133,000, and in good old Ontario there were 11,000 out of 159,000. Coming to my own province I have to say that in the year 1953, the last year for which statistics have been compiled, almost half of the farmers who paid income taxes in Canada were in Saskatchewan. In that province 31,000 out of a total of 90,000 farmers paid income taxes.


An hon. Member:: They must have been making money then.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Conditions were better, I admit, but Mr. Chairman, in spite of the fact-


Mr. Sluder:: That we had a socialist government.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -in spite of the fact that farmers in Saskatchewan who paid income taxes represented almost half the number of farmers who paid income taxes in Canada as a whole, there were just about one-third of the farmers in Saskatchewan who were fortunate enough to be able to pay income taxes. It is peculiar that the members of this house who happen to have cousins or neighbours who have gone west and made good never say anything about the two-thirds of our people in Saskatchewan who have never had enough money to pay income taxes. Those farmers have never been able to come back home and spend a little money to demonstrate to the neighbours that the west is a land of plenty. I am suggesting to the Minister of Agriculture that if he really wanted to give his party a shot in Saskatchewan-


Mr. Argue:: The hon. member for Rosthern had that.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -I mean a shot in the arm, at this late date, he could remove the present leader and lead the forces in Saskatchewan on the ground that if he were the premier of Saskatchewan again they could build the Saskatchewan river dam out of their own resources and regardless of what Ottawa would do.
Apart from the situation I have been discussing, the Minister of Agriculture could get the information that I have given here and which is available from the Minister of National Revenue, to demonstrate that the farmers in Canada are in a position where 90 per cent of them have never had enough income to be able to pay income taxes. Now, that is something that no member representing an agricultural constituency could accept with any degree of pride or satisfaction. While that is happening, companies like international nickel increase their net profits from $29 million to $65 million; Distillers Corporation increase their profits from $24 million to $33 million. All down the line we have the large corporations of Canada in the position where each year is a bigger year and a better year than the year which preceded it.
I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that he take time off to read what his own department says about agriculture abroad. On a previous occasion I compared the work of his department in agriculture abroad with the work done in Washington. I offered some criticism on the ground his department did not tell us the whole truth and nothing but the truth as the Washington department does. His department is very careful to keep out of print the information as to what farmers get for wheat in the other countries of the world. Washington does not mind telling the farmers that this is the situation:
Wheat Production and Prices, 1954-55
Price per
Country	bushel
Chile	 $4.50
Switzerland	 4.19
Finland	 3.95
Norway	 3.43
Italy	 3.05
Uruguay	 2.96
Portugal	 2.85
Spain	 2.73
West Germany	 2.72-2.83
Argentina	 2.72
Algeria	 2.64
Morocco	 2.64
Tunisia	 2.64
United Kingdom	 2.30
United States	 2.24
Canada	 1.40

Why does the Minister of Agriculture not instruct his very able officers to work out the prices producers abroad receive.


Mr. Gardiner:: I certainly would not report that. As everyone knows, the $1.40 is not correct.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Well-


Hazen Robert Argue: At Fort William.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -that is the initial price and we are waiting impatiently to find out what the final price will be. Perhaps the minister would also be able to give us the final price for the 1954-55 crop.


James Garfield Gardiner: Being such a good accountant, you ought to be able to figure it out.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No; the minister has the information, I have not. I would be happy to have the minister say what it is. Certainly, whatever the final price is going to be, the Canadian price is going to be away down compared with the farm prices in other parts of the world. But in this issue for April of this year the department has a very good article on the Argentine, on Cuba, on New Zealand, on the Soviet union, on the United Kingdom and on the United States. The previous one had articles on Australia, the Argentine, Italy, Denmark and again the United States and United Kingdom. Now, his department has access to the same information that is available to the United States, and I submit that the minister should give instructions to his department that when they are giving this information they should tell us the whole story, tell us how badly off the Canadian farmer is in comparison with our competitors.
I am not suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that there is an easy solution for the situation which is so general when all these countries I have mentioned are using public funds to bolster up that sector of the economy that is living in a depressed condition, and when our exports of wheat represent a relatively large percentage of our production compared with the percentage that the United States exports represent of their total production.
I admit very frankly that poses a real problem. The United States can give away every bushel of their surplus production without any serious impact on their economy. I do not think that Canada could embark on a long-term program of giving away her surplus production. I admit those facts very readily.


An hon. Member:: Time.
Supp ly-Agricu Iture


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The Chairman can call time when it is up. He is always most anxious to watch the clock and I will sit down when my time is up.


Hazen Robert Argue: They do not like it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I realize that to a Liberal member for a rural riding who has not spoken, and who is not going to speak on these estimates, this is bitter medicine. I suggest Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Agriculture should do something about the situation which is reported and which says that there are no figures anywhere to show what the farmer's share of the national income is.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. As the hon. member pointed out just a moment ago, it is my duty to call time and I now advise him that his time has expired.


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Chairman, it is not very often that a member of one party congratulates a member of another party, especially when that party is a bitter rival, but I am going to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Mackenzie, who has just taken his seat, on turning in what I regard as a superb performance. His speech, from the standpoint of western farmers, is a masterpiece and is utterly unanswerable.


An hon. Member:: Are you in a position to judge?


John Horne Blackmore: I think I am able to judge pretty well; I have been in the game a long time.
I am glad that the hon. member spoke before I did because it will not be necessary for me to elaborate upon these matters which are vital to all farmers and to all farm-representing members throughout this nation.
I will, therefore, direct my attention to another matter, but before I do so may I put this question once more to all members of this committee and to all the newspapermen who will read the reports of Hansard, and to all the people who will in any way read Hansard and become aware of what is going on in this house. What is the answer to the problem which the hon. member for Mackenzie has propounded? Can that problem go on unanswered without spelling utter disaster to Canada? These two questions have to be answered by every responsible member. There are plenty of hon. members in this house who are not responsible, I am sorry to say, and instead of facing facts they try to evade them, they try to make smart aleck remarks that will get into Hansard. They try to minimize the problems, but they do

Supply-Agriculture
not solve these problems by minimizing them or sidestepping them or being dishonest in respect to them.
I think every hon. member in this committee recalls that on several occasions in time past I have advocated what I think probably affords a temporary solution. As the hon. member for Mackenzie has said, no responsible person in Canada would suppose that we can go on producing enormous amounts of wheat and other agricultural commodities which we are now producing and subsidize the export, or the gift abroad, of those commodities. It is easy to see how a country like Uruguay or Chile or some other country in which agriculture probably constitutes relatively a small proportion of the economy might stand the taxation necessary to subsidize their agriculture and their exports abroad. It is easy to understand why the United States with her stupendous industrial and economic strength can stand to do this kind of thing for a year or so; but even the United States will not be able to stand this burden indefinitely. She is indicating that quite clearly by taking various measures to reduce the production and in other ways alleviate the problem which is bearing so heavily on the economy.
Now, what can Canada do? In the first place I would say this: whatever Canada decides upon as a long-range solution, the Canadian people have no show of right in any way to leave the farmer to bear the rap for the unhappy position in which he finds himself because he has done his job too well. Consequently, while we are readjusting our agricultural production by devices which we may deem to be best suited to the situation, there are temporary measures which ought to be taken and which every responsible member of this committee will acknowledge must be taken to take the burden off the farmer so that he can go on living, so that he will not be utterly destroyed.
I have advocated in times past, and I do not hesitate to advocate today, that the solution to the problem in a general way temporarily is based upon storing the commodities on our farms, paying the farmer the price he should receive for the commodity, and making provision for the permanent storage of that commodity on the farm where it can be only a blessing to us, while we take measures which are necessary in cooperation with the farmers, the provinces and every other agency concerned to determine how to reduce our production or to divert the production into some other line.
Before going on with what I have to say may I quote a passage from the pen of the man whom the minister and the Liberal party

generally are quite happy to quote. They seem to find the claims of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture altogether to their liking. Let me quote a statement from the opening remarks of the brief presented to the royal commission on Canada's future economic prospects by Mr. H. H. Hannam by whom the Liberals appear almost to swear. This statement was made on March 5, 1956 and I read from Mr. Hannam's words;
In the light of conditions and problems facing agriculture, we have set down our views in respect to policies which we believe will be needed-to maintain agriculture in a balanced position in our economy
-to assure those families needed to man our farms a standard of living which compares favourable with those performing a service of comparable value to society . . .
That is all they are asking; that is all the hon. member for Mackenzie is asking; and that is all-I am going to say once more, the courageous, persistent and effective fighters of the C.C.F. party-are asking. I do not hesitate to say that these men have turned in a magnificent job this year. I do not hesitate to say in support of my own party that if the C.C.F. group had not been here and had not been in a position to get the floor first, the Social Credit party would have turned in exactly the same performance because the Social Credit party represents farmers who are suffering just as are the farmers in the constituencies from which the hon. gentlemen in the C.C.F. come.
I interrupted the statement at the words "value to society" and I am going on to quote further:
-to enable farmers to adopt and practice soil conservation measures adequate to build and maintain soil fertility as a vital national asset.
I do not think for one moment that the Minister of Agriculture would be out of harmony with those statements. I want to make it abundantly clear that I do not blame the Minister of Agriculture for the difficulties with which the farmers are now faced. The minister is a member of a cabinet representing all of Canada and his voice is the voice of only one member of that cabinet. His will can prevail only to the extent his fellow cabinet members are willing to permit it to prevail. Let everyone judge the Minister of Agriculture in that light. On the basis of what he has already done, what he has already said, and what he is planning to do, I believe he is just as ready to give the farmers of western Canada a fair deal as are we who, like the minister, come from various federal constituencies in western Canada.
I have no use for people who blame others for things which are beyond their control

and who neglect to give credit where credit is due. I do not hesitate to say there is a great deal of credit due the Minister of Agriculture. I doubt very much whether any man in the country could have done any better in the position in which the minister is placed.
I know the minister will not say that he disagrees in any respect with the objectives set down here by H. H. Hannam of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, but the minister must make the very best he can of the very ugly picture which confronts us by reason of the situation in which he finds himself placed.
I wish to have hon. members also bear this in mind. I am as much opposed to the Liberal party as a man can be but I realize that the Liberal party and the Liberal administration represent the whole of Canada. When they draft a platform in respect to agriculture or when they introduce a measure pertaining to agriculture, that measure must commend itself to the people of every province in this country including Quebec and Ontario, which are largely industrial areas, including British Columbia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and other provinces which have nothing like the problems which face western agriculture.
When we are dealing with this problem let us be realistic, honourable and honest. Let us give credit where credit is due. I am endeavouring to do that. I do not hesitate for a moment to say that if the Minister of Agriculture were free today and if he were sitting in the seats occupied by the members of the C.C.F., he would be saying the same things that group are saying and with just as much vigour, effectiveness and pertinacity.
I now wish to go on with the statement:
Looking ahead: We want a prosperous, perman-mt and stable farming industry.
Is there anyone in this house, no matter where he comes from, who will disagree with :hat statement? There is not one. Certainly ;he Minister of Agriculture is in complete larmony with that objective. Proceeding with the statement:
We want conditions which will be conducive to iuilding a fine rural citizenship-a farming industry ittractive enough to hold its share of the best of mr farm young people.
S upp ly-A griculture
structure of any nation are those who are born and trained on farms. They are people of sound judgment, sound minds and sound bodies. That is the kind of people the farms have always produced. The more we cut down the normal healthy agricultural population of this country the more we will be cutting down these young people of stable minds and bodies who make up the very core of the nation, who make the great soldiers in time of need, who become the great statesmen, the great teachers, the great law makers, the great preachers, and the greatest of every division in society. The more we turn the affairs of this nation over to people bred in cities-


George Harris Hees: Hey!


John Horne Blackmore: I am not saying anything against the cities; let me continue. This cannot be said in just a few words. The more we turn the affairs of this nation over to people bred in cities where they have no contact with reality, the weaker our social structure will become.
As a parent I have found it very difficult to raise my sons the way I should like to have them raised because being a school teacher and a member of parliament I cannot put them on farms where they would have to get up at 5.30 in the morning and take care of the pigs and cows and do all the other things which ordinary farm boys and girls do and thus gain a genuine contact with reality, the thing it takes to produce anything of value.
The people who grow up away from farms have the tremendous disadvantage of not being in constant contact with reality, and they feed themselves with their own vain imaginings. Consequently, they become susceptible to communist propaganda and false notions of many different kinds. I say once again that if we cut down the percentage of our young people who grow up on farms we endanger the permanent stability of this nation. I am sure that every hon. member in this house will agree with what Mr. Hannam said in the last paragraph on the first page of the brief;
We prefer to see a continuation of the type of farm program which is based on co-operative self help procedures.
Is there anyone who supposes that the Minister of Agriculture is not in favour of hat? Is there anyone who supposes that here is any individual in this nation who is lot in favour of that? I do not think there s an hon. member in this house from any >arty who would not agree that the best oung men and women who enter the social 67509-241J
We all agree with that, but the main question is: How are you going to bring these conditions about in the time in which we live and in the nation where we live?
Once more I say that as a temporary measure I believe the solution of our problem on the farms in large part is the storing of surplus goods on the farm, paying the farmer what he ought to receive for his goods-

Supply-Agriculture
If we paid the farmer what he ought to receive for his farm-stored goods he would be put in a position where he himself could keep those goods instead of being paid for permanent storage, the cost of which payment would probably wreck the nation financially. More especially it would leave him free to go forward producing whether or not We might be able to sell abroad. I submit that this method of farm storing is far better than giving away products to those who might not want them. It is far better than putting products on the market as the United States is doing. They are subsidizing their prices to such an extent that they come into destructive competition with producers all over the world. There are complaints coming from all sections of the world hy reason of what the United States is doing.
We can understand why they are doing it. It is because they have taken over the ownership of these products and are at their wits' end to find where to store them and how to pay the cost of storage while they are finding some way of getting rid of the products. I do not favour that kind of thing for Canada. I am positive that there is a different way to go about it. I have already stated what my ideas are concerning this matter, first on November 17, 1953 and at various times, at least once while we were discussing wheat marketing this year.
May I go on with another little thing which I believe supports my general position. The Ottawa Citizen of Wednesday, May 9, contained this press dispatch:
1 Study stockpile of NATO food, i,Washington (AP)-The North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries are considering creation of a NATO food stockpile plus emergency food reserves in each member nation, mobilization director Arthur S. Flemming disclosed Tuesday. The proposal which American officials view as a possible outlet for. some U.S. farm surpluses, will receive intensive consideration at a meeting on November 15 of the NATO senior emergency civil planning committee.
November 15; the farmers can starve to death between now and then! The very first thing that these NATO planning people will b'e faced with when they sit down around the table will be how they are going to pay fbr these goods. Will anyone pretend that the TIATO nations, most of which have an insecure and unstable economy, can stand the taxation which would be necessary to provide the money with which to buy our surpluses to store in their countries? Will anyone pretend that? That would be a most unrealistic proposal.
1 Then how are these stores to be provided and paid for? If people suggest an international bank, an international agency to create world money to be spent in buying the
IMr. Blackmore.l
products of Canada, then according to our orthodox thinking which nearly all hon. members would rather die than surrender-if such an agency created the money it would feel that it would have to lend it. It could not get it out of its hand unless it did lend it. Tears of despair! Who is going to borrow it from that international agency? How is that person who borrows it going to repay it, when the only way in which he can repay it is either by taxing people who are already taxed nearly to death or by sending goods in repayment, which the international agency would not accept?
I have said enough now to indicate that while this NATO proposal sounds beautiful, it is just as fallacious, it is just as unsubstantial as the sun dogs in the winter sky that we see sometimes.
What, then, is going to be the solution? How are we to provide those NATO people with our surpluses in order that they may store them? I do not propose to go into any detail because everybody in this house can see that the proposal under discussion is illusory, that it is a sham, that it is foredoomed to defeat, that it will be stillborn.
Here are intelligent men. We hear about the "three wise men" who have been appointed to guide the destiny of NATO, one of whom is in this house, but whom I have never heard express any wisdom concerning economic affairs. Would he know how to provide the money in order to supply these surpluses to the NATO nations? If he did know, and if he did advocate it, he would upon his return get into plenty of difficulty with the Minister of Finance and with all the interests in Canada for whom the Minister of Finance speaks.
What I have said on previous occasions, and I am positive that this is sound, is that the Bank of Canada is able to create all the money which would be necessary to buy all the farm products that can be Stored in Canada at prices which the farmer ought to receive. It can provide the money necessary to build the required storage facilities to house all these surpluses. That will nol cause inflation any more than inflation would be caused if some outside nation bought those same commodities with its own money. Wher that money got here we would change it into Canadian money and spend the Canadiar money in Canada, just as we would spenc Bank of Canada money.
I submit that here is the germ of a possiblt idea that offers a way out. I do not thin! there is an hon. member in this house whc will say that the Bank of Canada is no empowered with all the necessary discretion it needs to do just exactly what I havi

suggested. If we should then want to supply some of these surpluses- to NATO nations so that they might store them, then I say that would be an admirable proposal and one which should have been proceeded with long ago. If we are proposing to let our farmers store the goods having paid for the commodities ourselves with our own credit, we can send those commodities over to NATO nations so their farmers can store them instead of ours with no cost to the taxpayer and no danger of inflation of our economy.
The only question we have to ask ourselves when we are considering whether or not the Bank of Canada can create the amount of money I have indicated is simply this: Are there, at the present time enough commodities in Canada and enough producers of commodities to produce all the goods which would be consumed if that money were spent on the goods of Canada? The answer certainly has to be yes because if we have not enough goods to absorb the money which the Bank of Canada, would create we would.not have enough goods to absorb money that might come in from Russia or any other source. That is as simple as A, B, C.
May I suggest in all seriousness, realizing my responsibility and knowing that these words are going into Hansard and may be quoted against me in future generations, that' we should go to work at once to provide an extensive and comprehensive farm storage scheme. Let me indicate for a minute or two the kind of things we could store in Canada. We could store wheat in superabundance. T ask, what could be of greater value than wheat in times of disaster? When war occurs, or acts of nature create disasters, the first thing that people need is wheat, food. Blessed would be the nation-angelical, almost, would be the nation-that had plenty of food to send in time of need. We have an opportunity to put ourselves in exactly that happy state, if we only have the intelligence and the honesty and the vision to see that we have the possibility.
We can produce a superabundance of oats. If we are now producing too much wheat, let us direct our farmers to produce oats', tell them the price we shall pay them, and give them a firm promise to pay them a price just as good as the price they can hope to get from wheat raised on the same acreage. Then we shall get all the oats we could dream of.
Now turn to barley. Barley is one of the most valuable of human foods. We can produce limitless supplies of barley, all that we can produce with our land and our climate.
Rye, a staple food in many countries, is very valuable as a human food and very
Supply-Agriculture
valuable as a food for certain kinds of livestock. We can produce any desired amount of rye and store it. Flax is one of the most valuable foods, and it can produce oils of great value and residues of great value for stock. We can produce any amount of flax we want and store it, and it will remain safely stored if it is kept dry.
We can produce a tremendous amount of beans. We cannot produce as much beans as wheat, because a great deal of our land suitable for wheat is not suitable for producing beans, and the climate is not suitable in many areas, but in this nation there are areas that can produce beans with great success.
The same applies to peas, corn and grass seeds. I shall stop there for a minute or two. Suppose now that we should become victims of a hydrogen bomb attack.


An hon. Member:: We are now.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes. I congratulate the hon. member for appreciating what is going on now. In case we had a hydrogen bomb attack, how much of the present grass land afterwards do you suppose would be producing grass? How much of our grass today would be alive? And what would be the very first thing we would need to restore that grass? Would it not be grass seed? Of course it would. How, then, could we possibly be more provident than by producing great quantities of grass seed-timothy, brome, rye grass, alfalfa-and storing them where they will be safe, on farms in suitable storage?
Many areas can produce sunflower seeds with success. Sunflower seeds are very valuable food, not only for human beings but also for certain kinds of animals. All areas of Canada are not suited to producing honey, but many of them are. I should imagine that rin Ontario you could almost bury the land in honey.
With regard to sugar, I do not think Canadian citizens realize the potentialities of producing sugar in Canada. By building the factories which the irrigated land we now have in southern Alberta would support, we could produce two and a half times the sugar the whole Canadian population could possibly use every year-in southern Alberta alone. In addition, we would take out of production much of the land that is now producing crops that are a burden to us. Why not produce and store great quantities of sugar? It is easy to store. It is easy to build great bins, something like silos, in which factories like the Canadian Sugar Factories of Lethbridge riding store great quantities of sugar. The sugar will remain there, I should think for centuries, perfectly safe.

Supply-Agriculture


William Alfred Robinson: I am extremely sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am obliged to advise him his time has expired.


John Horne Blackmore: I greatly appreciate the privilege of having spoken.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, representing, as I do-


James Garfield Gardiner: Before my hon. friend starts, may I say this? I have been looking up the records, and I And that the last speaker had already made a speech on this subject on February 10. I hope that everyone is not going to speak two or three times.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, I have not made a speech on this first item of agriculture so far this year. As 1 say, representing a very important and productive district in southwestern Ontario, and knowing that my farmers face problems too, I thought I should like to discuss some of the problems affecting those particular farmers and probably make some suggestions that might assist in solving some of our agricultural problems all the way across Canada.
As has been intimated by practically every speaker who has spoken on this item, except the minister himself, agriculture is finding it difficult to retain its economic position in Canada. Innumerable speeches have been made in this house, as I have indicated. A great many editorials and news items have been carried in our daily newspapers. Briefs from our farmers' union, our federation of agriculture and practically every other farming organization have indicated, as has the monthly review of the Bank of Nova Scotia, that the farm problems are in contrast to business expansion.
It is rather hard for the farmer operating his own farm when he picks up his daily newspaper, looks over the news items, looks over the financial page and sees that Canada is enjoying one of the greatest booms ever experienced in the history of this great country of ours-it is rather hard for him, as I say, when he has difficulty sometimes in even getting the necessities of life, when he has difficulty in paying the interest on his mortgage, when he has difficulty meeting his tax payments, to understand just why he is in such a situation.
Naturally, he wonders what is wrong. Naturally, he is discouraged. Naturally, more and more of our farmers are leaving the land. Particularly, young farmers who have been raised on the farm and who know how to farm are finding that it will not be profitable for them to carry on the business so well set up for them by their fathers. Naturally, it is hard for them to understand these things.
[Mr Blackmore.]
Many of these young men want to be farmers and would make good farmers as the years go on.
Not only are young farmers forced to leave the land. Many young farmers went overseas in the last war and fought for the way of life that they wanted and, when they returned, used their war benefits and gratuities to that end. But what happened? Many have had to leave the farm and go out and get other positions to augment their farming incomes so that they could meet their current expenses of taxes, living expenses, mortgage payments, interest payments, and so on. Hence their farming operations have not been as good as they should have been.
We have had a great many statistics quoted in this house, both from the government benches and the opposition benches, as to just what is the situation with regard to the farmer. Why is there so much talk about the income of the farmer having dropped to such a great extent I do not wish to add to the great statistical haze that has floated around the house practically ever since the opening of parliament, but I want to call the attention of the committee to an article in the Country Guide entitled, "Why the Squeeze on the Farmers?" The article is written by Dr. E. C. Hope and there is one part of it to which I should like to refer that directs attention in a most concrete way to the conditions facing the average farmer. It reads as follows:
Another basis of comparison is net farm income. In 1951, the average net income per farm from farming operations was $3,520. Preliminary calculations for 1955, after taking into consideration the value of the large crop of last year, show an average of $2,524 per farm. Even considering that 1951 was an above normal year for prices, a drop of $1,000 since 1951 is very substantial.
As I say, it is rather hard for our farmers, who have always felt that the providing of food and agricultural products of all kinds was an important industry in this country, to understand why they are being subjected to this squeeze. As the article indicates, there has been a drop of $1,000 in net farm income since 1951 for the average farmer. How many other segments of our economy could, with the present high standard of living, have continued to exist with such a substantial reduction in individual income, whether it be the man working in the factory, the small businessman, the office executive or the worker in an office? There would have been cries to high heaven that the situation be changed and that something should be done.
Of course, I think we all realize that part of the reason for the decline in agricultural income is directly or indirectly due to the fact that in the past few years we have been

blessed with unprecedented crops of grain and feed in our western provinces. It is also partly due to the reason that the government has been very ineffective in competing with other nations of the world in the disposition of our wheat. Canada no longer retains her position as the greatest exporter of wheat and feed grains that she once enjoyed in the markets of the world. No part of the world can live unto itself today, and probably the fact that salesmen from other countries have been more aggressive and more capable of dealing with world situations than our own Canadian officials is reflected in the condition of the entire agricultural industry of Canada.
As I said before, no part of the world can live unto itself today so no part of Canada can live unto itself. The result is that we find that the western farmer, who has been unable to sell and market his products, has been faced with the necessity of turning to other means of getting cash to carry on his operations. This has spilled his problem into other parts of Canada and has had a very marked effect on the income of feeders of hogs and cattle in southern Ontario. In fact, not so long ago the western farmers were advised by members of the government to do that very thing. They were told that they should not try to keep their eggs all in one basket, that they should get into more than one type of farming. What has been the result? I should like to quote from an article which appeared in the Rural Co-operator of March 27, 1956 dealing with a brief presented to the Gordon commission on Canada's economic prospects. The article reads in part as follows:
The brief, prepared by Cecil Belyea, O.F.A. economist, pointed out that livestock production in 1952 increased over 1951 by 49 per cent in the prairies and 27 per cent in Ontario. Though partly due to better 1951 hog prices, the increase in the west was also caused by the above normal grains harvest, it suggested.
Ontario farmers fear the tendency of western producers to feed more livestock when there are large supplies of unsold grain, the brief said. To supply meat for a predicted population of over 8 million in the province in 1975, Ontario farmers will have to depend to a large extent on western feed grains, the brief stated.
I sometimes feel, along with a lot of other members of the house from eastern Ontario, that the western farmer gets all the breaks. He has got his Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, his Prairie Farm Assistance Act, and this year an act was passed by the house making available to him $32 million for the provision of loans on his farm stored grain. I do feel that if the government does not take more definite steps to rectify these mistakes and assist the farmers the depressed condition is going to affect a great many other segments of our economy. In confirmation
Supp ly-A griculture
of this, I have in my hand an advertisement by the Steel Company of Canada which appeared in the Hamilton Spectator of March 17. In a big headline at the top it says, "Best Customer", and the advertisement goes on to say:
The steel industry's best customer is the farmer. Directly, the farmer as an individual is a buyer of steel and on the farmer's prosperity rests the prosperity of the farm implement business, which is one of the three Canadian industries using the most steel.
We have had indications in the last few days of extended lay-offs by some of the manufacturers of farm machinery and agricultural equipment. Last week the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose put on record figures which indicated that even in Alberta people producing hogs are doing so at a loss. I have in my hand figures prepared for me by the manager of the Arthur district co-operative with regard to pork production in our part of Ontario. These are approximate figures as of February 18, 1956. The cost of a weanling pig is $8. The cost of 100 pounds of pig starter is $4.80 and the cost of 600 pounds of hog grower at $3.40 per hundred is $20.40. Therefore the basic cost of the pig and the feed is $33.20. A fair average selling price was $36.20, making a gross spread per pig of $3. Then there are the expenses directly connected with hog raising such as interest on capital, depreciation on buildings and equipment, veterinary expenses, the normal loss ratio and labour cost. Then in this magnificent sum of $3 which the farmer makes per pig he also has to allow for disease, price changes and general misfortune. This is the situation with regard to hogs and I may say that the same situation exists with regard to cattle production in southern Ontario.
I should like to make a few suggestions as to some things that might be done to alleviate the situation. In that connection I should like to read part of the policy statement of the Ontario marketing conference which was held on March 13 and 14, 1956 by the Ontario federation of agriculture. Item No. 4 of their policy statement is as follows:
To recognize that the only type of government agricultural policy that can be effected is one which is comprehensive and which takes into account all aspects of our Canadian agricultural economy. We recommend that the federal government give immediate consideration to the establishment of a "granary program" involving outright purchases of sufficient western grains to lessen the danger of western farmers marketing their unsold grain through hogs and other livestock. Grain is a more easily stored commodity than meat.
In the same connection I should like to refer to a bulletin issued by the Ontario

Supply-Agriculture
retail feed dealers association in which they indicate that the situation was foreseen. The bulletin reads in part as follows:
The costly situation eastern agricultural interests are now encountering was foreseen by the trade early last fall. As a result of Canadian wheat board policy it was clearly apparent at that time that sufficient stocks of feed grains would not be moved into winter positions to care for the needs of eastern feeders.
In this article the feed dealers also indicate that more feed grain should be shipped during the fall season while the boats can carry the grain at a cheaper rate than that charged by the railway companies during the winter. In fact our feed merchants and feeders are finding a very definite problem in that connection right now. As a result of the late spring, the farmers are having to feed their cattle a longer time in their own barn.
Another situation that has arisen in connection with the farm industry is brought to our attention by an article in the London Free Press which indicates that the farmer gets only 46 cents out of the food dollar that is expended by the housewife when she goes to buy her weekly requirements. I sometimes think that situation could be improved through research. I feel that this government should spend more money, engage more scientists, and do more experimentation in agriculture so that varieties of produce could be developed which would move to the consumers with less processing and less waste.
In that same connection there is an article in the Rural Co-operator of Tuesday, January 31, entitled, "Ask Research":
In addition the federal government will be asked to undertake research to determine the relative food values of all grades of beef including dairy beef carcasses, with a view to improving sales value.
To improve hog quality the Canadian Federation of Agriculture was asked to work with the Canada department of agriculture to determine the type of program required to produce more "A" hogs in Canada.
The farmers should be provided with this information so that they will know the best types of feed to use and the best animal strains to be developed which will grow faster and be ready for market in a shorter period of time, thus reducing their costs of feeding and operation.
In connection with this matter of research I would go along with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Kindersley last week that there should be additional research into the question of combatting disease in farm animals and the control of obnoxious weeds which costs the farmers millions of dollars each year. In connection with this weed study business I do feel that some steps

should be taken to ensure that more effective methods of grading feed grain would be used to eliminate the danger of carrying obnoxious weed seeds from western Canada to eastern Canada, and to improve the types and grades of feed grain being shipped into southern Ontario. Some samples taken from cars that have been shipped to southern Ontario are hardly fit for animal consumption and should never have left the elevators in western Canada.
I feel also that if the farmers of this country felt that we enjoyed a greater diversity of markets for their products they would not be faced with the problem of their products arriving at disposal points when prices are depressed owing to carryovers. If this were the case, farmers could produce more and would have a greater income to carry on their operations. I feel that steps should be taken to get our agricultural products back into the United Kingdom market once more.
In that connection, I should like to quote from a Searle Grain Company report of February 15. This is a little item entitled, "We Wonder Why".
According to a recent press report, a prominent government spokesman after referring to Canada's large world war trade with the United Kingdom in bacon, cheese, and eggs, added:
"But between 1947 and 1950, they cut off every bit of it. I accepted their reasons but I felt a bit put out when they suggested that we should buy more goods from them."
For the life of us we cannot see why we in Canada should be put out when one of our best agricultural customers suggests what is axiomatic: namely, that the interchange of goods is the very essence of trade and that trade cannot flourish on a one way street. Time and time again officials from Britain have suggested-and even as we write the British Prime Minister, now in Canada, is stressing the point-that if Canada wants to do more trade with the United Kingdom she must be prepared to buy more British goods in return. There can be no quarrel with that, surely?
Once more we have found it is not good policy to have all our eggs in one basket. Every year in the United Kingdom there are millions and millions of people to be fed, whereas the United States, upon whose markets we have come to depend, produces practically the same products we do and also has great exportable surpluses. In the matter of trade, the Toronto Evening Telegram of Monday, May 7, contained an article by James
S.	Duncan entitled, "Our Trade With Britain". I should like to quote one paragraph from that article:
Obviously it is to our advantage to develop and extend overseas markets throughout the world. But the British market is especially important to us as its normal requirements are the primary products of our basic industries and as it provides the largest single market for our wheat.

We have been told that we do not enjoy the British market because they do not have the dollars. This article would indicate that there is a possibility that Britain could be provided with these dollars if we bought more of the merchandise she has to offer.
So I feel, Mr. Chairman, that although this government has done some things for the farmers of Canada during this session of parliament through the medium of amendments to the Canadian Farm Loan Act and the Canadian Farm Improvements Act, that is not the answer. The answer is not to make it easier for farmers to get into debt to carry on their operations, debts which they are going to have trouble repaying. The answer is to take definite steps to assure the farmer a profit on the sale of his products so he will be able to enjoy this great, booming Canadian economy. There is another article in the Steel Company of Canada's magazine which is headed at the top, "The Right Price". At the bottom it says:
The right price for Canada, then, must include a profit for investment in our future growth.
Certainly, the farmer is entitled to a profit so that he may make an investment and carry on the investment that has been carried on for so many years by himself and his forefathers. I sincerely hope that this government will give immediate consideration to these and other suggestions so that the present disparity between the farmers' income and that of other segments of our economy may be changed, and that our farmers will once again find a place in the sun. I hope that the small farmer will continue to enjoy a sound financial position-because I feel that he has made, and will continue to make, a very definite contribution towards supplying agricultural products for the use of Canada and the world-and will also continue to be the backbone of our municipal government. After all, the majority of farmers are proud of the heritage handed down by their forefathers who came to this country, built roads, schools and churches and were always ready to take their place in every organization in the community. I feel that every medium that can be used should be used to assure the continuance of this situation.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I should like to endorse the suggestion made by the hon. member for Elgin and so many other members in this house, that the turkey growers be given a more equitable tariff so that they might compete-and this is true of all the poultry raisers in Canada-with the products from the United States.


Mr. Murphy (Westmorland):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word on this first
Supply-Agriculture
item, especially after listening to the mutual admiration society on the other side in which members from the Social Credit party praised C.C.F. members and vice versa for their stand on the farm situation in this country. The hon. member for Mackenzie made a very interesting speech in which he referred to some extent to the province of New Brunswick. It seems that at this particular time New Brunswick has ceased to be just popular and has become the rage. The members of the two parties I have just mentioned are showing a great interest in things in that province.
We in New Brunswick have been governing ourselves down there since 1784, which was long before your provinces had parliament buildings, and we are quite capable of looking after our own affairs without intervention from the west coast. I should like perhaps to clarify something that the hon. member for Mackenzie said about farm income. I know he did not mean to make any statements that would not be very complimentary to New Brunswick, but perhaps he just does not understand the situation in our province with respect to farm income. Because of the nature of the terrain our farming down there is somewhat different from farming in Ontario and in western Canada. In New Brunswick farmers for the most part have sidelines, or what would be called sidelines in other parts of Canada. Under their set-up perhaps half the farm is cleared and the other half is woodland, and the farmers cut a considerable number of logs and pulpwood to act as a cash crop or a cushion. As you can see from looking at the map, the provinces of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia have long coastlines. Some of those provinces are almost islands. Along the coast the farms border on the sea. Those farmers, like the farmers inland in New Brunswick, fish in certain seasons of the year, perhaps during the lobster season and the herring season, for a -cash crop. It is not strictly agriculture but it gives an indication of the over-all view of farming conditions in New Brunswick as the farmers carry out their operations there.
I hold in my hand the revised estimate of farm cash income on the sale of farm products for the year 1953. In New Brunswick the largest farm cash income crop is forest products. That is amazing, but the largest cash crop from the farms of New Brunswick is forest products, with $12,305,000. The second largest crop is dairy products, with $11,300,000. In Nova Scotia forest products amount to $7,289,000. In the Dominion of Canada the total is $83,637,000, which

Supply-Agriculture means that in New Brunswick, as compared with the rest of Canada, one-seventh of the cash income is derived from forest products. The total cash income from the sale of all farm products in New Brunswick amounts to $46,141,000. The total cash income for the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island is $109 million out of a dominion total of $1,713 million. When you consider the size of our province and its population of half a million, I think that is a fairly good showing.
I have been talking to some western members who have visited my province and were very much taken with it. One remark that interested me greatly was that New Brunswick was about the size of their ridings in the west. When that is considered I think the figure of $46 million as farm income is nothing that we should be ashamed of in New Brunswick. With respect to the percentage of forest products making up the total farm income, the total farm income is $46 million and of that $12,300,000 is from forest products. This means that one-quarter of the farm income of New Brunswick is derived from the forest.
The statistics of income from fishing by farmers along the coast, and especially in my county, is not shown. In the province of Prince Edward Island fishing income as a supplement to farm income is even greater.
Last week, along with the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, I had the opportunity of meeting two of the main agricultural societies in our area, namely the Wake federation of agriculture and the officers of the Canadian federation of agriculture. At this meeting we discussed floor prices. The agricultural societies in New Brunswick commended the government on the establishment of the 58-cent floor price on butter and its continuance for two years. They also told the hon. member for Saint John-Albert and me that they commended the government on the Stand it had taken with regard to the sale of butter and the extra stocks of butter on hand at that time. They agreed with and commended the government on the other support prices for pork and the like. Another matter which was of interest to them and on which they commended the government was the favourable freight rates from the west to the maritimes and New Brunswick on feed grains, which are very important to us in the matter of raising livestock.
One thing was discussed there that I am interested in, namely, a resolution they had and which they asked us to support on the better labelling of meat products. I am going to quote the words of the manager of the Maritime Co-operative Services Limited in
[Mr. Murphy (Westmorland) .1
Moncton, who summed it up in this way, as quoted in the April issue of the Wool Grower:
Constructive comments and additional suggestions come from Roy Grant, assistant manager of Maritime Co-operative Services Limited. Noting that meat eaters in the maritimes decreased their buying of lamb because they found it difficult to get good lamb, Mr. Grant told of a labour leader of his acquaintance who had suffered disappointment. "Later", he writes, "I found that he had been buying his lamb at a cut-rate store where they featured very low prices. I happened to know that this store regularly bought D and E grade lambs. No wonder the man did not like lamb."
Further on in this report he says this with respect to feed:
As far as eastern Canada is concerned, too many people in the trade today are selling, for instance, choice or prime western beef and including in it a whole lot of western cows. Some of these same people will be shoving mutton in with lamb at every opportunity. It is my feeling that, if this job is going to be done, it had better be done by the producers themselves, particularly in view of the fact that they are the ones who will pay for it. Then, we can develop our own program and it should provide for sufficient consumer education so that a demand would be created for grade identification of all meats through to the consumer, as far as that is practicable.
At that time I told these gentlemen that I certainly thought this would be a good idea and that when I returned to Ottawa I would bring it to the attention of the department.
The hon. member for Mackenzie made some reference to income tax paid by farmers in New Brunswick. After I have put on record some figures concerning the cash income of farmers in New Brunswick, perhaps another look at the tabulation may show that farmers may be classified as lumber operators because, as I have pointed out, one-quarter of the farm income in New Brunswick is from the forests; or they may have been classified as fishermen because a large part of their cash income is derived from the month or more during which they operate in the fishing industry.
We are very proud of the job the farmers in New Brunswick are doing pretty much on their own. The farmers appreciate the price support and other forms of assistance given to them by the federal government.
The total cash farm income in New Brunswick was $46 million last year. You can readily see that if we gave $32 million to the agriculture of New Brunswick as we did in the case of the western agriculturists the income of the farmers in New Brunswick would be almost double. It would be a matter of sending it down. If any hon. member wants to send $32 million to the agriculturists in New Brunswick I am sure they would be only too happy to pay income tax on it. We never mind paying income tax in New Brunswick when we make the income.

In my riding there are several large chicken hatcheries and poultry growing plants and I visited one piggery in Westmorland county owned by a farmer who raises 2,000 pigs. In Moncton we have the plant of the Swift Canadian company which is an inducement to the farmers in our area to raise livestock which they can readily market.
That concludes the remarks I wish to make at this time. I simply wanted to clear up some false impressions that may have been left, although not intentionally, by hon. members who perhaps are not too familiar with the mode of farming in New Brunswick.


John Cameron Pallett: Mr. Chairman, in speaking
on the agricultural estimates I think I should perhaps first qualify my position in this house in that regard because there are some hon. members who feel, since Peel is adjacent to the great metropolis of metropolitan Toronto, that the agricultural industry is of minor importance and therefore it is considered in that light in relation to Peel county. I wish to assure hon. members of this house that that is not the case.
It may be of interest to hon. members to know	that in	this area we produce	justabout every agricultural product that is produced	in	the	Dominion of Canada.	Weproduce wheat and mixed grain crops, including hay, oats, rye and barley. We have an intensive production of vegetables. We have some of the finest orchards in the Dominion of Canada and an extensive production of smaller fruits. Our livestock and hog production is distinctive because we have many	of	the	world's champions in	thiscounty.	Our	production under roof is
startling because we produce 25 per cent of everything that is grown under glass or under roof in the province of Ontario including mushrooms, rhubarb, flowers and other indoor-grown products. It is from that position, Mr. Chairman, that I address my remarks to the house today.
We in Peel appreciate that under a free enterprise system you cannot always have every part of the economy in equal balance with the other parts. To do so would involve forgoing many fundamental rights which are of much more importance to the individual than his temporary financial position, but we also recognize that no country can allow any part of its economy to remain in an unfavourable position for any extended period of time.
Mr. Chairman, it is one o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
67509-242i
Supply-Agriculture AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


John Cameron Pallett: Mr. Chairman, before the noon recess I was referring to the fact that the farmers welcome a free enterprise system but they realize that under such a system there are economic ups and downs. I was pointing out that where one part of our economy is depressed the other parts must recognize that fact and be ready to assist the depressed part to take the necessary steps to recover its position and in that way bring about a fair return under our present economic system. At noon I was reminded that perhaps I should mention to the house that I can speak from personal experience about the economic position of the farmer, having some direct knowledge of returns from our own farm during the past few years.
The farmers of this country, like other groups, are quite capable of taking care of themselves and in their present position they will formulate ways and means of coming back into their rightful position, but along with other groups they look for and expect responsibility on the part of governments in assisting them to carry out their policies. In the case of labour there is a recognition of the right to organize under our system; in the case of our manufacturers there is the recognition that certain industries need certain types of protection. These are drastic examples of how governments have assisted at various times in our history. I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture and to the house as a whole that the government must be responsive to any suggestions that come from agriculture at this time and which are put forward in an effort to bring agriculture out of its present position.
I was rather interested to hear an hon. member decrying the fact that the sons of farmers are leaving the farm. I think that has been the case with every generation. I do not particularly decry that, as I believe it will work to the benefit of our economy as a whole and of our country as a whole. No individual farm can continue to maintain all of the family raised on that farm. There is a natural movement cityward and perhaps that has a tendency to improve the quality of our city populations.
However, for those who remain on the farm and are playing a vital part in the economy of this country of ours there must be a recognition of their importance.
Statistics placed before the house show that there is decreasing importance of agriculture in relation to the gross national product. Any manufacturer knows that when

Supply-Agriculture
he loses part of his market he goes from a profit position to a loss position. When the manufacturers of this country lose that part of their market which has been occupied by the farmers those manufacturing concerns are going to start showing a loss rather than a profit. Apparently the importance of agriculture in the whole economy is diminishing but nevertheless agricultural purchasing power is of the utmost importance to preserve in order to maintain that profit-loss balance. It is with a selfish interest that we try to assure that that purchasing power is maintained. As I have said, a small reduction in the purchases from manufacturers will reduce their position from a profit to a loss position. This condition will be immediately reflected upon the condition of other workers who are directly or indirectly connected with the supplying of products which our agriculturists buy.
It is easy to put these facts before the committee and many other speakers have done this more aptly than I could, but there is more to this matter than just placing the situation before the committee to be considered. We should urge the minister-I have not heard it said in any speech that first of all the government should be prepared to acknowledge that agriculture is not enjoying the fat living which the government would have us believe it is enjoying-* to admit frankly that there is a problem. If that were done we would at least have some consolation that the government admit that the problem is there and are at least thinking about it. They should give us some indication that they are showing concern rather than just passing it over. If the farmers of this country do not need the government in order to restore them to their economic position, this government may one day need the farrhers.
I think one program which should be adopted, both by agriculture and by the government, is the greater use of "buy Canadian" slogans. There are just as many vitamins in tomatoes as there are in oranges and yet how many of those who prescribe diets suggest that tomato juice be drunk instead of orange juice. There are many other angles that could be developed on a national scale. Leadership in this regard must be on a national' scale as this is something that can be developed only with the leadership of some federal agency.
Another thing which might be done, and this has been suggested already, is to have more research in agriculture. A tribute must be paid to those presently engaged in this and I think both the federal Department of

Agriculture and the department of agriculture of Ontario are to be congratulated upon their approaches to this problem.
But there is one phase of research which has not been fully explored and which I believe would provide an answer to our immediate problem. Our research in the past has been concerned primarily with production. This has paid off because the productivity of agriculture is continually increasing. However, the need now is for research into new marketing methods and new uses for agricultural products. If the same energies were devoted to that end as have been devoted to the other phase I am sure that beneficial results would follow.
Speaking of markets, how much easier it would be for a farmer-I am dealing with the local situation-to deliver his eggs to the county tovyn and sell them there than to pack them for shipment overseas.
Now let us build this country on a home consumption basis, and on that basis I suggest that the Minister of Agriculture had better get together with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration so that we may obtain an increase in the population for home consumption. It is far easier, I suggest, to deliver your goods to local consumers, if you have the local consumers. He would be helping not only the consumption end of agricultural products but also the productive capacity of the community as a whole.
I wish to make just one final remark at this stage. There have been recent developments to which our attention has been directed and which may have quite a far-reaching effect upon the farmers in Ontario. I strongly urge that the minister have drafted and ready for submission to this house the necessary legislation to take care of any contingency that may result from the finding of the recent reference before the Supreme Court of Canada.


Mr. Herridge:: During my brief remarks I intend to deal particularly with some of the problems of the farmers of British Columbia. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks made from various sides of the house during discussion of this item, and particularly the remarks made by my colleagues.	.
I support the policies of the Canadian federation of agriculture. I do not think there is any necessity for me at this, stage to repeat the excellent analysis of the international and domestic agricultural problems made by the previous speakers of this group. I think even the Minister of Agriculture will admit that I am not a repeater, except at meal times.

I speak with some knowledge of the problems of the ranchers of the interior of British Columbia because during the greater part of my life I have been a rancher on a somewhat microscopic scale and I know the problems of these people from the early days. We never discuss these estimates without my having certain nostalgic memories of the pioneer days in my constituency. I am happy to say that I have known and know the majority of the pioneer farmers and ranchers in the constituency I have the honour to represent.
I have lived through a period when the type of farming that largely prevailed in Kootenay West was known as "subsistence, existence and persistence" farming. We survived that period and are now in a more prosperous stage. I remember the days when we lived largely on tradition, scenery, promises from governments, and hope. So far as some of my constituents are concerned, they are still hoping that this government will take some action to remedy things that they can remedy if they are willing to give consideration to their problems.
I cannot pass on without saying that many people come to mind when I am speaking in a debate like this. To indicate the type of people I represent, I might say that just before I came to Ottawa I met a dear old gentleman of 85, a splendid type who has farmed for many years in Kootenay West. He said to me, "You know, Mr. Herridge, I am 85, but I would willingly die happy. I have done all the things that any virile and worth-while man would want to do. I visited Paris when I was 21, I played cricket at Lord's and golf at Saint Andrews, had a perfect hand in crib, had the opportunity to serve the empire in war, and have lived in the Kootenay district for 50 years." That is the kind of people I remember when I think of the early days in my constituency.
I shall also never forget that on another occasion another gentleman came to me who had not farmed prior to coming to this country. He asked me to come to his dairy farm and help him out. We had some very cold days in the winter. He was a very kindly man, and he made some horse-blankets for his cows. In addition, he made puttees out of gunny sacks to put on their legs, to keep out the cold. He wanted me to help him to adjust these puttees, because the puttees on the hind legs would not stay on.


Mr. Stick:: He should have put them on the tail.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Many of those people did some odd and comical things, but they have been the backbone of the part of the country
Supply-Agriculture
I have the honour to represent, and they have performed miracles considering the difficulties they had to overcome.
Whilst many Canadian farmers, particularly those residing on the prairies, depend on the international market largely, we in British Columbia have an excellent market at home. In fact, we are in a particularly favourable position so far as markets are concerned. At the present time the farmers of British Columbia are able to supply only about 50 per cent over-all of British Columbia's agricultural food requirements, and in my constituency only something slightly over 25 per cent.
We have the finest climate in Canada; we have excellent soil; and we have this unfilled domestic market at our doors. One would think under those circumstances that the farmers of British Columbia could not help being prosperous. As a matter of fact, the reverse is the case. On that account I find, in my constituency, the young people leaving the farms and taking the more attractive jobs in industry, in business and so on. This afternoon I am going to try to illustrate, or shall I say diagnose, the problem. I shall deal later very briefly with the cure for the economic ills of the farmers of British Columbia. I expect that some time later in this debate the hon. member for Nanaimo will deal with the political medicine necessary to remedy the situation.
Now I am going to quote some figures to make my point. These were prepared by the secretary-manager of the British Columbia federation of agriculture, Mr. C. E. S. Walls, who has been doing an excellent job for the farmers of British Columbia for a number of years and who has made a close study of this situation.
Before passing on, I must pay tribute to the British Columbia federation of agriculture. I remember it from the day it was first organized. In fact, I helped in my own district to promote its first membership and have done so since. This organization is a solid, responsible, sound organization which is trying to do something effective for the farmers of British Columbia.
I have said that our domestic market is unfilled. In that connection, I should like to read briefly from a paper presented to the British Columbia natural resources conference by the superintendent of Summerland experimental station. Having dealt with agriculture in general, he then says, in part:
With these pictures in my mind I realize that prospects for the sale of B.C. agricultural produce in export markets are very discouraging. Fortunately, the situation with regard to home markets is quite different. During the past ten years there has been a 40 per cent increase in the population

Supply-Agriculture
of B.C. Large scale pulp mills, aluminum plants, celanese factories and many other industries are now being established in this province. This rapid industrial expansion indicates that our population will continue to increase at a similar or accelerated rate during the next ten-year period. Although the agricultural production of B.C. has been expanding steadily, this province still imports large quantities of beef, lamb, pork, poultry and dairy products. We also import quantities of fruits and vegetables especially in the early part of the season when locally grown products are not available.
Then in concluding the statement he has this to say:
These trends may be stated very briefly as follows: 1. Export markets lor B.C. agricultural products are decreasing. 2. In contrast, home markets are expanding rapidly. 3. On account of the high wage scales which prevail in B.C., consumer preference in these home markets is for high quality produce.
We have a large market for good produce.
4. In an endeavour to produce high quality produce at reasonable cost, progressive farmers are making effective use of labour saving equipment, fertilizers, irrigation and agricultural chemicals.
Then he goes on to deal with certain other aspects of the situation. There it is. The market is there for high quality produce and farmers are ready to produce it. Yet under present circumstances, and I will illustrate by figures, the farmers of British Columbia are in an even less favourable condition than the farmers of most other provinces in Canada. These tables are prepared from figures supplied by the dominion bureau of statistics. I give first the index numbers of farm prices of agricultural products in Canada for the year 1954. They are the latest year available. The table is based on the period from 1935 to 1939 equalling 100 and is as follows:
Index Nos. of Farm Prices of Agricultural Products
Annual Index
Province	!954
Prince Edward Island	 194-8
Nova Scotia	 244-3
New Brunswick	 211-7
Quebec	 264-8
Ontario	 252-8
Manitoba	 218-4
Saskatchewan	 197-0
Alberta	 222-2
British Columbia	 254-0
Canadian Average	 232-1
What do we get out of those figures? I get these facts from them. While cash income from the sale of farm products in Canada declined a further 12 per cent in 1954, this did not apply to British Columbia where farm income was $200,000 above that of 1953. The index of farm prices of agricultural products in British Columbia was the second ^highest in all Canada and yet according to 
figures I will present later British Columbia farmers had the lowest net income.
I come to table No. 2 which deals with farmers' net income as a percentage of farm cash income. The source of the figures is the dominion bureau of statistics and the year is 1953. The table is as follows:
Province	1953
Prince Edward Island	
55	per	centNova Scotia	
50	per	centNew Brunswick	
61	per	centQuebec	
68	per	centOntario	
58	per	centManitoba	
51	per	centSaskatchewan	
63	per	centAlberta	
62	per	centBritish Columbia	
39	per	centCanadian Average	
61 per cent
This table shows that the proportionate net return in British Columbia is by far the lowest in Canada which proves that the cost of production there is proportionately the highest. I am sure that these figures are rather startling to anyone who comes from the province of British Columbia. Having now found the reason for the individual farmer's poor returns in spite of relatively high selling prices, namely, unusually high costs of production, we will try to find out the factors which are causing British Columbia's unfavourable position at this time. First of all we will deal with taxes because farmers always consider taxes one of the main costs of production. What do we find? Here is a table showing taxes paid as a percentage of farm cash income:
Province	Percentage
Prince Edward Island	 2
Nova Scotia	 7
New Brunswick	 8
Quebec	 4
Ontario	 5
Manitoba	 4
Saskatchewan	 2
Alberta	 4
British Columbia	 5
Canadian Average	 4
The figures for taxation indicate that the percentage thereof with respect to British Columbia farmers' cash income is not much higher than the Canadian average. Therefore we can conclude that high taxation is not a serious reason for the average British Columbia farmer's economic position generally. There may be some local conditions resulting in a difference from the general British Columbia figure but generally speaking we cannot say in British Columbia that taxes paid as a percentage of farm cash income very seriously affect the economic position of the farmer.
Now we come to another table. Labour is a considerable factor in farmers' costs. What is the relative labour cost in British Columbia

compared with other parts of Canada? The table indicates the following situation:
Hired Labour Wages as a Percentage of Farm Cash Income
Province	Percentage
Prince Edward Island	 12
Nova Scotia	 20
New Brunswick	 14
Quebec	 5
Ontario	 6
Manitoba	 7
Saskatchewan	 4
Alberta	 7
British Columbia	 17
Canadian Average	 6
These figures show that wages are one of the causes of the difficulties of British Columbia farmers, but the difference is not sufficient to mainly influence costs, especially when we see that for some unknown reason the percentage in Nova Scotia is 20. Therefore we can see that labour costs are not the most important factor affecting farmers' net income in British Columbia.
The British Columbia federation of agriculture made an investigation as to the use of fertilizers by farmers of that province and fertilizer prices, and they found that this factor did not have a serious effect on the farmers' net income. They found that fertilizer prices were possibly below average. They found that in 1953 British Columbia farmers spent $2,483,000 for fertilizer while the farmers of little Prince Edward Island spent $2,844,000. Therefore the amount of fertilizers used was relatively small in percentage and the cost was generally found to be lower than the Canadian average. The cost of fertilizers thus did not have a very serious effect upon the net income of the farmers of British Columbia.
Then we come to an analysis of another situation. In British Columbia there are poultry producers, livestock producers, dairymen, and on that account and because we are not a grain growing province a great amount of feed grains and mill feeds have to be imported. Mr. Walls began to examine this situation and this table indicates what he found. The table only relates to that portion of farm income that is derived from livestock, dairying, poultry and eggs, and is as follows:
Feed Cost Percentage of Cash Income from Livestock, Dairying, Poultry and Eggs
Province	Percentage
Prince Edward Island	27
Nova Scotia	 44
New Brunswick	 39
Quebec	 44
Ontario	 31
Manitoba	 12
Saskatchewan	 12
Alberta	  12
British Columbia	 60
Canadian Average	 30
Supply-Agriculture
You can see how the figures change as you come to the prairies. In British Columbia feed cost is 60 per cent of cash income of those farmers concerned with livestock, dairying, poultry and eggs. After analysing all these various costs, taxation, labour, fertilizers, Mr. Walls found that the cost of feed is the most important production cost of those farmers engaged in the production of livestock, dairying and poultry products in British Columbia. That is a very serious situation and, strangely enough, it is one that the federal government can do something to correct. Here we find the principal answer to British Columbia's high production cost for the farmers I have mentioned, with British Columbia farmers having to purchase twice the Canadian average, of grain and mill feeds.
Now, what can the government do? This is not a question of international markets or export markets, this is a problem existing in British Columbia, which is a province in Canada adjoining the prairie provinces. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have analysed this situation and I have quoted figures from tables provided by the British Columbia federation of agriculture. I think Mr. Walls has done an excellent job in sifting through the figures to find what is the important factor in British Columbia with respect to net returns at present received by livestock producers, dairymen and poultry producers. As I said before, I expect my colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo will deal with the political medicine necessary to correct this situation, but I do want to say this before concluding. That this is a problem that could be to a considerable extent remedied by action on the part of this government.
I suggest briefly this government could do two things. First of all, I must say the present freight assistance is a help and the situation would be much worse if that assistance were not there. It is unfortunate that last year the government had to reduce that freight assistance to British Columbia farmers. In addition to that assistance, my first suggestion would be that this government could take some action to deal effectively with the milling combine in Canada because farmers and farm organizations buy their grains and mill feeds from the milling organizations in western Canada. I have seen a number of cars of grain unloaded, and I have noticed the poor quality on occasions. I have raised that question in this house before and I raise it again. I urge the minister to have his inspectors watch that situation very closely, indeed.
Now, what else can the government do? I might mention I think, to indicate the difference in price being received by the producers

Supply-Agriculture
on the prairie and the prices being paid by the farmers of British Columbia, that if my information is correct at the present time the farmer is paying $90 a ton for No. 5 wheat. I wonder what the prairie farmer is getting for that wheat? Why is there this abnormal spread between the producer and the consumer? I maintain this government could do something to correct that situation.
My second suggestion is that arrangements should be made by this government for farmers' organizations and co-operatives in British Columbia to buy their whole grain- wheat, oats and barley-directly from the prairie farmer, but through the wheat board. I would not for a moment suggest doing anything to undermine the proper functions of the wheat board. It was established to protect the interests of the prairie farmers, the grain producers of western Canada, and I would not for a moment suggest undermining its over all authority and its work in that connection. In making this suggestion I have the support of a good many farm organizations in British Columbia. It is unnecessary to have this extra burden of costs caused by shipping to the elevators and then re-shipping through the milling companies to the farmer, placed upon the farmer.
We suggest that if this government would make it possible for farm organizations and co-operatives to buy direct from the farmers through the wheat board-it is only a matter of paper work-the farmers in British Columbia would be saved a considerable amount. In doing that the government would only be extending the functions of the wheat board, by not only protecting the interests of the prairie farmer but protecting the interests of the farmers of British Columbia, Ontario and the maritimes. Now, I have dealt briefly with this question. I urge the minister to give consideration to our representations in this respect. I think this situation, in British Columbia and in eastern Canada, does offer an opportunity for the government to take action to improve the economic position of the farmers without disturbing the over-all benefits that are now flowing to prairie farmers from the wheat board, and of course without disturbing any present legislation. That would in the end be to the general advantage of all farmers and the people of Canada.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Chairman, I have always been a little bit slow in speaking on agriculture, but recently I have been fortified by a trip around my constituency and attendance at an agricultural meeting. I have also been fortified by the knowledge that western members, who may know something about agriculture,

do not hesitate to speak on mining in New Brunswick about which, as it was proven yesterday they know nothing.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: It is a good job your constituents are making you wake up a little bit. You should have some more meetings.


Thomas Miller Bell: You can continue coming down to New Brunswick, and you will find out on June 18 where you belong.
Two recent statements have been made about agriculture that are in line with the general tone nowadays, and they were startling to me. First of all, the president of the maritime board of trade said that the Atlantic provinces spend 30 per cent of their income on food products, yet over 70 per cent of those said food products come from outside the Atlantic provinces. Then, the second statement that was rather startling to me came from one of the gentlemen who spoke with most authority at this agricultural meeting to which I referred a minute ago. He seemed to have some knowledge of the tax situation in his area because he said that out of 50 farms, nowadays only 25 of those farms were being taxed for agricultural purposes, but the whole 50 were still farms. Though the statement is true, and I am sure it is, it was simply a case of their still being on the farm, but the agricultural interests for tax purposes had been drastically changed. They had been reduced 100 per cent in this case.
In his opening remarks, the minister made some reference to the situation in Canada generally. I have forgotten exactly what the details were but my impression was that in New Brunswick the agricultural situation was not out of line with the rest of Canada. I am not going into the details but I want to refer to one or two things that were presented to the Gordon commission by the province of New Brunswick two weeks ago. First of all the statement was made that the capital investment in farms in New Brunswick is lower than any other province in Canada. They went on to make the statement that farm incomes in New Brunswick are very low. I do not think they are the lowest, but they are very low. I believe I read in a table of statistics that the increase in farm cash income in New Brunswick has not kept up with the general increase in Canada. It is not really out of line, but it certainly has not kept up.
The only other fact of significance in the report I think is that the changeover that is taking place in farming generally in the country has been much lower in New Brunswick. It is quite reasonable to assume that

In the west, with the concentration of farming, they would be quicker to take advantage of the changes and the modernization.
Now, I ask, what can the government do in this matter? I say that the government should increase its technical aid. This has been mentioned by other speakers. Of course, they could easily step it up in areas such as New Brunswick where the economy needs a little stimulation. This could readily be given through marketing and food growing policies and also in assisting in the erection of additional cold storage facilities. An example comes to my mind, Mr. Chairman. The marshland reclamation project has been completed; at least the main dam in Albert county has been completed. I do not intend to go into the details of that, although I may have several questions to ask when that item in the estimates of the Department of Agriculture is before the committee. However, I do wish to say that so far as general policy is concerned, the government has gone ahead with the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, and has spent upwards of $10 million in the maritimes on that project. In my constituency we have the largest part of that reclamation project. I think the amount spent there is well over $3 million. I for one have never been as pessimistic as some others about the project. I feel that it is quite an investment for the future, and the government deserves considerable credit for going ahead with it. I mention this to the minister because I feel it is important so far as the government is concerned. The government began the project; the land has been reclaimed. I was out there the other day. There has been some criticism of the way in which some of the contracts have been let, but to me it looks like a fine, commendable piece of work. But what is to be done with the land, Mr. Chairman, now that it has been reclaimed? The federal government must definitely line up a policy. The land is there; the farms are abandoned. There are over 5,000 acres of rich land which could be used for beef growing or for the resettlement of farmers or for the settlement of new farmers from overseas. I understand that the possibilities of growing grain are good there. I leave this thought with the minister today, Mr. Chairman, as one tangible way in which the government could use those lands to step up and stimulate the faltering agricultural economy.
Some forward steps have to be taken in that area. The farmers are watching and waiting. The government, in order to get the continued co-operation and good will of the farmers, must bring forth a forthright, progressive plan for the development of agriculture in the marshland area.
Supply-Agriculture


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the item carry?


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Chairman,-


James Garfield Gardiner: If the item is not carried, may I make a short statement to my hon. friend who has just spoken. The arrangement which was made with the maritime provinces, both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, was that we would build the dike or the dam, as the case may be, the aboiteau and things of that kind, in order to prevent the sea from getting in on the land, but all the activities behind those operations are to be carried on by the province. That is only natural, because the lands and resources belong to the province, and the assistance we give is to keep out the sea, and then the province carries on the other activities behind the dikes.
I am afraid we would require some different understanding from what we have now if we were to undertake the settlement of those particular lands. The understanding at the beginning, of course, was that the farmers who were already there would be encouraged to utilize the land so far as possible by extending down into the flats where they could not operate before, but a land policy is generally a provincial matter.


Thomas Miller Bell: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. It is the word "encouragement" that bothers me. Where is that encouragement to come from? I appreciate the fact that there is divided jurisdiction. I agree with everything the minister said, but it is the word "encouragement that I take exception to. How is that encouragement to be brought about, and who is responsible for it?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would think the encouragement of settlement is the responsibility of the province. Where they desire us to take some part in it is another question. The whole question as to what the province thinks can be developed successfully is one which they should determine, not we.


Edward George McCullough: I should like to make -some general remarks on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture because, while I agree quite readily with the remarks made by the hon. member to my right who has just taken his seat, it seems to be most difficult to get this government to recognize the fact that agriculture is in a depressed state. That is one of the first problems that we of the opposition groups have to contend with. This government appears to be drunk with power. It seems to be completely indifferent to the conditions facing our farmers from coast to coast.
We of the prairies have from time to time indicated that since 1954 agriculture in the

Supply-Agriculture
prairie provinces has been receiving a continued set-back in so far as its financial standing is concerned in comparison with the general economy of the country.
The last few days four or five members from the government side of the house have risen in their places and indicated that in the provinces of Ontario, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia real problems are facing the agricultural producer, and we no longer have the apple polishers of the government's agricultural policies. Whether or not it is the intention of these individual members to make statements in the house so that they can indicate to their constituents, particularly those in the back concessions, that they have taken some opposition to the do-nothing policy of this government in respect to agriculture, and perhaps indicate that they have put forth policies which would assist the farming people in their efforts to maintain a decent standard of living, I do not know. However,
I wish to say it seems very difficult to convince this government that some remedial policy is needed to rectify the conditions facing agriculture today. Just recently I returned from western Canada.


Mr. Byrne:: On a point of order, this is the second time in this debate that hon. members from the C.C.F. party have imputed motives to members on this side of the house who spoke on behalf of their constituents, and I think it is about time they were called to order in that regard.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of imputing motives to anyone. The members on the government side can always rise in their places and state their ideas and we are very happy to hear them. The unfortunate thing is that on most of the issues facing the country we do not find them too ready to rise except when they wish to condone such actions as took place yesterday when the government was prepared to take immediate action in order to railroad through issues which should more properly be put to the people of Canada.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The hon. member will of course realize that his remarks were out of order and perhaps should be withdrawn.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: On the point of order, both hon. members have said that the members on this side of the house are speaking only for the purpose of taking their speeches back to their constituents. I say that is imputing motives. I am sure that hon. members on this side of the house speak with a genuine desire to help solve the problems of this

country, and not simply for political purposes, as was suggested by the hon. member.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Chairman, I never said any such thing.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for
Kootenay East is quite right but the hon. member who has the floor said that he had no wish to impute motives, and I think we can accept that statement.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Chairman, the important thing is that while agriculture perhaps relatively does not hold the important place in the Canadian economy that it did a number of years ago, it is still the basic industry of Canada and I maintain that the prosperity of that industry will have a direct effect on the entire economy. When it is recognized that there is a total of $9,593 million invested by way of capital investment in farm land, buildings, equipment and livestock as compared with a total of $8,470 million invested in all manufacturing industries, I think it is clear to all hon. members that agriculture does rank as an important industry in Canada. I have never heard hon. members of this house criticize the farmers of Canada in terms of their being inefficient. I might say that the present condition facing the western farmer is largely due to his efficiency. He has been able to produce extremely efficiently and his surpluses bring about the problem which faces him today. He cannot market the large volume of produce he has been successful in growing. I suggest to the government that not only wheat-which is perhaps not fully under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture-but all farm products are between 20 and 40 per cent under a fair equity price as compared with the farmer's cost of production. That is the number 1 problem facing the western farmer.
When one considers that entire communities in western Canada are dependent upon the prosperity of agriculture, one can readily recognize that today our farm communities and municipalities are in a position in which it is difficult to carry on.
I was talking to some of the leaders of the farm implement industry in western Canada and they told me they have not experienced such difficulties since the hungry thirties. The sale of farm implements and the problem of carrying on efficiently is extremely serious in many cases.
I wish to point out to the Minister of Agriculture that while we have had prosperity from 1945 to 1952-we had in that period some of our most productive years- vie have recurring droughts in the bread basket of the west, namely the Palliser triangle. Our temporary post-war prosperity

has been largely cancelled out by the conditions prevailing in the last two or three years during which farm costs have gone up, and this government has failed in its policy-


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I have in my hand a copy of Hansard dated February 10, 1956. On page 1083 there appears the speech made by the hon. member on that date. He is repeating it today almost word for word. If he does not agree that that is what he is doing I will read part of it to him.


Edward George McCullough: Go
ahead.


James Garfield Gardiner: Very well.
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-
And so on. Then:
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.
. . . 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."
And so on.
The hon. member continues with the same kind of thing he is repeating today. One of the important rules in connection with debates in this house is that there must not be repetition and certainly when an hon. member is for the second time taking up his 30 minutes in committee and thus delaying the passing of this particular item I think he will understand before he concludes why there ought to be closure in this house.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: This makes three times the hon. member has made the same speech in this house.


William Alfred Robinson: After listening to the words of the Minister of Agriculture may I say I think he made a very good case concerning repetition. Perhaps I should arm myself with a copy of Hansard for February 10 also.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Get a copy of his speech.


Edward George McCullough: First of all, I want to say that I think it is sometimes extremely valuable to have repetition in this house; perhaps it will lead to a conviction on the part of the government to take some action. On the other hand I might say that the statement I am making is not from any notes I used previously and it is a coincidence that there is any resemblance
Supp ly-A griculture
to what I said formerly. The statement still stands, however, that agriculture is today in need of direct action on the part of this government.
I would suggest a number of things. First of all I suggest that something has to be done to rectify the cost price squeeze facing the producers of this country. The hon. member for Kootenay East spoke about the condition amongst the fruit growers in the Okanagan and we listened to an hon. member from the province of New Brunswick state the situation in which farmers in his constituency and province find themselves. For some years now I have suggested in this house some policies which I think would serve as a solution to the problem facing the producers.
Once the producer has done his job of producing efficiently he is frequently completely helpless in that he has no method by which he can receive a fair price for what he has produced. I submit that the responsibility in this field rests with the federal government. Manufacturers are in a position to ask the public to pay a price which will give them a fair return and in relation to the marketing of farm products there is a problem which must be solved by government policy.
In the last few years we have lost the British market and there are indications in the press that our trade with Britain has fallen drastically again this year. This can only lead to a smaller trade of farm products with Britain. I suggest that this government take upon itself the responsibility to find markets for our farm products. In the past I suggested that in this country we produce only one year's normal food supply for our country and for export. It seems to me that we should have adequate storage for grain and other surplus produce within our country so the producers would not necessarily have to take anything but a fair price in return for their produce.
In Canada we have room for the storage of 580 million bushels of grain at various points outside of the farm points. I submit that could be extended into a food and fodder bank. We could have food storage facilities and fodder storage facilities similar to granaries where these products could be stored for any contingency which might arise.
There are other aspects of this problem to which this government has paid little attention. We have a good-neighbour policy with the hungry peoples of the world under which we are attempting to exert western influence and show the people in undeveloped countries that the people of the west are their friends. By this means we endeavour to counteract Soviet expansion.

Supply-Agriculture
In addition to this use of our foodstuffs there is a great opportunity for the industrial use of farm products. I am speaking now particularly of chemurgy. In order to use our surplus foods for other purposes the government should explore that field and perhaps it could come up with some answers concerning the chemurgic use of our farm products.
I was quite interested in something which was brought to my attention recently which indicates that not only is the farmer taking the rap with respect to the tremendous increase in prices in Canada but also the consumer is victimized. One item which illustrates the situation is farm livestock products. Today the consumer is still paying high prices for choice meat cuts. The records of the Winnipeg stock exchange show that the farmers are getting 16 or 17 cents for choice beef.
Then there is the matter of the by-products. Taking the 1935-39 period as an index figure of 100 we find that the wholesale price index of raw hides, including sheep and calfskins, increased from 103-8 in 1939 to 114-4 in 1955. But when these hides are turned into boots and shoes we find that in that same period the index rose from 101-8 to 204-4. It will be seen that while in many cases the prices received by the farmer have gone down the consumer is paying higher prices for the things manufactured from farm products.
I have here an article which appeared in the Journal of April 21 entitled "Why the Farmer Complains" and I should like to read one short paragraph as follows:
D.B.S. states that in 1955 farmers in Canada received 46 cents of the consumers' food dollar, two cents less than the 1949-54 average. But while 1955 retail food prices were 11 per cent higher than in 1949 the farmer received 3 per cent less and marketing costs were up almost 25 per cent.
I just want to leave this thought with the committee, that while the government may be self-satisfied with the rather buoyant economy evident in our industrial, oil and mineral development, we find this great segment of the Canadian economy, and I refer to agriculture, facing perhaps one of the most serious situations since the hungry thirties. I suggest to the government that we still have in Canada the possibilities of doing something for the farmer. There are many old age pensioners living on $40 a month and in many cases they do not have the kind of food they should have. I suggest that some way should be devised to get some of this surplus food into the hands of our old age pensioners and families in the low income brackets. Some

policy should be evolved whereby the standard of living of such people could be increased so that they could buy more of the food which is now in surplus in Canada.
I have investigated some of the policies carried on by the United States government. They have a school lunch program under which school children are given milk and dairy products. The federal government in the United States is undertaking a $5,000 million program to guarantee the farmers a fair price as related to their costs of production. In this country the government has done nothing. It has its defence production program and other development programs but is quite satisfied to leave the farmer out of this prosperity in Canada.
Our farmers gave the war effort everything they had and yet today we find these same people in this price-cost squeeze. Many returned men came back and went on the land but today find themselves loaded with debt. Unless something is done to straighten out this cost-price squeeze they will find themselves in the position in which their fathers were when they came back after the first world war. Those men went on the land under soldier settlement schemes and many of them lost their farms.
There is a definite need for the Minister of Agriculture to meet with his colleagues. I think this matter is just as important as the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines or any other issue that may face this government. I suggest to the government that now that this grain has been produced the farmers should not be forced to sell it at a price which does not bear a fair relationship to their costs of production. Their farm machinery costs and other costs are increasing and they face the possibility of being saddled with debt.
It' is not satisfactory just to pass legislation to give the farmer the right to go to the bank to borrow money on a long-term amortization arrangement. What we want in this country is a more prosperous farm economy. In this house we talk mostly about monetary policies, but there is this other important and nonetheless tangible aspect of our economy. We must give a fair deal to the people on the soil. The strength of this nation has been in the people on the land and today those people are worried. They are filled with apathy. The young people are leaving the farms to go into industry where they can obtain more lucrative employment.
I do not want to delay this item but I do want to impress upon the Minister of Agriculture that he has a real job on his hands to convince this government that they should act. All we have to do is to look at some of the corporation profits that have been made

and the buoyant economy which has been indicated by the Minister of Finance. An article in the Toronto Star of April 19 indicates that profits in 1955 hit $1,656 million, up 35 per cent. But the farmers of this country, the people who are the backbone of this country, find their standard of living is going down. So I do hope that we will have a real answer by the government to this problem which is facing the farmer.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one or two remarks in connection with the points just raised and which I think should be answered. It is suggested that we should have a milk program in connection with the schools such as they have in the United States. Everyone in the committee knows that there are milk boards in every province and anything that is going to be done to put milk in schools must be done by the provinces.


Edward George McCullough: Dbn't pass the buck again.


James Garfield Gardiner: 
Mr. Charlton:: I have just one short question. The minister made reference to a policy regarding the supply of whole milk to school children across Canada. I wonder if he would

Supply-Agriculture
tell the committee what that policy is and whether the provinces have been made aware of this policy.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have indicated to provincial officials and ministers who come here from time to time to the conference and advisory committee that has been spoken of here, and others, the investigations we have made in the state of New York and elsewhere as to how the program is carried out. We have suggested we are prepared to consider with any of them any system that they desire to put in and to consider even the possibility of giving some assistance in connection with the obtaining of the kind of machines used there in general practice, where something is put in a slot and a bottle of milk is obtained.


John Alpheus Charlton: Then the truth is that no definite policy has been arrived at? It has just been considered with the provinces. No actual policy has been handed to the provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: A better way to state it is that no province has devised a policy to make use of it.


John Alpheus Charlton: The federal government has never offered them a policy.


James Garfield Gardiner: We cannot distribute milk in the provinces. As a matter of fact, they will not let us have anything to do with the administration of milk boards. That is their responsibility, and they take it.


Edward George McCullough: May I
ask the minister whether there is any definite commitment as to the financial obligation that the federal government would be prepared to undertake in respect to the plan he has indicated?


John Alpheus Charlton: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: If any province will make a proposition to us that they want it done, we shall submit to them at once what we are prepared to do.


William Earl Rowe: I do not wish to delay the house at any length. I do feel that it is interesting to listen to the discussions and observe the more or less nonchalant complacency of the government and its supporters with reference to agriculture generally. However, I am glad to learn today that the dairy men have learned that there is a new slot-machine policy being established in their interests. It may be of some real help. The minister has not said whether he will supply the slot machines or the milk, but it is something at least for them to hope for in future.
No doubt there have been great changes in agriculture generally, and its importance and place in our Canadian economy. I make

no apologies for mentioning its place here, on the first item, because that is about the only item on which we might be able to make observations as to the position the farmers are in throughout the dominion. That is why those, especially, who do not belong to the government have felt probably they should make vigorous statements at such times and have tried to place before parliament the position of their farmers in their respective districts.
I believe, independent of party, every hon. member in this house realizes the very important place of Canadian agriculture in the life of this dominion. It is true that that place is not as prominent on a percentage basis in our national production as it was a few years ago. In fact, it has changed very greatly. The figures have been placed on Hansard very often to show that the percentage of our whole industrial development has increased in other lines, while today agriculture has only about half the importance on the basis of percentage of gross national production. Indeed, those employed and obtaining subsistence from the agricultural industry are greatly reduced in numbers in view of machinery and other developments. That tends to make some people doubt the importance of agriculture.
Some hon. member this afternoon has used the term that many of us have used at times, that agriculture is the backbone of Canadian prosperity. We have used that term in the past and some of us now doubt whether it is so much the backbone. In fact, at times one would think the back was almost broken by the change in this part of our whole prosperity. The industrial development of our country and the numbers of people employed in our industrial and commercial enterprises in Canada are now increasing much more rapidly than agriculture. In fact those in agriculture, as I have said, are reduced in numbers. But I believe the government, as well as some people such as I have mentioned, seems to have more or less let the chances of agriculture grow more and more haphazard. Policies have been tried of handouts here and handouts there, subsidies and fixed prices, and it is struggling for a solution, but more or less with the attitude that we shall get along all right whether agriculture is prosperous or not.
Now we are beginning to see the effects. We see now that there are already many people unemployed in Canada today and many are looking for other jobs, whether you would call them fully unemployed now or not, because of the reduced purchasing power of the Canadian farmer. In the small towns and villages across this country, farm tractor sales have been reduced very much this

spring. I believe hon. members will find in their respective districts that farm tractor salesmen will tell them that they are not selling any farm tractors where they sold ten last year. In fact, in some districts it is even worse than that proportionately, even to the extent that in some districts the price of the heavy draught horse has increased because the farmers feel they cannot afford to repair their tractors or buy new tractors. That has happened in several districts.
I do claim that we seem to overlook the importance of sound national policies with respect to agriculture. Just as agriculture affects our whole national economy, so did the fiscal and national policies of the government in power affect agriculture. The greatest hope for Canadian agriculture, and it is often overlooked, is the development of our home markets here in Canada. There is no market in the world that offers more hope for Canadian farmers than our own home market, the home market of your own district, Mr. Chairman, around Orillia, the home markets of our own home counties, the home markets around Kitchener, Waterloo, London, Quebec city, Three Rivers, Brandon, Lethbridge, Vancouver and all the other places.
These home markets are our best markets and have always been our best markets. The minister said this afternoon that he is not going to go out and encourage the production of this or the production of that just because we have too much of something and cannot sell it. I remember when he told people around London a few years ago to get more sows and produce more pigs. They produced more pigs and inside of two years they did not know what to do with the little pigs. He has learned his lesson. No man can be in politics as long as he and I have been without learning something, even though in both cases it might be limited.
I quite agree with that, but I say the government have never had a sound fiscal policy. They have ridden the gravy train for so long that they feel they do not need a policy. They rode into power years ago in the same way, and went out of power after they had lost the world markets. The Minister of Agriculture and his friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce have been in politics a long time, but if they are no longer employed in politics after the next election they had better not hang out their shingles as butter and egg salesmen.
The Minister of Agriculture will say that he has guaranteed a price and that there is not too much butter, but never have we had so much butter in store as we have at the present time. We have more wheat than we have had on any other occasion except one,
Supply-Agriculture
and our surpluses of these products are increasing. We have more or less lost the world markets for these products.
I have listened in the house for many years to chidings, jibes and rumblings from the Liberal party about fiscal policy. They tell us that we must sell if we are going to buy. Well, I have watched the very same party over a quarter of a century selling more and more to the United States of America, where they have ever-increasing surpluses of the very same products to sell.
I have watched the government encouraging that policy. I have watched it all during these years and have read about it in earlier years. We have bought less and less percentagewise from the greatest market for farm products in the world, the British market, and today we have a favourable trade balance with the old land, the British Isles. Last year we had a favourable trade balance. Ever since 1900 we have had a favourable trade balance; down through the years we have accumulated several billions of dollars of favourable trade balances. Yet we are told that the reason we should buy manufactured products from other countries is so we can sell our agricultural products.
From the great republic to the south we are buying the finished products made by their workers who are eating beef produced in the United States and butter and eggs produced in the United States, and who are selling us their finished products to the extent of many billions of dollars. I do not like to repeat figures too often, but this situation has been emphasized in the last few days. Every hon. member is aware of it and I know that the Minister of Agriculture, even though he has more to do than just deal with agriculture, and the other members of the government are properly disturbed at the present time because every day we are buying from the United States almost $3 million more than we are selling to them. Eighty-five per cent of their products are fully manufactured, and their production helps to establish home markets in the United States for the farmers of that country.
I have listened for years and years to people talking about how we are going to solve the problem. I have listened to people say that we must buy where we can buy the cheapest and we must buy if we are going to sell. But, Mr. Chairman, it is very hard to reconcile that as sound fiscal logic if we are going to buy $3 million a day more than we are selling, from the country that has the largest surpluses of what you are trying to sell of any country in the world.
These are the things that are hitting right at the heart of our Canadian agricultural

Supply-Agriculture
prosperity. Our home markets will take our potatoes and our fish from the east. I do not know whether you can call fish an agricultural product altogether, but it does provide work and food for Canadians. Our people will take our dairy products, our poultry and egg products. They will take our beef and pork products and some of that huge surplus of butter the Minister of Agriculture is piling higher and higher. But the government is not giving leadership by way of a sound fiscal policy.
Surely when we are trying to get rid of wheat it is not the time to import United States turkeys into Canada. Three times as many turkeys are coming in now as came in three years ago. Enough turkeys were imported into Canada last year to put almost every turkey man in Canada in the mood to retire from the industry entirely. I have many in my own riding who have written me letters saying they wondered whether the government was going to allow the same thing next year, and if it was they did not think they would continue in the turkey business. You are trying to sell wheat, yet you are importing a million bushels of wheat in the form of turkeys. If all the turkeys consumed in Canada were produced in Canada they would consume at least a million bushels of wheat. Of course, what is a million bushels of wheat to this government? They cannot see the problem because they cannot even see over the piles of wheat.
Why do the government hesitate to do what they have been asked to do by those who understand the industry? Why do you hesitate to put on a tariff of 5 or 10 cents a pound against turkeys coming into this country when the United States, the country that is sending turkeys into Canada as a surplus product produced in a warmer and better climate where it is easier to produce them, put a tariff of 10 cents against the importation of our turkeys? There would be no reflection on you if you recanted. Why do you not drop these old dusty shackles of free trade and do that for these turkey producers even if you will not do it for anybody else?
Why do we need to import cheese from warmer climates where cheese can be produced so much cheaper? I do not know how much is going to come in this year. Three million pounds are sneaked in at one time and five million pounds another time. If you ask about it you are apt to be told it is not in the public interest to give any information, at least until the cheese is eaten. It is like other things. You cannot get any information from the government. Perhaps we would get through the estimates more quickly if we knew something about what is

going on. In all my experience in parliament I have never known a government to sit so quietly and say nothing on everything. However, it is no wonder because the members of the government are always applauded when they refuse to answer.
We have canned meat coming into Canada from countries that can produce meat cheaper than we can. We are even having canned rabbit coming into the country to take the place of beef, the production of which is increasing in Canada.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, it goes far deeper than what you are going to do with a slot-machine policy to try to increase the sale of milk. It goes far deeper than what you are going to do with a wheat policy that has already lost this country hundreds of millions of dollars. It goes far deeper than that. As has been put on Hansard this afternoon, the farmers of almost every country in the world are receiving higher prices for their wheat than is the Canadian farmer. We are told there are millions of people in the world who are starving, yet we have millions of bushels and pounds of surplus foodstuffs in Canada.
It is not my purpose, Mr. Chairman, to hold up this item except to urge the government to look a little further through this haze or maze or cloak of complacency which seems to envelop them, because if they do not that cloak will become their shroud before they are through. Right now we are on the verge of changed conditions in Canada unless we are more careful and give more attention to a sound policy for agriculture. We cannot continue with ever-increasing adverse balances of trade such as we have mounting up at the present time. There is continual harping about the farmers' income dropping 17 per cent in one year, 12 per cent in another year, and so on. Indeed, the farmers' income is down more than the income of any other major branch of Canadian life.
The agricultural industry is not sharing in the increased prices, increased wages and increased general prosperity of the last few years. The fact is that the automobile dealers are beginning to worry; the farm implement dealers are already worried; the farmer himself is worried; the farmer's wife is worried, and the girls and boys going to university are worried because the farmer has these heavy overhead charges and the balance between the cost of production and his sale price is small. He is caught in a squeeze play that is very critical indeed.
I believe that the future of Canadian agriculture, and the future of other industries in Canada, is generally bright, Mr. Chairman, if we have sound fiscal policy. I warn the government that unless it has a change of

attitude, agriculture may face very critical days. You know very well, Mr. Chairman, that if agriculture faces difficult days and this situation grows worse, then the merchant, the manufacturer, the dealer, the labouring man, will feel it just as they have felt it every time agriculture has gone into a recession if not a depression.
I would urge the government to take another look at this adverse balance of trade. In fact they should look at it every night before they go to bed, because it is increasing every day. I say again they should not be ashamed to adopt some of these dusty old theories they had in the past, even if it does mean putting on a protective tariff. We have heard a lot about the tariff on turkeys coming into Canada, on potatoes, on fruits and vegetables. We have heavy investments in all those industries in Canada now. There are people throughout this country today who for 15 years have made the production of turkeys the branch of agriculture upon which they are solely dependent. We have others, many in my own district, who are dependent on fruits and vegetables for their revenue. We have others in the meat business.
The Minister of Agriculture well knows, and I know every hon. member even from the western provinces realizes now as they are diversifying their industry, that mixed farming does help. If we can feed more of our grain to livestock, diversify our whole production and increase our population, thus increasing our home markets, then with sound fiscal policies we will have the best market for agricultural products.
This market has always been the best. The British market has always been the second best. The United States market has always been the most doubtful, the most dangerous and the most unpredictable. The only one in which we are following a practice of buying in order to sell is the United States market, and we are buying more than we are selling. The second best market has been lost, just as it was lost by the same party from 1921 to 1930. The one that is best of all is the one that is least thought of, and the least assisted, because of lack of fiscal policy and unsound general policy dealing with our whole trade situation.


Mr. Jones:: Before the resolution carries there are just one or two remarks I should like to make. First of all, the last speaker suggested the farmers could get out of their difficulty with diversified farming. In general that could be true, but so far as the farmers of my constituency are concerned it could not be done because their farming is of a variety that cannot be alternated year after
Supply-Agriculture
year. Once these trees are planted they are there for 10, 20 or 30 years. The diversification of crops is, therefore, very difficult if not impossible.
The problem of marketing is more intense, in my opinion for the farmers of my constituency than the diversification of their products. I am not going to repeat all that has already been said because the minister has attended conventions, he has received representations and he is fully conversant with the problems affecting the fruit and vegetable growers. I would ask him to pay special attention to the unfair competition these people have suffered for several years. The facts are known to the department. Fruit and vegetable products from the United States are dumped, particularly in the west, at absurd prices just before our own fruits and vegetables are ready for market. This paralyses the market in many cases. Last year potatoes had to be left in the ground because it did not pay to dig them up.
The loss of the United Kingdom market was a severe blow to us. I hope the government will go out of its way this coming year to try to increase the shipments of our fruit to England, particularly apples. I say this because through government assistance we have more and more fruit lands coming into production. These lands were purchased by veterans under the D.V.A. and developed with government assistance. The government therefore has a responsibility to see that the products produced on these government-sponsored lands find a ready market.
My real reason for rising was to express my appreciation of the work done by the experimental farm at Summerland. I spent some time there last summer going through all the various departments and watching them at work, carrying out their operations and trying to solve problems that affect the fruit growers and canners of the valley. I can say this, that I have never come across a staff working so sincerely and earnestly as the staff at that experimental station. I did feel that they were sorely cramped for space. The buildings are old and in many cases obsolete. I understand the government is contemplating erecting new buildings to house at least some of the laboratories and so on.
I hope the minister will tell us later on what is actually being done and when it will be done.
I can assure him that the fruit growers and apple producers of the Okanagan valley are pleased with the work done under cramped conditions at the experimental farm at Summerland. But the loss of the British market created a serious problem in connection with

Supply-Agriculture
our small apples. The British market prefers small apples to any others. Therefore this year we are forced to destroy or get rid of all our Cee grade apples, the 180's in all varieties except Winesaps and New-towns. From now on these apples are to be classified as culls. They are the type of apple they like in Britain because of their small size. In many instances the trees were pruned and planted to grow that type of apple for the old country market. Now these are to be added to the normal culls this coming year, which are culled because of their lack of colour or other blemishes, size development and so on. These small good apples are cull apples now. That is one of the problems with which we have to deal in the Okanagan valley.
There is a limited market for our apple juice, and we have an excellent product which has found a market practically all over North America. The limited outlet for this apple juice does not take care of all the new culls plus the normal culls that will come into the packing houses because of the new ruling. We have also processed some of these apples for pie filler and that kind of thing. It has been done with the help and assistance of the experimental farm, but these outlets do not take care of all our cull apples, and certainly will not this year.
At the convention held in January the British Columbia fruit growers' association passed this resolution:
Be it resolved by this 1956 British Columbia fruit growers' association convention that this association conduct a comprehensive program of research into the possibilities of utilizing apples, particularly into the prospects of developing the making of cider into a subsidiary industry in the Okanagan.
This resolution was carried unanimously. Naturally the farmers are looking to the experimental farm to carry out the necessary experiments to produce a good cider. I have been given to understand that to have a marketable cider it should contain about the same alcoholic content as beer, namely roughly 8 per cent proof and 4 per cent by weight. Then to make it really marketable it has to be clarified and carbonated, and that is where our problem starts.
I am going to suggest to the minister that this is a place where he could combine with the Minister of National Revenue and possibly give some assistance to the farmers. Some 25 or 30 years ago his predecessor in the same office authorized experiments to be carried on at the same experimental station in the making of liqueurs. They produced some excellent brandy and other liqueurs from peaches and apricots. They had a fine still and were doing a remarkable job of research, and everything was ready to be

transferred to commercial use when lo and behold the revenue department came in and smashed the still and all the samples. I hope the minister will not have the same trouble with the present Minister of National Revenue that his predecessor had.
Cider clarified and carbonated calls for an excise tax of $2.50 a gallon. This tax would kill the sale of apple cider, especially in competition with imported wines and so on. To satisfy the revenue department it has to be classified as champagne, of all things; no other wine, just champagne, and that is why it bears that tax per gallon. Without being carbonated it is a dull cider containing only 7 per cent alcohol, less than beer, but it would have to pay an excise tax of 50 cents a gallon. I realize that with this alcoholic content it would have to be sold in liquor stores and beer parlours, which would lower its sale considerably; but at the same time I believe it would afford a wholesome drink in competition with some of the beer that is now being sold.
I have been asked by some of the growers in my riding to make inquiries to see whether the revenue department and the agriculture department could not get together and allow a low grade alcoholic cider to be sold in grocery stores. I do not know whether it is feasible; I am just passing on the suggestion made to me. I have been given to understand that in California, New York and some other states a low alcoholic content cider and other fruit juices are being sold through ordinary grocery and similar channels. The growers who have written to me suggest that something of that kind should be possible in Canada. It would be merely a soft drink made out of apples but presumably it has to contain a small amount of alcohol to keep it from deteriorating, not exceeding 2 to 2J per cent.
I also pass on another suggestion. Commercial alcohol can be made from waste fruit. We have waste fruit that is not even worth putting into cider but it could be made into commercial alcohol, of which a considerable quantity is used in Canada. I have made inquiries to find out where the present alcohol comes from and in what quantities. I find that seven or eight different types of alcohol are brought into Canada each year. Two of the main types can be and are sometimes made from fruit waste. These two types combined amounted to 1,816,949 gallons which we brought into Canada last year, mainly from Germany.
That alcohol could be manufactured from waste fruit products right here in our own country. At Hood River in Oregon there is such a plant that has been operating profitably for many years making commercial

alcohol out of waste fruit. When I made further inquiries as to the possibility of establishing such a plant in the Okanagan valley I found that the first thing you do is to send a bond to the national revenue excise branch for $100,000.


An hon. Member:: Is that all?


Owen Lewis Jones: Yes; followed by a licence fee of $250 plus a special type of building erected to their specifications. Then you require a provincial licence as well, so the capital outlay makes it practically impossible to entertain the idea of manufacturing straight commercial alcohol.
Owing to the fact that Canada is dependent on imports of nearly 2 million gallons annually, I would suggest that the department consider carrying on experiments at the experimental farm to find out whether alcohol cannot be produced cheaply by some other means than the expensive way the revenue department demands at the present time.


Mr. Cardiff:: Mr. Chairman, about a month ago when these estimates first came before the house, I spoke for about four minutes. I waited until the last moment to see whether somebody else would say what I wanted to say and I would not bother rising at all, but there are a few points that I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. I should like to tell the minister that I have always held the very highest regard for him because he comes from the county of Huron. He was raised there, and it was too bad that he moved away. I am sorry he went to Saskatchewan, because if there is one thing more than another we do not need it is a Minister of Agriculture from Saskatchewan.
Just to show how discouraged people in other walks of life are with respect to farm prices, may I say that the Ontario provincial chamber of commerce at its annual meeting approved a revised policy for agriculture, stating that international trade has placed many Ontario farmers in a hopeless competitive position. It went on further to state that official announcements on agricultural earnings should be made on a basis of net rather than gross income to avoid erroneous impressions of farm prosperity. The chamber of commerce was disturbed because of the decreased purchasing power of 600,000 farmers across Canada and the decided effect it would have on the economy of the country as a whole.
I think people in all walks of life will agree that as long as agriculture is prospering the rest of the country will share in that prosperity, because agriculturists are the best spenders we have. The labour movement is
Supply-Agriculture
also becoming alarmed at the decline in farm income. They know perfectly well that if their wage rates are to be maintained at the present high levels the farmers must have an increase in income or everyone will suffer. They tell me, as proof that this is true, that Massey-Harris has let out 200 men in Woodstock and Brampton and another 800 in Toronto. That is a total of 1,000 men. If that industry is letting out men surely other industries will begin letting them out before too long, because Massey-Harris is only one of many important industries.
Up to now the general public has not felt the pinch. The farmers are the only group who have not enjoyed the economic boom in this country. I realize that before the minister gets through he will endeavour to tell us how well off they are. He has been telling the farmers that for two or three years, but the fact remains that agricultural income has dropped continuously over the last three years despite what figures the minister may put on the record. It is not good for the farmer or for anyone else, because so many people depend on the farmer. I should like to read an item which appears in an article printed by Free-Market Farming, written by W. M. Curtiss:
The political approach to the solution of farm problems is a proven failure. The way to improve farm income and farm prices is to reduce, not increase, government interference in the pricing and production of farm commodities.
For nearly 30 years, we have tried political schemes of all sorts to solve the farm problem. It is time to try a plan that we know will work- one that has been time tested over nearly a century and a half-a free market for agricultural products.
I know you cannot boost up agriculture with subsidies and then declare it a free market, but the fact remains that as soon as any political group starts interfering with trade they get into trouble. Take the cheese industry for instance. The government tried to market surplus cheese and what happened? The government was not able to do anything. The cheese producer went to work and sold his own products. I do not have the press clipping here, but I read that recently the minister advised the cheese producer to cultivate the home market and not bother with England because it would lower the price of cheese. I thought that was poor advice coming from the minister, because when the government had a chance to sell surplus cheese for Canada the price kept going down until the government could do nothing with it. The cheese producer took over and did a splendid job.
As soon as the cheese producer took over the government brought in six million pounds

Supply-Agriculture
of cheese by way of imports. I do not know for what reason the government did this, unless it was an attempt to discourage the cheese producer altogether. My advice is to leave the cheese producer and the farmer alone and not interfere in any shape, manner or form. They would do better themselves and through the years they have done just that. The principle of supply and demand will look after farm conditions better than any measure of which I have knowledge.
Let us take the sugar beet industry, for instance. We have two sugar beet factories in Ontario, one in Wallaceburg and one in Chatham. Unless the producers get a certain acreage of sugar beets the factories are threatening to close down. The minister knows as well as I that you cannot grow sugar beets without help. The only chance you have of growing them successfully is to have sufficient help to look after the crop. It is not a case of price at all, and that is not the reason for the decreased acreage. They do not have sufficient labour to look after the crop, and unless a change is made the sugar beet factories will have to close down because they cannot carry on. I think it is a pity that this part of our agricultural set-up should cease to exist.
We have a number of Dutch people coming into this country, entire families of them. In many cases they pool their resources and go into the business of growing sugar beets or some other product. Because the whole family is engaged in the business they can take care of the crops, but ordinary farmers have to depend on hired labour. Hired labour is now so expensive that farmers cannot compete, and the result is that they must get out of the Sugar beet business.
Many immigrants come to Canada each year, but they do not stay on the farms for long periods of time. Immigrants came here who were supposed to stay on the farm for at least one year. I tried to tell the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a few , years ago that this part of the law should be changed. Immigrants should be required to stay on the farm for a period ranging from three to five years. We were getting many immigrants who were not farmers at all. They came to Canada because they thought they could put up with farm life for one year in order to earn their freedom. If they had been required to stay on a farm for three or five years they would not have come to Canada at all, and we would not get that type of immigrant. If a clause were put in the Immigration Act even now which required an immigrant to stay on the farm for at least three years these people would know before

they came here that they were expected to follow the occupation of farming for at least that period of time.
One really cannot expect a man to stay on a farm and work ten or twelve hours a day when he can receive twice as much money in industry for an eight-hour day. That is what happens; the immigrants stay for a month or two and then go off into industry in order to benefit from the high wages.
We have heard quite a lot about turkeys today, and I do not intend to repeat what has been said. I wish to state that I agree with the hon. member for Elgin, who placed some figures on Hansard. I dp not intend to repeat the figures he quoted, but I have one or two points to make.
Why should our turkey producers be subjected to a difference in tariff as between Canada and the United States, and why should the government permit United States turkeys to come to Canada at a lower tariff. I cannot understand why the government would stand by and allow this sort of thing to happen. I hope there will be some correction in that regard. When it is taken up with the cabinet I hope the minister will consider giving the turkey men an even break. They do not want any special consideration; they simply want an even break.
We had a resolution concerning the farm loan act before the house a while ago. I do not intend to speak about that act other than to state a few facts in regard to what, it has had-to do with agriculture. Our difficulty in the past has been that the farmers were not able to get. any money because they had to have such gilt-edged security. The clause which has been put in is simply window dressing, to give the farmers the idea that they are going to receive special consideration.
Those who are administering the act should be permitted to be more flexible and generous with those to whom they are lending money. There is no use putting extra clauses in the .act. There have been no losses for years under this act. The government could not lose money, because farm values have more than doubled. I hope the administrators of the act will take that fact into consideration when they are lending money to farmers who are trying to get along. Some of these farmers are fairly hard up, but they are not so hard up that they would not be capable of paying back a loan. It is not in operations like these that money is lost; money is seldom lost when loaned on farm land. I hope there will be a little more flexibility in the administration of this act. I do not think I shall say anything more at this time, but I may have something to say on particular items.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, when I spoke earlier today I found I needed more time than I had, and I have not finished saying what I wanted to say to the committee. I was taking the position that it will be impossible to solve the problems of agriculture in Canada at the present time if we consider them from a short-range point of view without having some system of farm storage for grain and other commodities. The storage charges would be paid to the farmer and the storage facilities would be established on the farm. The farmer would take care of the grain or whatever other commodity is placed in farm storage.
In that way we would be able to take surpluses off the market and we would not have to worry about selling them abroad in competition with the highly subsidized United States exports. At the same time we would be building up a superb supply of different varieties of commodities which we in Canada can produce. These supplies would be of inestimable value in any kind of emergency arising from war or from disaster based upon natural occurrences.
I was naming various commodities which could be stored easily for years. I had dealt with sugar and had pointed out that in southern Alberta alone from High River to the border we could build sugar factories and raise and process sufficient sugar beets to provide two and a half times the amount of sugar consumed annually by all the people in Canada. There are three splendid sugar factories in my constituency, producing in the neighbourhood of 25 per cent of the total Canadian consumption. This sugar could be stored all over the Dominion of Canada so it would be available in case of disaster.
I really fail to see how it is that the Canadian people do not sense this danger and this possibility of overcoming the danger. We hear a great deal about civil defence. Surely the first thing we would need if we were in danger would be food supplies readily available all over the land. We would not want to have to ship wheat from Winnipeg to Edmonton in order that people in Edmonton who may be stricken would be able to live. I maintain that we would be treading upon absolutely sound ground if we had a nationwide system of farm storage for various commodities which we can produce.
I should like to go on to name three or four other commodities which could be stored easily, and then go on to deal with other matters which may have some bearing upon this problem. In this wonderful age in which we live we have learned to dehydrate many of the things we use. The field is almost
Supply-Agriculture
limitless. As everyone knows, we can dehydrate eggs. Milk has been dehydrated with great success, and milk powder can be stored in any dry place and will remain good for I do not know how long, but I imagine for some time. Nothing could be of greater value in time of disaster than plenty of milk powder. Meats can be dehydrated with great success and preserved for a long period of time. Practically every kind of vegetable can be dehydrated, and practically all fruits can be processed in this way with success. All these things could be stored at not too great an expense.
There is no reason why we could not store hay in drier areas like those to be found in certain parts of British Columbia. Great quantities of hay could be stored at not too great an expense. If disaster struck we would need hay for any of the animals that happened to survive. It would be of great value.
Those who are familiar with the beet sugar industry know that in the manufacture of sugar from beets there is a residue called beet pulp which is of great value as a stock food. This beet pulp can be dried and stored in ordinary sacks and shipped to far places to be preserved for an indefinite period of time. It is one of the most nutritious of stock foods. I see no reason why substantial quantities could not be stored in Canada. I would be surprised if similar products could not be made from other root crops. I think that is enough to say about the possibilities in respect of the storing of foods.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


John Horne Blackmore: I know there are always some who will say "Hear, hear" but they would be first to scream in case of disaster. Such people sometimes do not have the intelligence to look beyond the end of their nose.
Now the all-important thing which we are going to have to face is the method of financing. The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe spoke about the home market, which he said was the most valuable market for our products. But the home market is no good unless the people in that home market have the dollars with which to buy the commodities that are being offered. Most hon. members, and even the fine hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe with all his experience in this parliament, fail to go beyond the point where they start talking about this matter of finance. That is leaving the job just where it should be begun. He tells us the things we already know and leaves us bewildered regarding all the rest.
This morning I commended the C.C.F. for the very fine showing they made in fighting for the farmer during this last winter, but,

Supply-Agriculture
as I recall it, the C.C.F. said not a single word about what they proposed should be done.


Edward George McCullough: Yes, we did.


John Horne Blackmore: I shall leave one of you to say something about it after I have finished. As far as I can recall there was constant complaint against the government for what it had not done. They constantly told how prices should be stabilized and all that kind of thing, once more what everybody in the house and everybody in the country knows.
What they did not say was how the money was going to be obtained to do all this. The only thing the C.C.F. has said, as far as I can recall, is that they can tax the people to get the money. They implied it, although they did not say it. The taxes would begin to fall heavily on the corporations that had been making big profits. I commend the hon. member for Mackenzie for his fine speech, but the only thing he implied was that the big corporations making big profits would be required to share their profits with the government, and from that source we would be able to obtain the funds with which to finance the schemes of the C.C.F.


Mr. Ellis:: What is wrong with that?


John Horne Blackmore: That is very good. We are in committee, and hon. members can say all they like right after I have finished. I want to put my case, and I am sure they want to put their case, uninterrupted. If they let me put my case so it will be understood, I shall listen most attentively while they put theirs.
As far as the C.C.F. economic proposals are concerned, I oppose them on every point because I believe their whole concept of running a country is fallacious, and if they were able to put their program into operation they would not be able to get the production, much less the distribution.


Edward George McCullough: We are
getting it in Saskatchewan.


John Horne Blackmore: Private enterprise is getting it in Saskatchewan. The farmers all over the country, every one of them, constitute private enterprise, and they are simply pouring the wealth out. The same applies to oil or gas developments. You have to have private enterprise come in and do it. If you do not do that you will not get the results. It has been demonstrated beyond a doubt in Alberta. We have invited private enterprise to come in. Then instead of treating it as an enemy whom we wanted to destroy and whom we hated because it made profits, we endeavoured to clear the way

and help private enterprise. As a result we have reaped a rich harvest, and we have a grand prospect of further development just as long as we continue to do so.
In Alberta the private enterprise system is producing abundantly. As I have said many times in this house before, the private enterprise system in America has produced so much that we do not know what to do with it. Our problem now is to learn how to distribute the goods. Certainly in order to distribute the goods it would be most illogical for us to destroy the effectiveness of our productive system. That is exactly what we would do if we began to cultivate the C.C.F. ideas of state socialism, or whatever kind of socialism it is they favour.
So I say that although these people have fought vigorously for the farmer, they have never given us one inkling of what could be done to improve his lot even if they were in charge in Ottawa. The same is true of others. The Conservatives have put up an admirable case for the farmer; I have heard a dozen or more excellent speeches this year from the Conservative benches. But, once more, they have never shown us how the matters were to be remedied financially.
The Liberals this year for the first time have given voice to their ideas, and we have had some very good speeches from Liberals. I have no doubt that if the Liberals were on this side of the house and any one of the parties on this side were over there, the Liberals would be very vocal, energetic and insistent, and still never give any idea as to how to do what they proposed could be done. So I think it is important for us to spend a minute or two on the matter of where we are going to get the money.
This morning, as a result of the announcement that it was proposed that grains and other foods should be shipped to NATO and stored in NATO countries, I asked the question, "Where is anybody going to get the money to buy the goods from Canada and other nations and store them in NATO countries?" Is it proposed that a NATO cabinet should be set up and a NATO premier appointed, and that on top of all the murderous taxes we are enduring in all the countries contributing to NATO we shall have another tax imposed with the object of raising money to buy our goods to store them for NATO? I do not think so. I dealt with that matter this morning to some extent.
If we can manage somehow or other to get money that does not have to be borrowed and paid back, and does not have to be taxed from people, then we can conceive, if we have a sufficient amount of production, how we can do these fine things we want to do for

agriculture; for example, store our grain and pay for it. I draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that under the Finance Act of 1914, the Minister of Finance created in 1917, during the first world war, $50 million Canadian dollars. He did not borrow them from anybody; he created them; and with that money he bought $50 million worth of Canadian produce-wheat, horses and other things which Britain needed in the war. He sent those goods to Great Britain at no cost whatsoever to the Canadian people nor to the British people. Britain in due time repaid the loan, in much the same way as lend-lease operated during the last war, by 1927.
All those who are interested will find an account of this in the report of the royal commission on banking and currency for Canada published in 1933, on page 22, paragraph 47. And right good reading it makes. I would commend that reading to all the members of this house who so earnestly are seeking for a way in which to solve our agricultural problems.
If the minister could create money like that, there is no reason why he could not create money and put it into the hands of the consumers to enable them to buy, and so to realize the home market. There is moreover, no reason in the world why he should not create such money and pay part of the price of the goods, so the consumers could buy, say, a $10 article for $8. When one begins to talk along those lines, he is talking sense. He is talking about something that has been done and could be done, and something that is logical.
One may ask, "How much could he go on printing? $50 billion?" No, he could not, because the limit to the amount he could create is the amount of goods there are in the country to absorb it. The limit is the amount of goods and services there are in the country available for purchase.
That is simple enough for people to understand. There is I repeat no reason why he could not create that money and give a discount on the price of the goods so that, say, a $10 article could be bought for $8. By doing that kind of thing he could increase these home markets, he could utilize them and take advantage of them.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I have listened to the hon. gentleman for perhaps longer than I should without interrupting. I will admit that he is endeavouring to connect his discussion of monetary policy to its effect on agriculture, but I think perhaps the hon. gentleman would be willing to give some weight to the authority I have in my hand, which is entitled, Blackmore's Speaker's Decisions. In it I find several quotations which
Supply-Agriculture
I think are pertinent to the situation in which we find ourselves at the moment. At page 168 I find the following:
An hon. member must limit himself to the question. . . . It is not in order to raise a discussion not relevant to the question before the house. . . . An hon. member must confine himself to that which is relevant to the question of debate.
The hon. member will doubtless say to me that matters of money are relevant to the success of agriculture. I would agree with him, but I must also say that matters of money are relevant to every other department of government, whether it be public works, transport, mines and technical surveys or anything else. But there is a responsibility on me somewhere to say that the subject the hon. member is discussing is primarily monetary policy and not primarily agriculture.
I think the hon. member for Lethbridge will agree with me that the time the discussion of monetary policy is pertinent is really only, if at all, on the estimates of the Department of Finance, so he will permit me to request him to come back to the real question before the committee, which is shall we or shall we not vote some $670,000 for the administration of the Department of Agriculture.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, I do not know how I am going to thank you enough for letting people in this house know that there have been Blackmores who knew something. As to there being a responsibility incumbent upon you to call a halt at some point, I confess that readily, and I do not hesitate to tell you that I know of no chairman who has performed in this house who has been fairer and more considerate of everyone concerned than yourself.
In consideration of all these things I shall endeavour to end my remarks talking strictly on agriculture. May I say that all will agree that conditions in agriculture are very, very bad. I am sure too, that every hon. member of the house will agree that something has got to be done about it. Furthermore I am sure every hon. member in the house will agree that in a country as wealthy as Canada in all kinds of food, clothing, shelter, anything you want to name, it will be a disgrace to the country if we do not do something about it.
I raise the question once more to everyone in the house, what is that something and how is it to be financed? I think somewhere some wise man said in literature, "Who can advise may speak".


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Huron made a statement a few moments ago to the effect that we had had

Supply-Agriculture
three ministers of agriculture from Saskatchewan in a row. I was not listening to him too carefully-


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I did not say three.


James Garfield Gardiner: -and I was not at all sure whether he said there were two from Huron, the last two-


Lewis Elston Cardiff: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: but the last two were from Huron and the third one, of course, was from Lanark originally before he went to the west. One reason one might say that it would be quite natural for a number of them to have come from Huron back to Ottawa is the fact that when I went west first the common saying was, "In what part of Huron and Bruce is Ontario?" Most of the people out there seemed to come from one or the other. Therefore there is nothing unusual about that kind of thing happening.
The suggestion that has been made by quite a number that we should be doing something for agriculture is answered by the fact that in the last 20 years we have spent very considerably more on agriculture than was ever spent in any previous 20 years. As a matter of fact we are and have been for a considerable length of time spending ten times as much as was ever spent by any other government, either Liberal or Conservative.


Mr. Lennard:: You have it to spend. That is the reason.


James Garfield Gardiner: In view of the fact that we have been spending that much we are at least attempting to do something for agriculture.


Frank Exton Lennard: Whose money is it?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is the money of the people, and some of it is farmers' money.


Frank Exton Lennard: You would think it was Liberal money.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it is not Liberal money. Neither is it Conservative money. When the Conservatives were in power they did not spend very much on agriculture.


An hon. Member:: They did not spend very much on the people, either.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have a graph here, and if I have the consent of the committee I should like to have it put on the record. I do not have time to read it. It gives a picture of conditions, and if everyone in the house could see it I would not suggest putting it on the record.


William Earl Rowe: They have all seen it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, they have all seen it? If they have all seen it', their speeches do not correspond to the picture.


Frank Exton Lennard: You are getting three or four times as much money in taxes today as any government ever got before.


James Garfield Gardiner: Down here in the low left corner of the chart is where the farm income was when the Conservatives were in power, and ever since the Liberals have been in power it has gone constantly right up and up to the top right hand corner of the chart.


Mr. Robinson (Bruce):: Mr. Chairman-


Frank Exton Lennard: You have taxed the people to get the money to spend.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course we have taxed the people to get' it.


Frank Exton Lennard: You are taking more in taxes than any government ever did before.


James Garfield Gardiner: When my hon. friends were in power they had the people in such a condition that they could not get any taxes or anything else out of them. There just was no money left after paying their costs to take from them.


Mrs. Fairclough:: After the Liberals.


Frank Exton Lennard: After the Liberals in 1929.


James Garfield Gardiner: Agriculture in this country is not-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, it is five o'clock.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I think the hon. member for Bruce wanted to ask a question.


James Garfield Gardiner: Everybody has been trying to get to five o'clock. We are there now and we will have the question some other day.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: There are a few divorce bills on the order paper for second reading. Is it agreed that the second readings be taken in one motion?


Mr. Philpotl:: May we have the exact numbers of the bills?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Orders Nos. 46 to 50, Bills Nos. 293 to 297 inclusive.



SECOND READINGS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 293, for the relief of Edith May Robertson Thompson.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 294, for the relief of Hans Christian Anderson.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 295, for the relief of Raffaele Polissena.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 296, for the relief of Hilda Evelyn Charlton Carlson.-Mr. Henderson.

Bill No. 297, for the relief of Dorothy Pil-kington Wilson.-Mr. Henderson.


Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. 211, to provide for annual holidays with pay for employees.
He said: The idea or proposal contained in this bill is not a new one to be suggested on the floor of parliament. However, I think it may be breaking new ground in that, so far as I know, it is the first time an actual bill has been presented to parliament proposing, as this bill does, that by statute all workers in Canada who come under federal labour jurisdiction be given two weeks' holidays per year with pay after one year of employment with their employer.
Hon. members will realize that it is not many decades ago when holidays with pay, particularly for wage earners or industrial workers, were very unusual. I am sure many of us in this chamber have memories-if they are not memories of our own personal experience they are memories of those who have gone before us-of industrial workers or wage earners who never knew during their working lives what it was to have a vacation with pay. True, there were vacations which industrial workers in bygone decades had, but they were vacations due either to illness or to unemployment, and on such occasions there was no remuneration of any kind.
Mr. Speaker, one of the marks of progress of our society is that we have come to recognize, to some extent at least, that all who toil should be entitled to a period of vacation; and it is not a vacation worthy of the name unless one's pay or wage continues during that period. The right to vacations with pay is something for which the trade union movement has fought hard for a great many years. It has carried on that fight at the level of collective bargaining, and many collective agreements in force now between employees and their employers contains provisions for vacations with pay.
These provisions, of course, vary considerably. In some cases the employee gets a vacation with pay after not too long a period of service. In other cases the period of service has to be much longer. The length of the vacation with pay that is provided varies from agreement to agreement. But at any rate, it is fair to say that thanks to the efforts and the struggle of the trade union 67509-243
Industrial Relations
movement, many workers today do enjoy vacations with pay under their collective agreements.
However, with respect to this issue, as with respect to all issues affecting the position of wage earners and industrial workers generally, it has been the feeling and the experience of the trade union movement that a battle of this kind has to be fought on the legislative front as well as at the collective bargaining table. Organized labour, therefore, has sought legislation so that all employees might get at least a certain measure of this right, namely vacations with pay. As a result of these efforts in the legislative field progress has been made in a number of the provinces in this country.
At this point I might remind hon. members that when we are dealing with labour relations in Canada we are dealing with a matter that is under two jurisdictions. There are many employees, indeed most of the industrial workers of this country, who come under provincial jurisdiction. But there are also a large number of workers whose labour relations are under federal labour jurisdiction. Naturally the bill I propose, since it seeks the enactment by this parliament of a federal law, relates only to those who come under federal labour jurisdiction, but I think it is important both as a matter of history and as a basis for my argument that the house should know what progress has been made in the winning of this kind of legislation, and also that the house should know the number of provinces that provide for vacations with pay.
As I say, a number of them have such legislation. I mention first of all, six out of the 10 provinces. These six, if I may name them in geographical order, are Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. There is one other province that has some legislation in this field, and I shall mention it in a moment. The reason I shall mention it separately will be obvious.
First of all may I say with respect to those six provinces on the statute books of which there is legislation compelling employers to grant vacations with pay to their employees, in the case of two of them, namely British Columbia and Saskatchewan, the legislation requires that the vacations with pay be two weeks after one year of service. With respect to the other four provinces, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta, the requirement is just one week's vacation with pay after one year's service. I should add that in Alberta the law requires that employees be given two weeks vacation with pay after two years of service.
I should also add that in Manitoba the legislation requires that the workers be given two

Industrial Relations
weeks' vacation with pay after three years' service. There are other details that one could spell out, but I think that is sufficient to indicate that some progress is being made in this important and desirable field so far as the wage earners of this country are concerned.
I said that in addition to the six provinces I have named, all of which have vacations with pay legislation which is general in its application in that it applies to all employees in those provinces, it is also to be noted that a seventh province, namely New Brunswick, has a limited provision which gives one week's vacation with pay after one year's employment to those engaged in mining or in construction. It could be that in recent months some changes have been made in some of those provinces, or that other provinces have joined this group; but so far as I can ascertain my information is up to date. Indeed, those who come from British Columbia will recognize that I have included in my information the fact that although British Columbia until recently provided only one week's vacation with pay after one year's service, that province, along with Saskatchewan, now provides by statute two weeks' holidays with pay after one year's service.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this bill obviously seeks to provide under federal law the best of the provisions that already obtain so far as a number of provinces are concerned. This bill, in other words, is somewhat like unto the legislation in the two provinces where they have the best legislation in this field, namely British Columbia and Saskatchewan. I say to any who may study the details of this bill that it is patterned, for the most part, after the legislation in Saskatchewan, although I did take one or two sections out of the new British Columbia bill which it seemed to me it was desirable to include in my proposed bill.
In drafting the bill I drew on the legislation in the two provinces to which I have referred for the general provisions as to vacations with pay. I also drew on certain federal statutes in order to put the bill in proper form. For example, with regard to what employees this legislation might cover, I copied exactly the appropriate section in the legislation known as the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act. That is the section which indicates what employees would be covered, and again it reflects the provisions in this regard which are set out in the British North America Act.
That pretty well indicates what this bill proposes, Mr. Speaker. It proposes that all those employees, all workers, industrial workers, wage earners and others in Canada,

who come under federal labour jurisdiction should now have at least two weeks' vacation with pay each year. It proposes that this should come into effect after one years' employment. There is a provision in the bill to make it clear that this bill supersedes any custom or collective agreement or arrangement that gives to any employees anything less than two weeks' vacation with pay after one year. It also makes it clear that it does not interfere with any custom or collective agreement or other arrangement which gives to any employees anything better than is in this bill.
There is also a provision for prorating the period of vacation with pay that might be given to an employee if he is with an employer for more than one month but for any period less than one year.
Now, Mr. Speaker, other than referring to those details, I do not think I should say too much about the further details of the bill, for two reasons. One, of course, is a very good one in your eyes, namely that on second reading one is not supposed to refer to the sections of a bill. The other is equally good, namely that-I think incidentally this perhaps underlines the reason for that rule-what we are concerned about on second reading is the principle. I invite hon. members to give their attention not so much to the particular details as to how one goes about administering or working out vacations with pay, but rather to the principle that all employees in Canada who come under federal labour jurisdiction should have this right as part of what goes with living in Canada at the present time.
I would point out, sir, since you might be interested in the point, that in my bill I have stayed away from provisions that obtain in some of the provinces such as Manitoba, which involve the government in the selling of stamps, or in any other administrative features that could involve expense. Obviously there is a good reason why I stayed away from those provisions, in order that it would be the kind of bill that a private member might introduce; but even apart from that, I think it is better to have it this way. If the Minister of Labour and his department have studied the bill, as I am sure they have, I hope they may agree with me that it would be better to have it on as simple a basis as possible.
There are in the bill certain provisions for enforcement which involve the minister; but, as I say, the details could be left for further study. My hope is that in this year of 1956 it will not be too hard to persuade the House of Commons of Canada that the workers of Canada should have two weeks' vacation with pay a year, and that the House of Commons

of Canada will therefore approve second reading of this bill; whereupon I, of course, would move not that it go to the committee of the whole right away but rather that it go to the standing committee on industrial relations so that it might be studied very thoroughly in that committee. In the course of that study I would be most happy to accept suggestions from the Minister of Labour, or from anyone else, as to changes in the details. In fact the administrative set-up could be altered considerably and I would not be concerned. My concern, and I think that is obvious, is with the general principle that we should now make it statutory that all employees of Canada under federal labour jurisdiction should have two weeks' vacation with pay.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, in spite of my insistence that what we are dealing with now is the principle, I felt it was incumbent upon me in presenting the bill to the house not to leave the administrative aspect of it in blank form, but rather to show, as I have done in the sections that are in the bill, that such a provision can be worked out and put in practicable form.
As I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, organized labour has for years fought hard for this provision. It has carried on that fight at the level of collective bargaining; it has also insisted that gains won at the collective bargaining table should be written into the various statutes of the country. In addition to the fact that the demand for legislation providing for two weeks' vacation with pay after one year was in the platforms of principles of both the former labour congresses of this country, I would point out that it was included in the major 29-point platform of principles which was adopted at the recent founding convention of the Canadian Labour Congress which was held in Toronto during the last week in April. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, what I present to the house at this time is directly in line with the request with this new million-member labour congress, namely national legislation providing for a minimum of two weeks' vacation with pay.
I feel, too Mr. Speaker, that in this matter, as in other matters, the federal parliament of Canada should be giving a lead to the country.
I confess that it is a bit disappointing and a bit frustrating to have to make that plea and feel that so often as far as hon. members opposite are concerned, at least those on the treasury benches, it falls on deaf ears; yet how often we have to do that, particularly in the labour field and in the field of social security, pensions, provision for superannuated civil servants and so on. Every time we argue that the federal government 67509-243i
Industrial Relations
should be a good employer and should be giving a lead, those on the treasury benches sit back as though it was simply their job to follow, as though it were perfectly all right for them to come along with legislation of this kind only when everyone else has it.
I point out, Mr. Speaker, that already some vacations with pay legislation is on the statute books of six-yes, seven-of the provinces of this country. I use the figure seven, including New Brunswick, All these seven provinces have vacations with pay legislation to the extent I outlined a moment ago. I recognize that in the case of only two provinces, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, is that legislation like unto my bill, namely two weeks' after one year. But something is being done in seven out of our ten provinces. I hope we can persuade this House of Commons and the federal government that it is time a lead in this matter was given here.
I know that one of the arguments which will be used-oh, how often we hear it in relation to labour matters-is to leave it to collective bargaining. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is an argument I could go into at length, but I content myself with saying that if the trade union movement thought there was any merit to that argument they would not be bothering with these constant resolutions and platforms of principles calling on legislatures and the parliament of Canada to deal with these matters.
Indeed, if one takes the trouble to look through the 29 points that are in the platform of principles adopted by the Canadian Labour Congress one will find that most of them call for legislation by the federal parliament. One will also find that a great many of these points have been proposed from this corner of the house, in speeches or resolutions or bills such as the one I am presenting at this time.
I earnestly hope that if what I said at the beginning is true, that this is breaking new ground in that it might well be the first time a bill on this subject has been introduced, it will not mean it will have to be shelved for a year or two or five or ten or twenty, as things go around here. Progress has been made in the thinking of people across the years. Progress has been made from the days when an industrial worker worked the whole of his life without ever enjoying a holiday with pay, without ever getting a holiday unless it was due to illness or unemployment. We are proud of the progress that has been made socially in Canada. We are proud of the progress that has been achieved because labour fought persistently for a better deal for the workers of Canada, both organized and unorganized. Indeed, that is one of the reasons that labour advocates

Industrial Relations
legislation in this field; so that the provisions that are won for some by collective bargaining might be won for others, even those outside the ranks of organized labour.
It is an extremely important matter, Mr. Speaker. It is an extremely important item of social progress. No one, not a single hob. member of this house, would stand up and say that industrial employees should not have a vacation with pay every year. Everyone will agree that every employee should have a vacation with pay each year. All right, Mr. Speaker; that being the case, let us say so by supporting the principle of this bill, by voting for it unanimously on second reading and letting it go to the committee on industrial relations for study, whence it can come back to this house to be passed.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say at the outset without any equivocation that it is my intention to support this bill. In the remarks which were made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on second reading, he made one rather gross oversight, in my estimation, and I am sure he realizes I could not let this pass without commenting upon it; the oversight being a lack of recognition of the fact that the first vacations with pay legislation not only in Canada but on the North American continent was brought in by Hon. George Drew as premier of Ontario in 1944.


Mr. Macdonnell:: You should not have overlooked that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I certainly did mention that Ontario had legislation in this field.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Oh, but just in passing. That legislation not only included a provision for vacations with pay but also a provision with regard to hours of work. It is interesting to note the speed with which we have progressed within the last decade, because at that time the reduction of working hours to 48 per week was considered to be a tremendous step forward and was greeted in many quarters with opposition. To introduce legislation today restricting hours of work to 48 hours per week would, I think all hon. members will agree, be greeted with derision from most quarters.
It was in 1936, if my memory serves me well, that the I.L.O. adopted its convention on vacations with pay, and in the meantime a great many countries, whether or not they have implemented the convention, have given it recognition.
In reading the bill which is proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre T was amused to notice the clause which dealt

with notice of the holiday period, not because of the clause itself but because of an amusing story I read quite some time ago. The story concerns a commercial traveller who found himself snowbound in a remote area. He telephoned his employer and asked him for instructions. The employer, who was noted for the tenacity with which he hung on to every dollar, said, "Yes, I have some instructions-start your summer holidays at once." I am sure it is the possibility of such an occurrence which prompted the hon. member to include in his bill the provision which requires at least two weeks' notice of the holiday period.
I must, however, differ with the hon. member when it comes to his comments with regard to the use of stamps or some other such method of determining holiday pay. It has been my opinion that the holiday book and stamp system has worked very well in the province of Ontario. From my perusal of this bill I take it that the employee, upon the termination of his employment with any one employer, would receive at that time the equivalent of the proportion of holiday pay which might be coming to him because of the period of his service.
The situation is a little different in Ontario. The holiday books are purchased and the employer places therein stamps, for which he pays, covering the amount of money owed to the employee on the basis of the vacation. This has the effect that if an employee in the course of a year serves a great many employers-if he is in the type of business, notably the construction business, where he might work for several employers-he might, by keeping this book and having inserted therein the stamps which signify the amount of holiday pay coming to him, accumulate a full holiday pay which he may then procure by turning his book in to any of the banks in the province of Ontario. I do not think this is a very important point, but inasmuch as the hon. member said that he differed with that method of determining the amount due I must say that I agree with the system which has been set up because I know from practical experience the manner in which it has worked.
j must agree with him that the virtue in the legislation is that it covers all workers, whether or not they are members of unions or negotiating groups. The main argument against leaving arrangements of this sort to negotiating bodies is that those workers who are not unionized are left out and do not enjoy the privileges which may be extended to those who belong to unions.
I think we all agree that everyone deserves a holiday after working a year, though probably a good many of us in this house have not had as many as we should have had in

the years we have been here. Working conditions improve as the years go by and they improve because of the interest not only of labour organizations, which deserve a large share of the credit, but of legislators who interest themselves in the conditions under which the people of this country labour.
For all these reasons I propose to support this bill. I know that my support will be echoed by my leader, who is unavoidably absent at this time. I know that if he were here he would have some remarks to make on this legislation, because it would bring back to his mind the period when he was premier of Ontario and so keenly interested in the plight of the workers in his province, and the extent to which he promoted progressive labour legislation in that province.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have read this bill with great interest, and again it indicates the well known diligence of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He stated in his remarks that he believed this was the first round in so far as the federal ring is concerned, and I think that is true.
Both he and the hon. member for Hamilton West referred to the fact that in the earlier part of this century vacations with pay were a matter which did not receive anything like the consideration and interest which has developed since the end of the last great war. Certainly there were vacations, but too often they were vacations without pay or without any sign of employment to call a halt to the vacation. It was those long series of forced unpaid vacations which led the federal government to request that the British North America Act be amended in order that there might be something in the way of a backlog during these unpaid vacations which would offset the hardship imposed.
I do not think anyone will disagree with the principle that all who toil hard and consistently are entitled to vacations, and that if conditions warrant those vacations should be paid for. At the same time I think all of us should realize that paid vacations must be related to many other factors which enter into arrangements between employer and employee. For instance, there is the number of statutory holidays to be allowed and the number to be paid for, there is the length of the working week and how many days in the week are to be paid for, there is the amount of overtime to be worked and the payment for same, and half a dozen other factors that could be listed.
As I said, Bill No. 211 brings before the house for the first time some interesting questions for debate. I hope the debate will be full because I am sure it will be profitable.
Industrial Relations
The bill proposes that all employees in Canada who come under federal labour jurisdiction shall be granted at least two weeks' holidays with pay after one full year of employment.
For a number of years before the last war we had legislation providing for the settlement of disputes in industries under federal jurisdiction, and since 1948 we have had the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act which replaced the former legislation. That act covered the regulation of some collective bargaining aspects of labour relations as well as dealing with the all-important matter of providing the means or technique for the settlement of labour disputes.
Since I became Minister of Labour in 1953 we have brought in two additional measures. One was the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act, which prohibits discrimination in employment because of race, colour, national origin, religion or creed. At this session there is to be introduced legislation to provide equal pay for female employees as compared with male employees. But I think Bill No. 211 differs from those two measures in that it proposes to set a specific minimum standard in respect to one aspect of working conditions, namely annual vacations with pay. That fact makes it somewhat different from the legislation I have mentioned.
Federal industries are of course those works, businesses and undertakings which come under federal jurisdiction, and in spelling these out in the act my hon. friend has very kindly used the language of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If you will just take the
rest of the bill as well that will be fine.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The validity of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, which is applicable to the federal industries listed in the bill, came before the Supreme Court of Canada only last year and was upheld in a judgment given on June 28, 1955. Perhaps I should run over the industries listed in order to make the record complete. They include transportation and communications, including railways, shipping and stevedoring; air transport; international trucking and bus lines; telegraphs; telephones in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia; broadcasting; terminal elevators and the processing of western grain; banks, and grain companies.
The total number of employees in these industries is just under 400,000, which is not a large proportion of the roughly 5,000,000 paid workers we have in Canada. As federal Minister of Labour I recall that figure from time to time with a great deal of satisfaction, because within 400,000 workers there cannot be nearly as many labour disputes as might be involved in the several million workers.

Industrial Relations
Employees in those industries, taking them as a whole, are much more highly organized than employees generally, and about 70 per cent of them have their conditions of employment set already by collective agreements, as compared with 39 per cent for all the other industries in Canada, which come under the provincial jurisdiction. If, then, parliament should indicate a specific minimum standard in respect of a matter such as annual vacations, it will be passing a law on a subject which is normally dealt with by collective bargaining for a large proportion of the employees affected.
In spite of the comment by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre on that factor being brought up from time to time, nevertheless I believe it is an important factor for any federal minister of labour in approaching a measure such as this.
Legislative standards on matters normally dealt with by collective bargaining may sometimes be necessary, usually as a means of ensuring that unorganized workers are not deprived of all the protection they should have. I am sure in the great industrial province of Ontario that was certainly one of the factors responsible for the legislation in 1944. But I am sure that as members of the federal parliament we would want to move with a certain caution, particularly when a large proportion of the employees under federal jurisdiction have established these standards by the process of collective bargaining.
In the present instance the question arises as to how adequately the employees affected are already assured of paid vacations after one year's full work. A recent estimate of the number of workers under federal jurisdiction was, as I said, just under 400,000, of whom 47 per cent now meet the standard sought to be established by this bill. An additional 2 per cent qualify for two weeks' vacation after two years' service, an additional 44 per cent after three years' service, and an additional 1 per cent after five or more years' service.
Therefore less than 1 per cent of employees under federal jurisdiction are known not to receive two weeks' vacation at any time, while for the remaining 6 per cent, for the most part in the stevedoring industry, the information available is not sufficient to determine the length of their annual vacations.
Mr. Speaker, I have done some homework putting this out in chart form, and I should be very glad to give it to the house. The chart is headed "Estimated distribution of employees under federal jurisdiction according to service required for two weeks' vacation with pay". The subheadings across the top are, first, "Industry", giving the industries under federal jurisdiction; next "Coverage",
iMr. Gregg.]
giving the total number covered; then "Service requirement for two weeks' vacation", with subcolumns for one year, two years, three years, five years and more than five years. The next column is headed "Do not get two weeks' vacation"; the final column is headed "No information". Under each heading there are two columns, one giving the number and the other the percentage. I can give a few of the headings to the house now if hon. members would like to have them.
For the steam railways, including telegraph operations, the total number is 196,800. The number with one year's service is 44,900 or 22-8 per cent. There is nothing listed for two years' service. The number for three years is 151,900, and that is 77-2 per cent. There are none for five years or more than five years.
For shipping, including stevedoring, the total is 34,200. With one year's service, 12,200 or 35-7 per cent; with two years' service, 1,400 or 4-1 per cent; with three years, 1,500 or 4-4 per cent; with five years, 1,600 or 4-7 per cent. These are the first ones who do not get two weeks' vacation of any kind, and there is a total there of only 600. Included in this group are a large number of whom we have no specific information, the number being 16,900.
Of those who work in air transport, there are a total covered by agreements of 10,700. After one year there are 10,700, or 100 per cent.
In motor and all other transport industries, there are 10,900. After one year there are 2,800 or 25-7 per cent; after two years, 3,000 or 27-5 per cent; after three years, 4,300 or 39-5 per cent; after five years, 800 or 7-3 per cent.
In terminal elevators, the total under agreement is 3,200, of whom 2,500 are after one year, or 78 per cent; and 200 after three years or 6 per cent.
In manufacturing, that is under federal jurisdiction only, there are covered 17,500. After one year, 2,600 or 14-9 per cent; two years, 3,300 or 18-9 per cent; three years, 6,900 or 39-4 per cent.
In Canadian National hotels there is a total of 2,600; and after three years all of them are in the one group.
In the banks there are 48,200, all after one year's service.
In government enterprises not included in preceding classifications there are 6,800, all after one year's service.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to put this schedule on Hansard, if I may.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman consent to place the schedule on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The schedule is as follows:



ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYEES UNDER FEDERAL JURISDICTION ACCORDING TO SERVICE REQUIRED FOR TWO WEEKS VACATION WITH PAY

[Stage Direction]
Industry	Coverage1	Service requirement for 2 weeks vacation	Do not get 2 weeks vacation	No information	1 year	2 years	3 years	5 years	More than 5 years	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%Steam railways (including telegraph operations)	
Shipping (including stevedoring)	
Air transport	
Motor and all other transport	
Telephones	196,800 34.200 10.700 10,900 39.700 6,700 3,2002 3.800 17,500 2,600 48.200 6.800	100-0 100-0 100-0 100-0 100-0 100-0 100-0 100-0 100-0 100-0 100-0 100-0	44,900 12,200 10,700 2,800 39,300 6,300 2,500 1,700 2,600 48,200 6,800	22-8 35-7 100-0 25-7 99-0 94-0 78-1 44-7 14-9 100-0 100-0	1,400 3,000 400	4-1 27-5 1-0	151,900 1,500 4,300	77-2 4-4 39-5	1,000 800	4-7 7-3	600	1-7	16,900 400 4,400	>
49-4 ^ M (0 60 CD 25-1 l-H 3 Pa PTerminal elevators	500 3,300	13-2 18-9	200	6-3	400 1,600	12-5 42-1	100 300	3-1 1-7	Manufacturing	
C.N.R. hotels	
Banks (including Bank of Canada)	
Government enterprises not included in preceding classifications	
TOTALS	6,900 2,600	39-4 100-0	381,100	100-0	178,000	46-7	8,600	2-3	167,400	43-9	2,400	0-6	2,000	0-5	1,000	0-3	21,700	-* 5-7 g
1 Coverage figures apply in general to 1954.
* Number under collective agreement; total figure for employment would be somewhat higher.
[Stage Direction]

-o
Industrial Relation.
[Stage Direction]
Industrial Relations
Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if I may ask a
question at this time. We have been dealing simply with the federal field, but does the xriinister happen to have, to complete the picture, corresponding information about those who come under provincial jurisdiction?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I have not that in hand at the moment, but I did have before me, when working on this, some information coming forward from our research branch. I shall undertake to bring what might appear to be useful when this bill comes before the house again. The statistical estimates which I have just placed on record make it clear that about half the employees now under federal jurisdiction already obtain paid vacation leave which meets the standard proposed by this bill, and that over 90 per cent qualify for two weeks' vacation after three years' or less service.
On the other hand, looking at vacation provisions in the Canadian manufacturing industry, we find-and this will partly answer my hon. friend's question-that whilst 92 per cent of the plant employees eventually qualify for two weeks' vacation, only 15 per cent of such employees qualify after one year's service; a further 11 per cent after two years; 27 per cent after three years; 35 per cent after five years; and 4 per cent after other periods of service with their employers.
I have that part of the information desired by my hon. friend, but I wish to point out that covers only the manufacturing industry. Mr. Speaker, if I have permission, I should like to place this on Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman consent to place this on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The table is as follows:



PERCENTAGE OF PLANT EMPLOYEES IN CANADIAN MANUFACTURING ELIGIBLE FOR TWO WEEK VACATION WITH PAY

[Stage Direction]
-	Oct. 1 1949	Oct. 1 1950	Oct. 1 1951	April 1 1953	April 1 1954	April 1 1955Eligible for two weeks with pay	81-0	84-9	89-2	92-6	920	92-4After: 1 year or less	10-2	12-3	14-2	14-9	15-5	15-62 years	6-6	8-3	9-3	9-6	10-3	11-43 years	6-4	11-5	16-2	22-5	25-5	27-05 years	54-8	48-6	46-2	40-4	35-2	34-7Other	30	4-2	3-3	5-2	5-5	3-7
There seems to be no doubt that in the last ten years there has been a steady trend toward longer vacations after shorter periods of service in industry generally, and particularly in the federal industries. As a matter of fact this very item is a most important one in the agreements that are being reviewed in Montreal this very day. I think we must consider this trend in determining whether there is any real need for federal legislation on this matter. It seems to me also that there are other implications to be considered in setting specific standards for working conditions in our federal industries.
Where working conditions for a large proportion of employees in any jurisdiction, are already established by collective bargaining, it could very well be that standardization through legislation is not desirable. When working conditions are left to collective

bargaining there is the ability to inject into them a flexibility in determining standards which is lacking when any government introduces minimum standards. In some instances an increase in wages or salaries or an improvement in some one or more fringe benefits may be more acceptable to the employees than a longer paid vacation leave. I am sure one can let his imagination run and realize how that could happen. I should like to emphasize also that it is not only the length of the paid vacation that such legislation would standardize but a number of other important conditions relating to it.
If a vacation pay law is to deal clearly with the ancillary matters which frequently arise in the administration of a vacation plan, it would have to cover such factors as (1) length of service required to qualify for

vacation privileges; (2) the effect of interruptions of service on such privileges; (3) the methods of determining vacation pay, for example, a percentage or proportion of normal weekly earnings or average weekly earnings;
(4)	the time when the vacation is to be taken;
(5)	whether or not vacations are to be termed an accrued monetary right so that an employee who terminates his employment before taking his vacation is to receive pay in lieu of such vacation. One could go on and name others which are not as important as those I have named.
The bill before the house deals with some of these points, and there are probably others that would need to be taken care of by legislation. Legislation means standardizing practice in all these particulars as well as the length of the vacation, and the arbitrary rules that would have to be set in the legislation might not be as acceptable to the employees concerned as the freely negotiated rules they have worked out with their employers by collective bargaining. This would be particularly true in industries such as shipping and longshoring, where vacation benefit arrangements peculiar to the conditions in those industries are now in effect and are only in effect after a great deal of study and arrangement between the two parties concerned.
Another point I wish to make is the difficulty of arriving at a minimum standard if one is to be set. As I have already indicated, there is considerable variation in the federal jurisdiction both in the practice that has been established in industries where collective agreements govern conditions of employment and in others where vacations with pay plans are part of the personnel policy of the employer.
I have here a summary of what is happening in the various provinces of Canada. That has been summarized by both hon. members who have preceded me. I think I have one or two slight variations from what was set out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and if I were to put what I have on Hansard perhaps it would be a matter of controversy. Therefore I shall take the opportunity to read his speech in
Industrial Relations
Hansard to see where we disagree before I start anything approaching a battle.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I suggest to the
Minister of Labour that he be very careful in arguing with my information, because most of it I obtained from a document put out by his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Then I will say that I did not quite catch one point only with respect to which there appeared to be a disagreement in small detail with the information I have obtained from exactly the same source.
This is my summary of the provincial programs as they stand now. Two weeks after one year of employment is a standard at present in effect in only one province.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which one?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The province of British
Columbia.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Saskatchewan has had it for several years.


Mr. Sinclair:: You are misinformed again, Stanley.


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is the only point on which the statements disagree, and I want to look up the source before pressing my point. It is also clear that one week after one year of employment is the prevailing minimum standard set by provincial legislation, especially considering that it is the minimum standard set in Ontario and Quebec, the provinces in which the bulk of industrial workers are employed.
On motion of Mr. Gregg the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Howard Charles Green: Could we have the business for Monday?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is our
intention to have called on Monday the resolution concerning the pipe line, No. 16 on today's order paper.


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

[Stage Direction]
Questions

[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. Campbell: 1. What is the total number of Indians now
covered by treaty No. 6, and where are the locations of their various bands?
2.	What benefits and privileges are now available for the Indians governed by this treaty?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):
1.	Total number of Indians in treaty 6- 14,043.
Agency	Band	Location
Alberta		
Edmonton	Alexander	Near Riviere qui Barre
	Alexis	Near Lac Ste. Anne
	Beaver lake	Near Lac la Biche
	Enoch (Stony Plain)	Near Edmonton
	Heart lake (Chipewyan)	Near Lac la Biche
	Michel	Near Calahoo
	Paul (Wabamun)	Near Wabamun
Hobbema	Ermineskin	Near Hobbema
	Louis Bull	Near Hobbema
	Montana	Near Hobbema
	Samson	Near Hobbema
Saddle Lake	Cold lake (Chipewyan)	Near Le Goff
	Frog lake	Near Frog lake
	Keeheewin	Near St. Paul
	Saddle lake	Near St. Paul
Stony-Sarcee	John O'Chiese	Near Rocky Mountain House
	Sunchild Cree	Near Rocky Mountain House
Battleford	Little Pine	Near Rossman
	Luckyman	Near Rossman
	Moosomin	Near Cochin
	Mosquito-Grizzly Bear's Head	Near Red Pheasant
	Saulteaux	Near Cochin
	Sweetgrass	Near Sweetgrass
	Thunderchild	Near Turtleford
	Poundmaker	Near Rossman
	Red Pheasant	Near Red Pheasant
Saskatchewan		
Carlton	Montreal lake (Wm. Charles)	Near Montreal lake
	Sturgeon lake (Wm. Twatts)	Near Foxdale
Duck lake	Beardy's and Okemasis	Near Duck lake
	Big river (Kinematayo)	Near Shell river
	James Smith	Near Kinistino
	John Smith	Near Davis
	Mistawasis	Near Leask
	Muskeg lake (Petequakey's)	Near Leask
	One Arrow	Near Duck lake
	Pelican Lake (Chitek)	Near Chitek
	Sandy lake (Ahtahkakoops)	Near Mont Nebo
	Witchekan lake	Near Idylwild
Meadow lake	Canoe lake	At Canoe lake
	Island lake (Ministickwan)	Near Loon lake
	Joseph Bighead	Near Pierceland
	Meadow lake	Near Meadow lake
	Onion lake	Near Onion lake
	Waterhen lake	At Waterhen lake
Touchwood	Kinistino	Near Chagoness

2.	The following benefits and privileges are now available for the Indians governed by treaty No. 6:
(a)	The use of reserve land set apart for the Indians.
(b)	Schools.
(c)	Hunting and fishing for food on reserves and unoccupied crown lands to which Indians have right of access subject to federal laws and regulations.
(d)	An annuity of $5 a year to each Indian.
(e)	An annual salary of $25 to each chief and $15 to each subordinate officer (councillor).
(f)	A suitable suit of clothes every three years to each chief and subordinate officer (councillor).
(g)	Ammunition, nets and twine in the amount stipulated.
In addition to the benefits and privileges accruing to the Indians under the terms of the treaty, the Indians are eligible to receive benefits under social legislation, such as, the Family Allowances Act, Old Age Security Act, Old Age Assistance Act, Blind Persons Act, Disabled Persons Act, Veterans' Land Act, and other legislation respecting veterans for which they qualify. Assistance in housing construction and repairs is provided for the aged and the destitute on the basis of need, and relief and special welfare assistance is also provided when necessary. Seed is distributed, livestock improved, and related assistance given where necessary to help the Indians become established in agriculture.
Questions
The Indians may apply for revolving fund loans for the purposes provided by section 69 of the Indian Act. In accordance with the provisions of the Indian Act, the Indians are exempt from taxation on real and personal property situated on a reserve, and their real and personal property on the reserve is not subject to seizure.


RADIO RECEIVING SETS
Mr. Brown (Essex West): 1.	How many radio receiving sets are there in Canada at the present time, by provinces?
2.	How many radio receiving sets were in Canada in the years 1S41 and 1951?
3. How many radio receiving sets have been manufactured in Canada in each of the years 1941 to 1955 inclusive?
4.	How many radio receiving sets have been sold by manufacturers in Canada in each of the years 1941 to 1955 inclusive?
5. How many radio receiving sets have been imported into Canada in each of the years 1941 to 1955 inclusive?
6.	How many households in Canada have at least one radio receiving set, by provinces?
Answer by:	Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and
Commerce:
1.	Information not available. Number of households with one or more radios as of September, 1955'-3,712,000. Distribution is as follows:
Number of households in Canada with at least one radio and showing number with one, two, three, and four or more, by provinces, September, 1955 (not including automobile radios).
Number of households with:
Province	House- holds with radios	One radio	Two radios	Three radios	More than three radios
		(estimates in thousands)			
Canada 	3,712	2,713	751	179	69Newfoundland 	76	66	9	*	*Prince Edward Island	22	18Nova Scotia	156	119	28	7	*New Brunswick 	117	93	18	4	*Quebec 	969	786	144	30	9Ontario 	1,288	833	332	86	37Manitoba 	217	158	42	11	6Saskatchewan 	227	182	35	7	*Alberta 	278	210	51	13	4British Columbia 	362	248	89	19	6
* Less than 4.000. 67509-244J

Questions
Number of households in Canada with at least one automobile equipped with radios, by provinces, September, 1955.
Canada	 906,000
Newfoundland	 7,000
Prince Edward Island	 3,000
Nova Scotia	 31,000
New Brunswick	 18,000
Quebec	 182,000
Ontario	 375,000
Manitoba	 50,000
Saskatchewan	 66,000
Alberta	 84,000
British Columbia	 90,000
Source: Survey of household facilities, September, 1955. The sample for this survey is designed to include all households in Canada with certain exceptions. Excluded are: households in the Yukon and Northwest Territories; households of Indians on reserves; such collective type households as those living in hotels, large lodging houses, institutions, clubs and camps.
2.	Information not available. Number of households with one or more radio receiving sets as qt-
June 1, 1941	 2,002,889
June 1, 1951	 3,143,555
Source: Census of Canada.
3	and 4.
Production and producers' sales of radio receiving sets in Canada, 1941 to 1955 inclusive
Year	Production Sales
(number)
1941	
386,372	399,5561942	
177,149	209,1631943	
979	22,2011944	-	5951945	
50,317	44,3431946	
603,199	568,3201947	
984,276	836,4191948	
639,493	596,4671949	
791,051	724,5171950	
820,772	758,6191951	
628,395	574,2321952	
567,738	568,8841953	
737,457	620,8601954	
487,620	623,8561955	
572,770	609,993
5. Regular imports of radio receiving sets and imports by Canadians returning from other countries (tourist purchases) were as follows:
Regular Tourist
Year	imports purchases
Number* 1 2 3 4 5 6 Number
1941	
2,070	1,9521942	
1,111	1,5411943	
3,509	5751944	
1,494	4471945	
1,012	7111946	
23,023	18,8521947	
67,979	44,0501948	
1,886	9931949	
1,882	51,9941950	
2,826	44,1241951	
9,312	46,4971952	
19,476	62,9821953	
24,364	(2)1954	
15,781	(2)1955	
39,938	(2)
1 Includes television receiving sets prior to 1953.
a Not available.
6.	See answer to No. 1.


TELEVISION RECEIVING SETS
Mr. Brown (Essex West): 1.	How many households are there in Canada at the present time?
2.	How many television receiving sets are there in Canada, by provinces?
3.	How many households in Canada have at least one television receiving set at the present time?
4.	How many television receiving sets have been manufactured in Canada in each of the years 1940 to 1955 inclusive?
5.	How many television receiving sets have been sold by manufacturers in Canada in each of the years 1940 to 1955 inclusive?
6.	How many television receiving sets have been imported into Canada in each of the years 1940 to 1955 inclusive?
Answer by: Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and
Commerce:
1.	Number of households in Canada, September, 1955-3,872,000.
Source: Survey of household facilities, September, 1955. The sample for this survey is designed to include all households in Canada with certain exceptions. Excluded are: households in the Yukon and Northwest Territories; households of Indians on reserves; such collective type households as those living in hotels, large lodging houses, institutions, clubs and camps.
2.	Information not available. Number of households with one or more television sets as of September, 1955-1,496,000.

Number of households in Canada with one or more television receivers, by provinces, September, 1955:
Canada	 1,496,000
Newfoundland	 *
Prince Edward Island_____	*
Nova Scotia	 43,000
New Brunswick	 18,000
Quebec	 491,000
Ontario	 698,000
Manitoba	 54,000
Saskatchewan	 26,000
Alberta	 50,000
British Columbia	 112,000
* Less than 4,000.
Source: See footnote in answer to No. 1.
3.	See answer to No. 2.
4.	Production of television sets in Canada, 1948-1955:
Year	Number
1948 			 4
1949 			 9,189
1950 			 32,971
1951 			 48,657
1952 			 141,946
1953 			 391,974
1954 			 611,206
1955 			 852,017
Note: no television sets in Canada prior to 1948.	were manufactured
5. Producers' sales of	television sets in
Canada 1949-1955:	
Year	Number
1949 		
1950 		
1951 		
1952 		
1953 		
1954 		
1955 		
Note: no producers' sales prior to 1949.	
6. Imports of television receiving sets were	
not recorded separately	in trade statistics
prior to 1953. They were included with radio	
receiving sets and separate figures are not available. Imports of television sets during the years 1953 to 1955 were as follows:
Year	Number
1953		 16,973
1954		 19,085
1955		 6,012
Questions


DEFENCE PRODUCTION
Miss Ailken: 1.	What were the specifications on tender H 33-55-563 as called for by the Department of Defence Production?
2.	What were the names and addresses of the firms that bid for the contract?
3.	What were the amounts proferred?
4.	To whom was the contract awarded, and at what price?
5.	Did the machine meet specifications as called for?
6.	If not, in what way did it fail?
Answer by: Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Defence Production:
1.	Projector, Bell & Howell, 16 mm., heavy duty "Specialist" BYR-1, complete with separate 12" speaker, (or equal)-in accordance with the following specifications: 1,000 watt lamp, 115 volts AC/DC, 25/60 cycles, 14 watt amplifier, 12" separate speaker, loop setter, service meter with sapphire jewels in the shuttle, guide rail and side tension clips,
C.	S.A. approved.
2.	It is not the policy of the department to disclose other than the name and prices quoted by the successful tenderer.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	No contract has been awarded.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	Answered by No. 4.


D.E.W. LINE-AIRLIFT OPERATION CONTRACTS
Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North): 1.	What Canadian firms or companies received government contracts for airlift operations on the
D.	E.W. line?
2.	What amounts have been paid to such firms or companies?
3.	Have any individuals been killed in accidents to planes owned by these firms or companies and operated in connection with D.E.W. line?
4.	If so, how many, and by what firms or companies w'ere these individuals employed?
Answer by:	Mr. Langlois, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Transport:
1.	Contracts to Canadian companies for airlift on the D.E.W. line project were not awarded by the Canadian or United States governments but by the management contractor employed by the United States government.
2.	Answered by No. 1 above.
3.	Yes.
4.	12 on D.E.W. line work, as follows:
Associated Airways	 7
Maritime Central	 3
World Wide Airways	 2

Monday, May 14, 1956