1956-03-13

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Maurice Boisvert (Nicolel-Yamaska)
presented the first report of the standing committee on external affairs, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. B. McCulloch (Pictou) presented the first report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give notice that it is my intention, subject to the usual reservations, to place the budgetary motion before the house one week from tonight.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
25-pounder shells
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last as a supplementary question in connection with an answer I gave to the Leader of the Opposition about 25-pounder shells for export to Israel, as reported at page 1916 of Hansard the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) asked me this question:
Would the Prime Minister give the date of the decision not to approve the issue of the permit by treasury board?
I told him I did not have that date in mind but that I could secure it for the hon. member. I was not here when the orders of the day were called on Friday and the hon. gentleman was not in his seat when they were called yesterday. I now have the date.
It was January 13, 1956. It was a decision by treasury board not to approve the application it had before it at that time, but suggesting that it be considered by the cabinet as a whole.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimall-Saanich):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the statement he just made. Has any decision been reached as yet as to whether the 25-pounder shells will be sent to Israel?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, no decision has yet been reached. The matter has been considered very carefully and is still being considered. I hope a decision will be made at an early date.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is there any information the minister can give the house concerning the report in today's press that some progress is being made toward agreement on disarmament?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: I think all I can usefully say at this time is that the subcommittee of the United Nations on disarmament is beginning its meeting in London this week. Pending those discussions, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to make a report. The Canadian government will be represented at the meeting by the High Commissioner for Canada in the United Kingdom, together with advisers from the Department of External Affairs. The government has given a great deal of thought and preparation to the stand it will take at the meetings of this subcommittee, and it is hoped that as a result of the meeting some progress can be made in this vitally important matter.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising

Inquiries of the Ministry out of his speech last evening in Toronto respecting the need of extending aid and assistance, technological and otherwise, to underdeveloped countries. Has he in mind increasing the amount of the increase as forecast for this year in the speech from the throne under the Colombo plan and extending assistance along the lines indicated as necessary by himself last night having regard to the new Russian attitude?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is already known that the Canadian government will recommend to parliament an extension of our aid under the Colombo plan by an amount that has already been made public. That I think is sufficient evidence that we recognize the need for the extension of this type of assistance.


John George Diefenbaker: But over and above that? [Later;]


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs following the question asked by my friend the hon. member for Prince Albert. Is the government reconsidering its position regarding SUNFED, and did that have some bearing on the minister's suggestion of last evening?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, when this proposal which is known as SUNFED comes before the economic and social council of the United Nations of which Canada is now a member it will naturally be given every consideration by the representatives of the government on that council.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government changed its policy with respect to flood control projects undertaken jointly with the governments of the respective provinces? If so, would the Prime Minister care to state the reasons for this major change in policy?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): I think the hon. member will realize the question is framed in such general terms it could not properly be answered on the orders of the day. He speaks of a policy with respect to flood control, and any answer would have to have many qualifications as to what was understood to be a policy. There have been certain cases that were dealt with

as major disasters on an ad hoc basis, and since that time parliament has adopted the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act, which sets out under what conditions parliament has authorized the government to enter into arrangements for the conservation and control of waters when they constitute major projects that could be regarded as matters having a national interest.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: May I ask a supplementary question which I hope may clarify the information I was seeking. Is it a fact that the government has now decided to follow the policy of proceeding under the conservation act rather than under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act with respect to drainage projects in western Canada?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: With respect to major projects, they have never been dealt with under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. They have been dealt with by the prairie farm rehabilitation staff under special appropriations made by this parliament.



SIZE OF PROJECT NECESSARY FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. S. White (Hastings-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister following the answer he just gave to the hon. member for Dauphin. Would an application from a province for federal aid in connection with conservation have to deal with a project involving a certain amount before the dominion government would participate?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There is no stated amount, but it would have to be a major project that it would be fitting to recognize as something of national importance.


George Stanley White: Would the Prime Minister care to indicate what he means in dollars as representing a major project?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, I do not
think I should attempt to do that. Every application will be considered on its merits.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare or in his absence to his colleague the assistant. Will the minister give further consideration to the decision

made to remove Dr. Jamieson from Norway House to Prince Albert, Saskatchewan?


Mr. F. G. Robertson (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I regret that I have not the
information to answer this question today, but I will take it as notice and bring it to the attention of the minister.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is he in a position to give us any further information on when the Bluenose will be back in service and, if not, what schooner will be in service while it is off?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: I am very happy to inform the house that the repairs to the Bluenose were completed yesterday, and as soon as I am in a position to make an announcement as to the resumption of service I shall do so.



WOOD ISLAND-CARIBOU    INQUIRY AS TO NAME OF NEW FERRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. J. Kickham (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has a name been chosen for the boat now under construction and to go into operation next year between Wood Island and Caribou?
Hon. George	C.	Marler	(Minister	of
Transport): Yes, a name has been chosen, the Lord Selkirk.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George	C.	Marler	(Minister	ofTransport): Yesterday the hon. member for Colchester-Hants	(Mr.	Purdy) asked a question concerning	the	railway situation	in
Truro, Nova Scotia, to which I now wish to reply.
The management of the Canadian National Railways advises me that adverse weather conditions from the beginning of January until the end of February have resulted in congestion in the Atlantic region and have created a backlog of traffic which has not yet been overcome. Traffic volume in both directions has been unusually high, but the management points out that despite the
Inquiries of the Ministry extremely difficult operating conditions, there has been no lessening of efficiency on the part of railway personnel. Everything has been and is being done both day and night to relieve the situation, and additional motive power has been supplied when that action was possible.
With reference to the particular car mentioned by the hon. member, I wish to say that as the complete car movement record has not yet been obtained, information is not yet available to the management as to the causes of the delay which the hon. member mentioned, but I am advised that the car left Truro on March 8 and will be in Quebec city today.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question-


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, if hon. gentlemen who belong to the C.C.F. did not ask so-many questions I should not take up so much of the time of the house.
Yesterday the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) asked whether I could say what would be the effect, if any, of the boost in freight rates which went into effect on Wednesday, March 7, on grain, hogs and cattle shipped to the United States. The only information I can give to him is that the freight rates to which he apparently referred in his question are the rates established on international traffic between Canada and the United States by mutual agreement between the railways of both countries. Effective March 7, 1956, these joint rates on grain and livestock were increased by 5 per cent.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the Canadian government been invited by Washington to send observers to the forthcoming United States hydrogen bomb tests in the Pacific? If not, has the Canadian government considered making such a request?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the hon. gentleman's question as notice.

Inquiries of the Ministry



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY AS TO NEGOTIATING INDIVIDUAL AGREEMENTS WITH PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government to negotiate individual agreements with provinces on a different basis, in accordance with the suggestions that have been made by some of the premiers who were in Ottawa a few days ago.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, I do not think it is the intention of the government to negotiate contracts on different bases. The whole purpose of the studies we have been making over the last year has been to try to find some formula that could be applied generally to all the provinces.


George Alexander Drew: I have a supplementary question. May I take it that if any changes are made by way of negotiation with any province they will immediately be indicated to all provinces and to the members of this house?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Oh, certainly, Mr. Speaker. If the government found on the representations of any province that there was something that should be and could be considered in favour of that province it would immediately be brought to the notice of the house and to the notice of all the other provincial governments.


Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to give back the taxing privileges that belong to the provinces?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Will the hon. gentleman be kind enough to repeat his question?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Is it the intention of the government to give back the taxing privileges to the provinces?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is the
intention of the government to make as much way as circumstances permit it to do in the field of taxation where the provinces and the federal government both have rights.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Can the

minister inform the house whether alternative mail service to towns east of Estevan, Saskatchewan, will be provided after May 4, if the rail service on the Brandon-Estevan line is curtailed, as stated in the Regina Leader-Post of March 6?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the department was advised by the Canadian Pacific Railway of their intention to curtail the service to which my hon. friend has just referred. I believe the service at the present time is daily, and the intention is to make it tri-weekly. As soon as the department was advised we immediately initiated a survey in order to determine how this service could be supplemented so that the localities to which my hon. friend has referred would continue to have adequate postal service.
[Later:l


Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Baillefords):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Postmaster General a supplementary question. Has the minister considered the possibility of using a bus service to replace the train services which are now being curtailed in western Canada?


Hugues Lapointe: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I could not hear my hon. friend's question properly.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Has the minister considered the possibility of using a bus service to replace the train services which are now being curtailed in western Canada?


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, now that I have heard my hon. friend properly I submit that that policy has been in effect for some years in the department, and that motor vehicle services or bus services replace train services when the latter are curtailed.



USE OF STILBESTROL IN POULTRY AND LIVESTOCK FEEDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. James A. McBain (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday I asked a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and received a reply yesterday from the parliamentary assistant to the minister. I would now like to ask a supplementary question. Is the parliamentary assistant aware that no such article as the one to which he referred me appeared in the St. Thomas Times-Journal of March 9, and is it now the policy of the government to play hide and seek in answering these questions?


Frederick Greystock Robertson: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that the article which I read myself appeared in the London Free Press. I was informed, however, by a responsible member of this house that the same article appeared in the St. Thomas Times-Journal of March 9. I regret very much indeed if my information was inaccurate, but I think possibly the St. Thomas Times-J ournal might receive permission from the London Free Press to print this article in their newspaper.


Mr. Fulton:: You have not given an answer to the question.


James Alexander McBain: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it now the policy of the parliamentary assistant to have the questions which are directed to him answered by the daily press?
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the question I asked the other day still remains unanswered may I now direct it to the Minister of Agriculture. Is it the intention of the government to legalize the use of stilbestrol in livestock feeds?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, that is the intention.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture concerning a matter about which I communicated with him some time ago. Has a decision yet been reached as to the location of the new forestry laboratory which is designed for British Columbia? If so, where will it be located?


James Garfield Gardiner: A decision has been reached to put it on the property in Saanich which was purchased some time ago.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege I wish to welcome back the Leader of the Opposition after his strenuous time in Fort William, but my question of privilege is that he made a statement as reported in the Fort William Times-Journal-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure we all appreciate the return to the house of the Leader of the Opposition and we welcome him back, but I do not think there is any question of privilege involved in the hon. member's statement.



NATURAL GAS


[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. He has not yet had one today. Is the minister aware that Northern Natural Gas Company of Omaha has applied to the Alberta petroleum and natural gas conservation board for permission to export 300 million cubic feet daily of natural gas? What effect will this application have on the proposed Trans-Canada-Tennessee project?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, before answering the question may I say that I prefer to wait to see what disposition the conservation board of Alberta makes of that application.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question? What effect does the minister think this new application will have upon the other hearing before the federal power commission?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would not care to comment upon judicial proceedings in another country.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldt-Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Public Works I wonder if his parliamentary assistant would be in position to answer a question I asked some time ago regarding loans under the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in connection with hostel type buildings?


Mr. Maurice Bourget (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in position to give an answer right away but I shall take the hon. member's question as notice and give an answer later on.

The house resumed, from Monday, March 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Garson

Economic Position of Agriculture (for Mr. Harris) for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Argue.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Victoria-Carleion):: Last evening before the adjournment my remarks were being directed toward that phase of the agricultural industry which in my province plays a generally recognized part, that which is classified as mixed farming. I assure you it was not the growing and prosperous picture I should like to have been able to disclose in connection with this great national asset.
However, in the agricultural industry, as in others, there are exceptions, and there are various degrees of prosperity. Generally speaking one finds a higher degree of prosperity in areas where dairying is more or less the dominant phase of agriculture. There is some stability to it. It has received assistance by way of protection and floor prices and, with the growing consumption of milk and related products, it is a far more stable part of the agricultural industry than some others. In the dairy areas in my province one finds far more steady prosperity.
I understand that approximately one-sixth of the population of our country depends upon this industry. Therefore it needs protection. It needs not only the protection it has; it needs more protection to keep it such a great industry, and it needs assistance to keep it stable. In my opinion that comes within the purview of this resolution.
Another exception I should like to mention, in so far as my own constituency is concerned, is an industry in which I am vitally interested, the potato industry. We have the small grower who mixes this crop with other crops, and we have the large producer who has specialized in the potato industry to the exclusion of all other crops. Some of our most prosperous farmers are those who have specialized in potato production. Within my constituency can be seen some of the finest rural homes that can be found anywhere in the province. These producers have lovely buildings, good farms, between 200 and 500 acres, and plenty of equipment, and they enjoy a degree of prosperity much higher than the great mass of farmers.
Unfortunately we do not have enough of this type of farmers, and the areas are small where this prosperity seems to accumulate. Over the years a percentage of our large potato growers have been fortunate and have prospered in this most difficult and uncertain phase of agriculture. However, whilst this


group is small percentage-wise, it is a very important group nevertheless and contributes greatly to our local economic situation and the outlook in general in connection with our national economy. But during the past few years it has been caught in the cost-price squeeze, just as other farmers have. These producers have had only one good year in the last five, and much of this accumulated wealth-these beautiful homes that you see and the large amount of equipment-is commencing to dwindle. Many of those people who have prospered are commencing to find that their wealth is dwindling, and some of them are having a difficult time to get cash with which to pay their bills. This is a most unfortunate situation in a part of agriculture that should be more stable.
I should like to give an illustration. It is a general illustration but I think it will bring out the point that was impressed upon the hon. members of this house yesterday. I hold in my hand the potato report which I get daily. It is dated yesterday, March 12. I will take as an example this city of Ottawa. Wholesalers were paying for potatoes in this city yesterday an average of 2i cents a pound. In order to make a fairly close check I contacted some of my farmers at home. I find that the price they were getting last Friday, Saturday and yesterday permits the farmer to clear over his cost of production- out of that 2J cents a pound-between one-fifth and one-quarter of a cent. If you want to put it into bushels, it will give him between 15 and 20 cents a bushel. Out of that 15 to 20 cents a bushel for growing his potatoes he has to live, pay his taxes and provide for the interest on the capital which he has invested.
I think that example clearly demonstrates the extremely narrow margin on which our farmers are working. That is the highest price that has been paid for potatoes this season-and the season begins about the middle of September or the first of September-with the exception of a few local lots which are of the very early variety. Two and a half cents a pound may seem to be quite a good price. By the time the consumer gets the potatoes I have no doubt it is about cents a pound. But what we are trying to impress upon the government is what the farmer gets for his labour in producing his crop. I think that example demonstrates the situation clearly. Whether you take the farmers on an average or whether you take them individually, the net amount they receive is very small.
It seems to me that the situation illustrates another point which I suppose I should mention to the Minister of Agriculture before

sitting down. I think it demonstrates clearly to him why the potato growers did not joyfully and thankfully receive that starch diversion program which this government offered them in January. I suppose the way they look at it is that they might as well lose money in one way as in another. However, at $1 a barrel they just cannot break even. When potatoes are priced from $2 to $2.15, as they are today and were yesterday and Friday, they can make merely a little profit. We need more stability. There are those people who take a chance and in some years they make a great deal of money; in other years they lose a great deal of money. That is not good for agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, I have tried to fairly sum up the agricultural situation, in my province and generally. I believe that the average is much the same all over eastern Canada. The west, where there are large wheat growers, I know nothing about. However, I think the progress of the farmer is fairly clearly demonstrated. We will put it this way. It is lagging far behind the progress of other groups in this country, and I do not think that is a sound situation.
I am going to quote a few words here as follows:
The way of life of the farmer is itself a great national asset and his prosperity is the foundation of national prosperity.
I wonder whether any of the hon. members opposite have ever heard those words before? In case they have forgotten I will tell them that they were part of the national federal Liberal program in 1948. The statement continued:
It is the policy of the Liberal party to foster that prosperity through secure markets at fair prices.
I am quite ready to leave it to the farmers of this country to judge whether or not this government has carried out this pledge to agriculture. It is not for me to be the judge. I think the principle is sound and I can agree with it. I think this government should make every effort to carry it out, or there should be some explanation as to why they cannot do so.
I believe the farmers are entitled to a fair price for what they produce and sell in relation to prices they have to pay for the goods they must purchase. Surely they are entitled to a fair return on their capital investment. Surely they should not be expected to work double the hours worked by other groups and get less and, as a matter of fact, sometimes not break even.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I believe in the principle enunciated in
Economic Position of Agriculture this amendment. I believe it can be implemented successfully, and I support it. I again affirm my opinion that the farmers of this country are entitled to nothing less.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I had thought
that the matters which have been discussed yesterday and again today might have been discussed on my estimates. I had therefore intended to make at that time any remarks which I am going to make now. In view of what has been said and the fact that the question is in the minds of most hon. members at the moment, I think probably I should deal now with the remarks which have been made.
The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), in bringing forward his amendment to the motion to go into supply, moved it in these words:
. . . in the opinion of this house consideration should be given by the government to the advisability of introducing during the present session legislation to create parity of prices for agricultural products at levels to ensure producers a fair price-cost relationship.
The amendment to that amendment is in words which would add something to the idea but I do not think they change the matter under discussion. As the hon. member for Prince Albert stated yesterday, the matter of parity prices has been before this house on previous occasions. The first occasion referred to yesterday was in 1941, when the hon. member for Prince Albert moved practically the same amendment to the same motion, a motion to go into supply. It reads as follows, as recorded at page 2280 of Hansard for April 8, 1941:
-it be resolved that the government should take immediate steps to create a parity of prices as between agricultural and other products in order to improve the condition of Canadian agriculture and in order that it may receive a just and fair return, and thus be enabled to make that contribution to Canada's war effort which is so desirable, and which our agricultural population so greatly desire to make.
I repeat, the substance of that amendment is practically the same as the one which is before the house now. The conditions, however, are quite different. In 1941, as the amendment states, we were at war. When we were at war, of course, we were under the War Measures Act. When we were under the War Measures Act this government had practically all the authority that is ever given to governments within Canada. In other words, in connection with the marketing of farm products we had the responsibility during wartime for doing what the provinces have responsibility for during peacetime. If the provinces saw fit to take care of some of these necessities on their own, then it was
2076	HOUSE OF
Economic Position of Agriculture unnecessary for the federal government to take action. If the provinces did not take action, then on certain occasions we did.
I noticed that the speech the hon. member for Prince Albert delivered on that occasion was practically the same as the speech which he delivered yesterday. If I were to take the time to read it, it would be acknowledged that it is very much the same. It refers to the very difficult conditions through which farmers were passing at that time and refers to the relationship between their income and the income of other parts of the economy. It also criticizes the Minister of Agriculture because the government had no policy. It goes on to state that there had been an increase of 3 million acres in the acreage of wheat that had been seeded in western Canada during the years that were under discussion. The hon. member lays the blame for that at the door of the Minister of Agriculture. He says this, as reported at page 2305 of Hansard for April 28, 1941:
Why has the acreage in wheat been Increased by some 3 million acres since the beginning of the war? In my opinion the first and outstanding reason for this increase in acreage has been the lack of leadership of this government. That is evidenced by the fact that in November, 1939, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is reported to have stated-
Well, the members of this house will recall that in the years immediately preceding the war we did have a drought period in western Canada. The same thing happened there that happens in any similar area when a similar situation develops. The farmers had a certain acreage in wheat when the drought struck. Each year they had that optimism for which farmers in the west are noted, and believed that next year was going to be better than the year before. The land which had not grown any crop, say in 1931, and was not properly summerfallowed, was seeded next year in spite of the fact that it grew no crop. Fortunately for them they did get a fair crop in 1932, but unfortunately for them as they went along one year after another doing that and increasing their acreage, trying to get back in one year what they had lost in two, they finally finished up with an acreage of between 28 and 29 million. They had started out with a much lower acreage.
Of course the hon. member for Prince Albert told me at that time, as he told me yesterday, that I should have told the farmers what to do. I should have told the farmers then it was foolish for them to put in more acres of wheat. I should have told them that after the war ended they would not need wheat because they could not market it. He said the Minister of Agriculture should have


told them that. Yesterday he said the Minister of Agriculture should tell them now what they ought to do. In other words, the Minister of Agriculture should become the dictator that the hon. member is continually saying the members of this government are.
I do not agree with him. As a matter of fact he went on to state that last December we had a conference. The conference met and discussed matters and then the representatives went home, but they were not told anything; they were not told what to do.
From time to time I recall reading about the experiences on the south side of the border. We learn from these experiences. It was found to be quite difficult to compel people to do things by passing laws and saying you must do this or that. We found it was much better to persuade them to do the things we wanted them to do. In the session of 1941 we offered them $4 per acre to take land out of wheat and put it into summer-fallow. We offered them $2 per acre to take land out of wheat and put it into oats. We offered them $2 to put it into pasture, and so on. The farmers followed those suggestions. We did not compel them to do that. We did not tell them to do it. We offered to pay them to do it, and they reduced the acreage to 17 million acres in two years.
We thought that was a much more effective way of doing it. I know that in a speech at that time my hon. friend condemned the members of the house who voted for that measure. He condemned the members of the government who supported it, on the ground that they should not put $35 million into the hands of the Minister of Agriculture. Well, I can understand his feeling on the matter, but the farmers in Saskatchewan thought differently. They thought it was worth the millions that were paid in order to take the land out of wheat and prepare it for the production of better crops of wheat later.
Everyone who has ever farmed in western Canada knows that you store up moisture one year by summerfallowing in order to produce a crop the next. By getting the summ erf allow land increased greatly in acreage and getting the acreage down in 1941, in 1942 we had the greatest crop we had ever grown up to that time on a lower acreage. This wheat formed a considerable part of the storage we had throughout the war and toward the end of the war.
I make those statements, Mr. Speaker, as coming from the member for Prince Albert and call the attention of the house to them.
I could quote them from the record, but it is not necessary to do so. Anyone can take the volume of Hansard of that year and read

those statements for himself. I quote those statements in order to indicate that 15 years ago next month the opposition were saying almost exactly the same things they are saying now. They were saying the farmers were going through a very difficult period; they were going through that difficult period because the government had no policy; they were going through that difficult period because the government was not telling the farmers what to do.
But instead of following those directions of the opposition of the time, we followed a policy which we thought was wise. That policy was to call together the ministers of agriculture of all the provincial governments here in Ottawa, and ask them to bring along their officials. We asked the farm organizations in the different provinces to send representatives to this conference, and we set the first week in December as the date upon which we would hold that conference every year. From that time down to this we have had 17 of these meetings. We had the last one in the first week of December last year.
My hon. friend says that we did not decide anything and that I did not give them any instructions. Well, he is right when he says I gave them no instructions. But if he reads the record of the meeting he will find that this year, as every year, I summed up the discussions at the conference and indicated what, in the opinion of all those who were there, ought to be done as a result of the discussions, and that information has been circularized all over the country.
In order to indicate to hon. members what result that has had in the past, as I indicated a few moments ago we started into the war with an acreage of around 29 million acres. In the middle of the war we succeeded in having the farmers reduce that acreage to 17 million acres, and we went on producing from there. But there was more involved in that than simply reducing the wheat acreage. The reason we suggested that the farmers reduce the wheat acreage was in order to make it possible for them to get money. There is complaint now that farmers are not able to get money out of wheat. Well, that is not a new thing. It was a common thing in the days when the last government preceding this one was in power. It was a common thing in the first years we were in office, and it threatened to become a similar thing in the middle of the war, in 1941 and 1942.
Therefore, in addition to offering them $4 an acre to take land out of wheat, we held meetings over the western part of Canada. I held 25 of them myself in different parts of western Canada. I pointed out to the
13, 1955	2077
Economic Position of Agriculture farmers what I have been criticized already this session for pointing out to the farmers, namely that a bin of wheat is a good bank account. I did not need to tell them they could not spend it because they were not able to sell the wheat.
We accumulated 600 million bushels in the elevators of this country in the middle of the war which could not be sold, and I did what the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) was accusing me of doing yesterday. He said that at some time or other away back in the past I had told the farmers that it was a good thing to produce livestock instead of wheat. On that occasion, as I said, I held 25 meetings. They were well attended. The officials of farm organizations were at the meetings, and we had very lively discussions. The discussions were on the ground that Britain and our allies required meat; they required eggs; they required cheese; they required canned milk. We said to them, "If you will produce these products you can market them every day of the year and get cash for them, and if you wish to store wheat the wheat will keep until the end of the war."
I notice that on this subject in 1941 my hon. friend the member for Prince Albert twitted me in connection with that by saying I set up a policy which policy was going to get rid of all this wheat by the end of the war. I said to him then it was not a policy, it was a prophecy; and that prophecy was made in this house when I returned from Britain in 1940. I said then, if we did have 600 million bushels of wheat in storage in the middle of the war, and the war were to continue for four or more years, within a year from the end of the war we would require 100 million more bushels of wheat than we would have in Canada.
Well, my hon. friend makes light of that kind of suggestion. He made light of it then, and he said the same things that are being said now. But the facts are apparent for everyone to read. A year after the war was over we were 100 million bushels short. We could have sold another 100 million bushels of wheat very easily, had we had it. If we had had the wheat it probably would not have been necessary for the United States to go back into wheat in a big way, as big a way as they ever were, even in the middle of the war. But we did not have it. The world needed it.
Canada went back into the production of wheat in perhaps a bigger way than she should have gone. The United States went back into the production of wheat, and we are still suffering from some of the results that happened as a result of our anxieties of

Economic Position of Agriculture that particular time. We were anxious, not for the purpose of enriching the farmers of this country, not for the purpose of doing very much about the economy of this country, but for the purpose of seeing to it that people did not perish from starvation in certain parts of the world. Wheat was then, wheat is now, wheat has always been, the best insurance against starvation happening in the world because of the manner in which it keeps over long periods of years under storage conditions which are not expensive.
Well, we went through on that, and the suggestions of that time turned out to be as correct as suggestions made four or five years in advance can be, particularly when you are dealing with a product such as wheat. These were the experiences we had back at that time, and we came through them.
In 1941 my hon. friend moved that the cure for what we were experiencing was parity prices. Well, I can understand why he moved it. In 1933 the United States adopted a system of parity prices. Between 1933 and 1935 about half the plan they had set up was declared by the courts to be ultra vires and they set up another system, or a changed system. They left the methods by which parity prices were established the same as they had been before, and instead of attempting to compel the people to reduce their acreage they allotted certain acreage to them. If a farmer did have no more than this allotted acreage, then he would be allowed to get the advantages of the parity prices; but if he did not have or reduce to that acreage, then he would not get the advantages of parity prices.
The parity price system which was set up in 1933 had been functioning for a few years, and officials of the farm organizations did then as they do now. They read the publicity which came across the line; they heard the announcements on the radio, and they worked out a plan which they advocated based upon the same experience as farmers had over the first year or two down in the United States. This plan of parity was introduced into this house in 1941. As I said to this house on a previous occasion, we had at that time some extremely capable men on this side of the line. As a matter of fact one or two have been taken from this country to Washington in order to assist in connection with price controls and other things.
One of the best men we had during that period of time was the late Mr. Clifford Clark, deputy minister of finance. I well remember the discussions we had with him and I marvel now at his foresight. As a matter of fact someone said yesterday they thought that if I would get up and express


my personal opinion I might be in favour of parity. I am going to say quite candidly to the hon. member that back in the period from 1941 to 1944 I put forth quite a few arguments in favour of parity, only to have them all talked down and myself convinced they were not sound by the gentlemen who were here then, some of whom are now in Washington, some of whom are now in universities on the other side of the line and some of whom have gone.
I have on my desk the latest report from the United States with regard to this matter. The report is made by some of the ablest men in the United States and is called "The Farm Foundation". The names of those who compiled the document are listed on the front page; they form the conference committee. The first gentleman mentioned is Mr. O. B. Jesness, chief, division of agricultural economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, and chairman of the committee. Then there is a list covering a whole page of the men who discussed this whole question and considered it in the light of the experience they have had.
I am not going to go through this whole document and read it to the hon. members of this house, but it starts off by mentioning the agricultural marketing act of 1929, when congress undertook to meet the agricultural situation by improving marketing arrangements.
It goes on discussing one subject after another, including the agriculture act of May, 1933, to which I just referred, which set up parity prices, the conservation act of 1936 which made some changes, and also the soil conservation and domestic allotment act of 1936, which was put forward and accepted as a measure of permanent farm policy, and so on.
Jumping over a number of pages I come to this statement:
The effort to strengthen the farmer's incentive to larger production inevitably came into conflict with the general program of price control legislation.
I well remember the remarks of the then deputy minister of finance when he argued that that would be the result of a policy such as the United States was setting up. We then skip over a few more pages and come to the following statement:
High level price supports continued after world war II.
They said that in order to get this higher production they required they converted this program into one of trying to induce production, and by doing so they brought about conditions which brought great difficulty later on.

Agricultural policy makers took care from 1941 to 1944 to project measures to insure the farmers against a similar decline after the close ol world war II. That is a decline similar to the declines which had taken place following other great wars, speaking more particularly of the first world war as compared with the second world war.
The report goes on from one subject to another until finally we come to the recommendations made for the future. The report suggests that as free agents economically and politically, the farmers will have their own understanding and their own code of conduct as to what they will seek in the way of farm policy. That is exactly the conclusion we came to 17 years ago when we called the first conference in Ottawa of the farmers and farm workers across the country. We concluded that if you put the information into the hands of the 750,000 farmers in this country and allow them to arrive at their own conclusions with the information at their disposal, they will make a better job of formulating a production policy than could any small group in this house even if it included the Minister of Agriculture, as was suggested by my hon. friend the member for Prince Albert.
The hon. member to whom I have just referred thinks I should go out and tell the farmers what to do. I would point out to him that this December conference was attended by the best agriculturists we have in the federal department. They met there and read their prepared papers. The conference was attended by the best agriculturists we have under the provincial governments, and under the farm organizations right across Canada. After two or three days' discussion of the conditions existing in Canada and outside the country in relation to the marketing of our products, those men went back to their home communities and spread that information amongst the farmers. I submit, just as this document submits, that as the result of the experience from 1933 up to the present you can depend on the decisions of the farmers on the land to arrive at a correct conclusion if you give them the information.


Mr. Nicholson:: Will the minister permit
a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Hazen Robert Argue: He loves questioning everybody else.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not object to questions.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Will the minister not admit that the conferences were started to solve the problem of lack of production, and
Economic Position of Agriculture now that we have solved that problem will he not agree that the farmers want some direction from the government?


James Garfield Gardiner: I always attend the conferences, and I can tell you that there are many people who will tell you that over the last 17 or 18 years I have given them too much direction. I do not go to a conference to sit around and do nothing.
The second point brought out in the report is that we have organized farm groups. We have them at the conferences, too. The third point is that there are statesmen and politicians. Well, we are there, too.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Are you a statesman or a
politician?


James Garfield Gardiner: The fourth point is: Educational and advisory agencies, which are so distinctive a feature of the United States agricultural system, must be utilized. We have them at the conference.
The report goes on giving one point after another, saying that one has to give consideration to all these matters. Finally the report suggests, and from the point of view of what we are discussing it is most important:
The "parity price" formula. having outlived its day of usefulness should be abandoned in the interest of gearing a farm program to present economic realities.
We recognize that price parity has been widely regarded as the rock upon which to found American farm policy. But farmers should now squarely face the fact that this mechanism is not compatible with an agricultural policy which will continuously adjust agriculture to technological and market changes and fit the farming industry most effectively into the total economy. It is not good economics to rely upon an automatic formula of price relationships which, in its very nature, is backward looking and tends to impair the flexibility of economic adjustment to changed-and ever changing-conditions.
Just before coming into the house I heard that they took a vote on this question in Washington. I hope this information is correct and that if it is not no one will blame me for taking it off Hansard. The vote was 45 to 45 and the vice-president cast the deciding vote against continuing this policy.


An hon. Member:: A Republican.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are a lot of people in this house who would probably be Republicans if they were on the other side of the line. I am not so sure that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) would not be. Anyway that was the result arrived at by that group of individuals, the members of which are among the best agriculturists on the other side of the line.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What date is that?
2080	HOUSE OF
Economic Position of Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: It is dated 1952. It is all very well to advocate a policy of this kind. My hon. friends want something more up to date, so I will give them Mr. Benson's opinion on it. Mr. Benson is secretary of agriculture of the United States and he has said a few things which I think we ought to understand. He had this to say in Regina last summer.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid I shall have to ask the minister to paraphrase this. It appears to be an opinion by someone outside the house on a measure which is now before the house. See Beauchesne's third edition, citation 265.


James Garfield Gardiner: After having said a number of other things, he spoke of rigid price supports not promoting prosperity. He went on to say that experience had proved that rigid supports did not provide the abundance which the United States needed for a peacetime economy. I do not think you will object to my reading his views with regard to what we are doing in Canada. He said:
We are paying you the high compliment ol imitation. Your government has long devoted far more attention to the quality of your wheat going into the foreign market than we have. Most of your agricultural controls, likewise, are designed to encourage quality production, rather than to limit output. We hope now at long last to move in this same direction.
When hon. members come before this house proposing to do what the United States did away back 23 years ago, when that country has had experience with it ever since and then the leading agriculturists in the country and the secretary of agriculture in the country state that what we have been doing is more satisfactory than what they have been doing down there, I think we should listen to those opinions and take action accordingly. For that reason I am going to suggest that we find out just what was said at this conference last fall, and what has been said by the federation of agriculture.
I noticed that in his speech in 1941 the hon. member for Prince Albert quoted the presentation made by the federation of agriculture at that time to the government of Canada, and practically accepted their platform as his platform. He said those were the things the government ought to be doing. Yesterday he did the same thing, but unfortunately he did not quote them; he just said that certain things had been done and then went on.
I have in my hand a copy of the speech I made at the end of the conference in December last. After having put the question to the conference as to what they thought about certain things, including our marketing program, including our floor price program I put the question that was raised yesterday as to


whether we should call a marketing conference with the provincial departments of agriculture. I put that to them, after having stated that every provincial minister, with one exception, who had attended a meeting with me in my own office, had opposed the holding of such a conference. One minister did not happen to be there the last day, as he had gone home the night before, the minister of agriculture of my own province. He was not there when this question was put and he might have voted the other way, although he did not show much sign of that before he left. I said:
Is there anyone here who thinks we should not call the conference next year?
This was the same conference we had been having for 17 years. Nobody said anything, so I then said:
Stand up if there is.
No one stood up. I said:
Well, it is quite apparent that you agree unanimously with the other two meetings that this conference should go on.
Then I asked if anyone thought that after having a meeting in December and determining among ourselves what was the policy that ought to be followed, it would be a good thing to announce that we were going to have another conference next July.
One only has to state the position to know how foolish it would be. You hold a conference in December, seeding occurs in April, you send out messengers all over the country to indicate to the farmers what you think the condition is, and depend on the farmers making a decision before seeding. Then right in the middle of the period, or long before we have reached the middle of the period, we announce from this house that we are going to have another conference to determine what they should seed. Anyone who is so uncertain in the opinion he has with regard to anything should not try to advise others.
So the conference decided that if we were going to have another conference it ought to be a conference of the ministers of agriculture from the provinces, plus any officials they wished to bring with them. That conference would meet in Ottawa with myself as minister and with some of our officials to go over our plans behind closed doors, and then make an announcement later on whether we thought the plan as we had laid it out last December had been fully successful in preparation for our next December meeting.
The ministers determined that there were two things that they wished to discuss. One was the question which was raised a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Dauphin. They have the idea, which they have expressed clearly, that drainage and other

problems having to do with flooding, so far as they affected farm lands, so far as they affected soil conservation, ought to be carried on by the provincial departments of agriculture. That was their opinion, I am not stating it for the first time, as it has been in the press for the past three or four years and they still talk about it every time we meet.
They wanted to discuss that question. They thought questions relating to the conservation of soil, matters concerning the head-waters of streams, at least ought to be looked into by the departmental officials of the different provincial departments before anything was done to change the situation which exists or to determine what ought to be done.
I am quite sure it does not make much difference which department it is under here; whether it is under the department of agriculture or the department of resources, an opportunity would be given to the provinces, if they desire it, to make known their opinions before anything is done. That is one thing they wanted to discuss.
The other had to do with marketing, but not marketing as is in the minds of some people here. Ninety per cent of most farm products is marketed in Canada and most of it in the provinces where it is produced, and the authority that has the most to do with that marketing is the provincial authority. It is only when the provincial authority does not perform its duties in connection with marketing that there is very much difficulty.
Nobody ever hears anyone complaining about the province of British Columbia not having over the last 20 or 25 years taken care of its marketing problems in connection with farm products. The only thing one did hear in those days was that you could not find a more socialist government anywhere else in the world than they had in British Columbia. They even put policemen on the bridge on the way into Vancouver to check everybody who tried to take food into that city, to see whether or not they were living up to the regulations.
Some of our people called that socialism. That is not socialism at all. Even some of the so-called socialists do not really know what socialism is. That is not necessarily socialism at all. They did start that way in British Columbia. They established the legislation; they carried it through the courts, and it was declared ultra vires. They took it to the privy council, and had it declared ultra vires. They finally provided legislation that went right through to the privy council and was declared to be intra vires. They have been acting under that legislation ever since.
Economic Position of Agriculture
Now the province of Ontario has, I think, some 20 boards set up under similar legislation. The province of Nova Scotia has a number of boards set up under similar legislation. Some of the other provinces also have boards; New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. The only province that I am absolutely sure does not have them at all is the province of Saskatchewan. We have these people sitting on the other side of the house trying to advise all the rest of us all over Canada what we ought to be doing in connection with these boards, and they have not been able to prevail upon their own government in their own province to set up boards on their own account in order to carry out marketing.
The question they want to discuss is the legal relationships between the provinces and the federal government. We said to them we would have that conference just as soon as we could get them all together. We tried to call it in January before this house met because, as everyone in the house knows, Ontario has taken a chance by putting legislation on the statute books that it is not absolutely sure will stand up in the courts, and so has asked us to assist it in getting that legislation before the supreme court. It has been brought before the supreme court.
They are suggesting, as did the federation when they were here last month, that if that legislation does happen to be declared ultra vires, this government should take some action in order to do what we must be able to do if that province is not able to do it. We have given them assurances that we shall give it consideration. We have not said we will do it, as we must bring these matters to this house; we have said we shall give it consideration. We have called the conference for April 19.
That is one thing, but I have here a presentation made by the federation of agriculture to the federal government on February 14, 1956. I hope I am not going to be out of order in indicating to the house what was stated to the government by this organization. They say, on page 3:
It cannot be argued that the position of the Canadian farmer is due to the effects of overprotection of their industry, or of excessively high support prices, but rather is the result, in part, of a world situation of which Canada, as an important agricultural exporter, feels the direct and immediate impact.
Then they go on to deal with different products that are produced by our farmers and they come to the dairy industry:
There is probably no industry in which regularity and stability of supplies and prices is more important than in dairying, both from the point of view of the producer and the consumer. The butter support program which has been in operation for a number of years has provided this regularity and

Economic Position of Agriculture stability, at very reasonable prices, and in addition has sharply reduced marketing margins in the case of butter. Moreover, the whole program has been relatively inexpensive. It is therefore difficult to understand why the program should be under such constant and sustained attack from certain quarters.
However, it is not our intention today to open up a full scale discussion of this question-but merely to register our wholehearted support of the government's policy, and to express the opinion that the consequences would be disastrous to the dairy industry and harmful to the consumer if the present butter program were not maintained.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture therefore strongly recommends that the 58 cents floor price on butter be not only continued but established in advance for a further two-year period.
If anyone wants a stronger endorsation of that policy I should like to hear it, because they co.uld not have said anything that pleased the government more, even though it may not have pleased the opposition. Then they go on further and say this, and I think this was said by someone yesterday, though I am not too sure by whom:
To allow Canadian producers to fully develop the market for these products-
That is, dairy products such as cheese, milk powder and so on.
-without risk of having their position seriously undermined by imports carrying abnormally low import duties, the federation of agriculture recommends that the special tariff agreements with Australia and New Zealand be revised to raise the present nominal rate of duty on Cheddar cheese to an effective level, and to bring the duty on dry skim milk from those countries to 3] cents per pound.
It goes without saying-and they refer to it, as a matter of fact-that no member of the government could give them a decision on that question at the time of that meeting. I suppose no one, not even a member of the government, can give a decision until the Minister of Finance brings down his budget and lets us know what he thinks about it and what the government, through him, thinks about it. But that is one representation they have made. I am not wanting to pass up those which are not in absolute accordance with our policy, but there is one about which I think I should say something:
First, it is suggested that the government of Canada encourage, and assist financially, the development of programs to regularly provide milk to children in primary and secondary schools. This is a policy which should be adopted for reasons of public health, quite apart from the admitted assistance it would give to the dairy industry.
Again I point out that that policy can only be started in the province. The provinces have the administration and handling of the schools and milk, and, so far as I know, no province has indicated up to now that it is prepared to go ahead with that policy. I would suggest to my friends from Saskatchewan, having all the influence they

have with the government there, that they might make a start there instead of starting down here.


Mr. Sluder:: They might use butter instead of margarine.


James Garfield Gardiner: Someone has said they might use butter instead of margarine. The minister in that province said last session that it would cost them $25,000 to put butter instead of margarine into the government institutions, and therefore he was not going to do it.


Irvin William Studer: Shame.


James Garfield Gardiner: Now we come to the marketing situation:
One of the organized means by which farmers are grappling with their own marketing problems is the use of producer-controlled marketing boards employing legislation to give legal status to their regulations. Boards have been in operation for many years in some of our provinces.
I mentioned this a moment ago.
In Ontario there is currently a great deal of new development along these lines. And in all of Canada farmers expect that the years ahead will see the continued development and improvement of this type of marketing organization. It is necessary to emphasize, therefore, the very great importance that attaches, both immediately and in the future, to the need for clearing away any constitutional obstacles which may exist to prevent the effective functioning of such boards. At the present time many of the most critical issues involved are embodied in a reference to the supreme court, and the court's views presumably will be known some time this spring.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture wishes at this time to request that if the court rulings reveal that provincial legislation, together with the present federal act, cannot provide the legal authority necessary to make the functioning of producer boards effective, that the federal government take immediate action to introduce legislation that will make it possible for these boards to be adequately financed and to achieve as fully as possible their orderly marketing objectives.
All I am going to say about that is that when the federal provincial conference was held some weeks ago-not the conference held this last week-the provincial representatives who were here from Ontario met the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and myself and went over all this legislation, and the Minister of Justice has assisted them in every way in getting it before the court and having its validity determined at as early a date as possible. Then it goes on to deal with grain and here is what they say about that:
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture therefore wishes to express its complete support of the Canadian wheat board system of marketing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will say "hear, hear" to that also. The only policy the government of Canada has in connection with the marketing of wheat is the wheat board. The

wheat board was set up by this government in its present form as a compulsory marketing board to handle the wheat of the farmer through a board to which the farmers are compelled to deliver their wheat. It was set up under this government in 1943. I know that my friends on the other side of the house like to say it was first advocated -in this house, I presume; it was advocated outside of it earlier than that-by the late Mr. Bennett, and it was. But again I repeat that when Mr. Bennett brought it into the house he had the biggest majority there ever was in this house prior to that time, and he was not able to put it through. He therefore withdrew it.


An hon. Member:: He was forced to.


James Garfield Gardiner: I hear some of my friends saying he was forced to yield. But I should like to see my friends opposite force us to do some particular thing under similar circumstances.


George Alexander Drew: We did last year.


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of fact there were so many men sitting on the government side of the house at that time who did not believe in that policy that Mr. Bennett was not able to put it through, and he made apologies for his own party later on. Nevertheless the legislation was put through in a particular form, and later on we found it advisable to make it a compulsory board.
That has been the policy of this government ever since. We have taken over the marketing of wheat by a wheat board which the farmers wanted. We have said to them, "Go ahead and market that wheat" and we have given them all the facilities and powers necessary to make it possible for them to market it. Again the Canadian Federation of Agriculture says that policy is the right policy and they are in agreement with it. It also urges that every effort be made to bring about a satisfactory renewal of the international wheat agreement. The minister concerned has reported on that matter to the house from time to time, and has indicated that everything possible is being done to bring about that result, although we are not in a position to state whether it will be successful.
Finally, on behalf again of our prairie grain producers, we would endorse the quota system of grain marketing,-
Again that was introduced by this government, through the wheat board of course, but before the wheat board had the power it has at the present time.
-with the request that this system be continued, and combined with a distribution of box cars as between shipping points that will make space available on an equitable basis.
Econoviic Position of Agriculture
Then they come down to feed freight assistance:
We would simply repeat our request that this policy be continued, and further ask that it be given full recognition as a permanent national policy by being embodied in special legislation rather than maintained by order in council.
That is another policy of this government which they support. They did not come here asking for something different on all these matters. They came here to encourage us to go on to do more, because we had been doing the things which the Canadian Federation of Agriculture thought ought to be done. They go on to deal with international trade arrangements, emphasizing the point they made with regard to dairy products. Then third they recognize the wisdom of individual countries, including our own, so managing their domestic affairs as to keep to a minimum the necessity of imposing import restrictions or selling export surpluses at less than domestic prices.
Then they go on to support the government marketing some of this butter-the small amount they have in addition to what is needed here-outside of this country. Then they deal with farm credits, and they say this:
This second statement of policy which we are presenting for your consideration at this time deals with the subject of farm credit. This statement has already been brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance because of the fact that the legislation dealing with the Canadian farm loan board has been opened up and was due for early consideration by parliament.
That is another thing they agree with. Then they go on to say this:
There are a number of very specific recommenda-tains contained in this farm credit policy,-
That was put out in a separate document.
-and we will at this time mention only the major features. In general they are aimed at reducing the cost, and broadening and liberalizing the various provisions of our federal farm credit institutions.
Of course they go on to say they would like to have a lower interest. They think maybe the interest rate ought to be per cent, and they make strong representations to that effect. But the principle of the legislation which has been introduced into this house in order to provide credit for farmers, farm improvement loans and farm loans, which was in effect before this present government came into power, and which has been changed somewhat since-they are in favour of all those policies and simply say they would like to have a lower rate of interest upon them, if that is possible.
To establish a policy for providing emergency or disaster credit on an interest-free basis where the nature and extent of a farmer's loss justifies the granting of such credit.
2084	HOUSE OF
Economic Position of Agriculture
That was their final request, and they went on to refer to something that was taking place in the province of British Columbia, where strawberry plants had been frozen and where other difficulties had arisen. Again it has been pointed out to British Columbia and to others that legislation of that kind should originate in the provinces. The federal government has not said what assistance it would give if such legislation were passed. They have left it in the hands of the provincial governments to determine whether they are going to do anything and what they are going to do in order to meet the situation before the federal government says anything with regard to it.
That is the presentation in so far as agriculture is concerned. They have dealt with other matters such as radio, television and so on, but I am not going into those matters. What I wish to say to the hon. member for Prince Albert is this. If he thinks, as he did back in 1941, that this government ought to follow the policies which are supported by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture; if he will go back and read those policies now and check up on what has been done by the federal government since then, if he will then read this presentation he will find in it only commendation for the government for what they have done. There is no criticism of the policies that have been put into effect but only commendation for what they have done, and then suggesting a few ways in which it might be possible to improve upon the action taken.
If my hon. friends do not find that strong enough, and if they think that Mr. Hannam was speaking to the government and therefore might not have said that to his own organization, I read you just this from his speech to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture:
Our present butter program is a case in point.
This is after having indicated the things that have been done.
It is difficult to conceive of a farm program that is more considerate of consumers and taxpayers interests than this one.
It maintains a ceiling for consumers at about 64 or 65 cents retail, when without it the price of butter might easily go to 80 or 90 cents in winter months as it did several years ago when the board held no stocks. It has not lowered quality. It has cost, on the average, less than $1 million a year-
That was indicated by the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Charlton) yesterday.
-yet spokesmen for consumers and taxpayers are advocating an alternative type of support program designed to lower the price to the consumer while still maintaining 58 cent support for the producer. They have not explained that, if that type of


program were adopted and it succeeded in a substantial lowering of the retail price of butter, it would probably cost the treasury up to $10 to $20 million each year.
In other words, he is supporting the government policy there.


Mr. Cardiff:: Would the minister allow a question?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Did the minister write Mr. Hannam's speech?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, that is just another way of saying, Mr. Speaker, that the president of the federation of agriculture is in such close agreement with the policies of this government that my hon. friend thinks I must have written his speech. Of course, Mr. Hannam comes from the same part of the country as my hon. friend, and he knows that nobody up in that part of the country, not even the hon. member, would allow anyone to write his speech for him.
The suggestion has been made that we should have parity prices. It has been suggested that the federation agrees that we ought to have parity prices. I have in my hand what the federation has agreed to, and what they have said we ought to do. They were in favour of having a mathematical formula worked out which they thought everyone might be able to understand and from which we would arrive at support prices for our different products. In order to explain what they had in mind, they said this:
Calculation of modernized basic prices (calculated according to the formula recommended by the C.F.A. national farm policy committee.)
It was passed eventually by the federation itself meeting in Edmonton last year. They illustrate here the way it works. The average price of No. 1 wheat, Fort William, 1943-44 to 1952-53, $1.75; index of wholesale prices of farm products 1944-53, 150-9. Then, 1925-29 being taken as 100, cost of commodities and services including living costs, western provinces, in 1953 equals 176-3; then the basic price for wheat, 1954-55 equals $1.75 multiplied by 100 over 150-9 times 176-3 over 100 equals $1.16 multiplied by 176-3 over 100 or $2.05 a bushel, and that is parity. They say the range that should be acknowledged in setting support prices should be from 65 to 85 per cent of the basic price, which would be from $1.33 to $1.74 per bushel, basis Fort William. The floor price which is set, and has been set for years, is $1.40, which is between those two prices of $1.33 and $1.74.
Well, they worked out another one here, and I am not going all through it as I did the first one. It is for good steers. When they finish the calculation they say that parity
M^RCH 13, 1958
price should be $23.06. I think that is very close to the price that was worked out by the farmers' union when they were here a week or two ago. Some hon. members were quoting from the farm union brief. Unfortunately for the farmers' union, as compared with the federation, the farmers' union says that floor prices ought to be parity prices. In connection with the $23.06 the federation says the range of floor prices ought to be anywhere from 65 to 85 per cent of the basic price, or between $14.99 and $19.60 per hundred. When I first read this document, that is exactly what beef cattle were, $19.60, the highest price at which they said there should be a floor. It has been up a little and it has been down a little since, but generally speaking that floor is satisfactory to them.
I have a list here of the calculations for the different products we were talking about. I have already covered wheat and I have covered steers. Eighty-five per cent of the steer price at Toronto is $19.60. That is not the price at the moment, but that is the price stated here as being the top floor price. As a matter of fact, when the federation concluded with this they said they did not want floor prices on cattle. The floor price is worked out here on this sheet, but they say in the statement that they do not want floor prices on cattle.
Why do they say that? They say that because they agree with the government that the floor price we have now is the highest price you can obtain anywhere in the world; it is the price you can get by shipping cattle over to the United States. Anyone who wants to ship cattle there can do so. They say that ought to be the floor price on cattle. We agree with that and we have not attempted, except when we had foot-and-mouth disease in the country, to put a floor price under cattle.
Coming to hogs we find that 65 per cent of the basic price for grade B hogs is $19.99 and 85 per cent is $26.55, while the floor price for grade A is $23 at Toronto or Montreal. We are very close to the middle point, which is $23.07. Again the support price is much as they think it ought to be and as we think it ought to be.
Then we come to butter, upon which they have already expressed themselves, and I would not comment any further on these prices if it were not for filling out the table. We find that they calculate 65 per cent of parity to be 45-6 cents and 85 per cent of parity to be 59-7 cents. Our floor price is 58 cents. Canadian cheese works out to a range of from 23-1 to 33-3 cents, and I believe that today cheese is 33 cents if I read the market correctly this morning. This has been working along fairly well. We put up the 24-cent
Economic Position of Agriculture guarantee and the provincial government of Ontario puts up 6 cents, which makes it 30 cents.
There is a calculation for grade A eggs, Montreal, and a price of 41 cents is 65 per cent of parity and 85 per cent of parity is 53-6 cents. The support price we have established is 38 cents on December 1, for any eggs that are in store. Last year the price throughout the season was higher than this price at which we were stabilizing the price.
Now, I say that is the plan which has been worked out by the federation of agriculture, and I think it should be agreed that it is pretty well in line with what we have been doing by another method. There is one other matter that I think should be touched upon. A lot has been said about these income figures.
I am going to read a statement I got from the department as to what these figures mean:
The Farmer's Share of the National Income
There are no figures anywhere-
This is not my statement; this is a statement I got from the department.
There are no figures anywhere to show what the farmers' share of the national income actually is.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Why are there not?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is a very good question. They tell me one of the reasons is that it would be a little costly. What I am going to ask you is, where did you get the figures you quoted? That is the purpose of reading this.


Stanley Howard Knowles: From the bureau of statistics.


James Garfield Gardiner: I continue :
The figures published by D.B.S. show:
1.	Income derived from sale of farm products;
2.	Income earned as wages and salaries, and
3.	Income from various types of production.
The income of farmers, like the income of many
other people, is derived from various sources. These are:
1.	The sale of farm products:
2.	Salaries and wages earned at non-farm work.
This is in brackets.
(In the United States it is estimated that more than one-third of the income of farmers comes from non-farm sources.)
3.	Income from investments. Many farmers have considerable sums invested in farm mortgages, in bonds, life insurance, and many other forms of investment. Income from these sources is not farm income in the normal sense but investment income.
4.	Income in kind and rent free housing. Farmers use their own food and live in their own houses.
Farm income figures published by D.B.S. attribute much lower values to these items than are actually paid by urban dwellers.
5.	The income of hired workers on farms is not listed as part of the farm income but rather as wage and salary income. It is estimated that there are approximately 80,000 hired men on Canadian farms. They probably earn $150 million a year. The hired men and their families, if any, are part of the farm population, but their income is classified properly with salaries and wages.

Economic Position of Agriculture
In the census returns any person living on an acre of land or more and deriving $250 or more from the sale of farm products is classified as a farmer. Farms of this sort probably make up one-quarter of the total number of farms listed in the census returns. The people concerned live on the farms, produce much of their own food but earn their cash income by other types of employment; many are persons who have retired on pension. The pensions are income but they are not listed as part of the farm income.
All of these facts prove beyond a doubt that the so-called farm income is not the equivalent of the income of farmers. Hence arguments based on the proposition that the farm income makes a smaller proportion of the national income than the farm population makes of the national population are fallacious.
And should be corrected.


John George Diefenbaker: Who prepared that statement?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was prepared in the department.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which department?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Did the minister try to get figures from the Department of National Revenue?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will give it to you, and it will do you good.
The fact is that farms vary enormously in their earning power from area to area and from farm to farm.


Mr. Charlton:: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand is rising on a question of privilege.


John Alpheus Charlton: If it is not a statement of the minister it is written outside the house. How can the minister read that statement in the house if it was produced elsewhere?


James Garfield Gardiner: For the same reason that my hon. friend read a statement prepared-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As I heard the extract which the minister read it did not comment on a proceeding within the house. That is the differentiation.


John Alpheus Charlton: I understand it does.


Hazen Robert Argue: He said the arguments were fallacious.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is exactly the same kind of statement as my hon. friend was permitted to put on the record last night, and I am going to have it corrected.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, surely if the minister is going to read something into the record he has an obligation to indicate the source of that statement so that hon. members may know where it comes from. That is a most elementary requirement of a statement of that kind.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, probably the only obligation I am under is to accept responsibility for it myself, and I will.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, that is begging the question. It is like the treatment the minister accords this house on other occasions. He is reading a statement prepared by someone else, and we have the right to know who prepared the statement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can we not have it clear what department prepared the statement? The minister keeps talking about a department, but he does not say what department.


James Garfield Gardiner: This was prepared in the Department of Agriculture.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Prepared for the minister by his department.


James Garfield Gardiner: By the department without any help from me at all.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, whoever prepared this document, it questions the integrity of hon. members who referred to the share of the national income which has gone to the farmers. Those of us who have used figures have used statistics prepared by the dominion bureau of statistics. I suggest the minister is quoting a statement made by someone outside the house, and he should indicate who is responsible for it.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, there is another point-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps I
should clear up immediately the point of the hon. member for Mackenzie that there was some question as to the integrity of hon. members. I did not take any such interpretation at all from the minister's remarks.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, a point has arisen here which-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: A point has arisen here which cannot be passed over. The minister at this stage now says that this was prepared in his department. If that is the fact, then he is doing something most improper, because he is attributing to unnamed members of his department attacks on statements that have been made in this house. That is a most improper thing. If he is doing that he is undermining the position of the civil servants in his department. The minister can make this either as his own statement, or else give us the name of the person in his department who made this most improper statement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. As I understand it, the minister even before the Leader

of the Opposition rose to his feet, had accepted full responsibility himself for the remarks he is making.


George Alexander Drew: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I did.


George Alexander Drew: This must be now clear. He did not accept full responsibility beyond-


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


George Alexander Drew: -saying that it had been prepared by someone in his department and that he had accepted responsibility for presenting it here after it was prepared by someone in his department.


James Garfield Gardiner: I said more than that.


George Alexander Drew: If it is some civil servant making improper comments, then it is unfair to the civil service unless the minister is prepared to tell who it was.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the accuracy of the memory of the Leader of the Opposition and myself will be clarified tomorrow. My memory is that the minister accepted full responsibility for the remarks which he was making.


James Garfield Gardiner: And more than that, Mr. Speaker. The remarks that my hon. friend was speaking of were not read from this, as he knows. The statements I made to hon. members over there were made by me-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, which is related to the other point, I question whether it is in order for the Minister of Agriculture to be standing up in this house, as I now understand he is, and denying the accuracy of the figures produced by the bureau of statistics in the department headed by his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce. That is what he is doing.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I had not explained it before-


Edward George McCullough: On a
point of order-


James Garfield Gardiner: I have the floor.


Edward George McCullough: On a
point of order, last evening I put figures on the record which were taken from the bureau of statistics. The minister rose in his place and asked me where I had secured the figures. I gave the source of the figures. Today the minister is questioning the figures that were put out by the government, their own statistical figures. I think, sir, there is a point of order here. The minister is not saying anything further than that he is taking the
Economic Position of Agriculture responsibility for these figures. He should tell the house the source of the figures and the authority for them.


James Garfield Gardiner: On the point of order, in view of the fact that I am not allowed to rise unless I speak on the point of order, apparently, the statements I have read are statements that were prepared for me in my own department. I have not any doubt they were prepared with the assistance of members from other departments. The reason they were prepared is this. I know that the interpretation that is being put on the figures by members on the other side, particularly the C.C.F. group, is not correct. That does not mean the figures are not correct because they have been. The interpretation C.C.F. members are putting on the figures is not correct.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister is a past master at that.


James Garfield Gardiner: The statement continues:
The fact is that farms vary enormously in their earning power from area to area and from farm to farm. It has long been established that about 40 per cent of the farms as listed in the census earn about 80 per cent of the so-called farm income. Other people who are listed as farmers in the census earn their incomes from such a great variety of sources that up to the present time it has been impossible to devise any method of estimating with even approximate accuracy what their incomes actually are.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That is nonsense; they are doing that in the United States all the time.


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend will allow his mind to go back to the time when I last addressed this house, I gave the plan they used in the United States and they make out a net worth return which gives the figures. You do not have that here.
It is understood that plans are being made to make a study of the question in the hope that more accurate estimates of farm and other types of income may be made.
Gross income from the sale of farm products is determined by (a) the volume sold, and (b) price levels. In recent years income from the sale of milk and milk products in Canada has remained remarkably stable or has risen somewhat. On the other hand, income from the sale of wheat has declined heavily because of the low volume and low quality of the wheat produced in 1954 and because of a slower rate of sale than in the years between 1948 and 1953 when accumulated surpluses and heavy current production were both liquidated.
Meat prices reached abnormally high levels in 1950 and 1951 but declined sharply in the latter part of 1951. Beef prices have been relatively stable in the last three years, but pork prices have fluctuated fairly widely, mainly due to similar fluctuations in the United States pork markets. Income derived from the sale of poultry and eggs has been maintained by rising volume of sales and price levels which, though subject to seasonal fluctuations, compare favourably with those of the late 1940's and early 1950's.

Economic Position of Agriculture
Prices of fruits and vegetables, especially apples and potatoes, have varied from very high to very low levels. Because both products are highly perishable prices have been subject to short-term supply and demand factors. For these products, as well as for eggs and dairy products, support prices and marketing agreements have cushioned price declines and have helped materially to maintain farm income.
Well, that is the federal document; but since my hon. friends will not accept statements from my department I will read them one from the government of Saskatchewan.


Edward George McCullough: Would the minister put on the record the amount of fluctuation in hog prices since 1952?


James Garfield Gardiner: Would my hon. friend repeat his question?


Edward George McCullough: Would the minister care to put on record the fluctuation in hog prices from 1952?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will do that when I am discussing my estimates. You will understand it better then.


Mr. Ellis:: A one-man filibuster.


James Garfield Gardiner: I come now to the report which we found so valuable this session. It is a report of a royal commission of the province of Saskatchewan on agriculture and rural life.


An hon. Member:: Page?


James Garfield Gardiner: Page 6, quite early in the report. Incidentally, I have read it all since it was here last. It is a very good report taken all in all.


Hazen Robert Argue: Do you agree with it?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not agree with everything that is in it but there are some things with which my hon. friends do not agree either.
Table 1 on page 6 gives the average net farm income per farm operator in Saskatchewan for selected years from 1926 to 1954.
I am sure that my friends in the C.C.F. group and all other hon. members in this house will agree with one thing and that is that there is no province in Canada that suffered more during the last two years because of a drop in income than did the province of Saskatchewan. It suffered more than any other province for several reasons-


Alfred Claude Ellis: Federal government policies.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is the only province in Canada where there is a socialist government.
From 1926 to 1954 the figures are given for every five years so it will not be a long table. I should like to ask permission to place it on the record when I have finished with it.



AVERAGE NET FARM INCOME PER FARM OPERATOR, SASKATCHEWAN, SELECTED YEARS, 1926-1954

[Stage Direction]
Net Farm Income Year	Per Farm Operator
[Stage Direction]
1926	  1,416
1931	 -225
1936	 79
1941	 505
1946		 1,702
1947		 2,040
1948		 3,132
1949		 3,280
1950		 2,349
1951		 4,936
1952		 5,169
1953	  4,450
1954	  1,194
In 1926 the average net income for the farmer was $1,416. Someone said yesterday the figures for 1931 should be given when an hon. member was giving the house certain information. I have here the net farm income per farm in Saskatchewan for 1931, minus $225. That represents $225 worse than nothing.
An hon. Member:: Any questions on that?


James Garfield Gardiner: This government came into power in 1935 and the next year, 1936, the net income was $79 per farm.


Alfred Claude Ellis: With the Liberal government in power.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. We had been in power for only one year and it has taken the present government of Saskatchewan much longer than that to get over the difficulties of 1954.
Five years later, in 1941, the net farm income was $505 per farm. In 1946, the year after the war, it was $1,702.


Alfred Claude Ellis: There was a C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan then.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, in Saskatchewan, but not here. Then in 1947 it was $2,040. This table gives the figure for every year from there on but I will not read them all.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, go ahead.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will come down to 1951, however, when the income was $4,936 per farm. Based on the kind of reasoning we have listened to in this house, that represents more than 100 per cent increase from the year before. It was $2,349 the year before. In 1951 it was $4,936. In 1952 it was $5,169. In 1953 it was $4,450, or an average for the three years of $4,850.
Before going on to give the figures for the next year I would like to ask the house one question. If we are concerned about keeping young men on the farms, if we are concerned about attracting people to come here to work on the farms, which would we go about the country repeating, the figures of 1954 when we had a rusted crop and great

difficulties in getting rid of a poor crop, or the figures for the three years which I have just read? I have known people who have come from Holland and settled on farms in this country who have made $16,500 in clear cash in six years. They have rented buildings and bought all the grain they used for feeding. Those fellows are not going to run back home and tell the kind of stories hon. members are telling in this house concerning farm conditions; they are going to tell their stories regarding the three high years if they desire more of their people to come here.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Where did that happen?


James Garfield Gardiner: That happened in Nova Scotia.


Hazen Robert Argue: One case in Canada out of 600,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask my hon. friends again this: If they want the young men of this country to stay on the farms, should they go around telling them that the average income is the income of 1954, and that that is where it is going to stay? Should they not be telling them that it averaged $4,850 a year for three years in Saskatchewan, and at least that much in some other places? Are you going to tell them that with the idea of getting them to go out to the farms to stay there? The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) told us yesterday about paying a visit to his home in Bruce and finding only old people on the farms there. If he repeats the stories up there that are repeated in this house I wonder if even the old people will stay on the farm. Certainly the young people are not likely to stay.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Is the minister suggesting seriously that farmers are getting a fair share of the national income?


James Garfield Gardiner: We will come to that; I shall have more to say about that and when I come to it you will not like it. This table indicates that hon. members who come here from Saskatchewan, some of whom are not farmers and some of whom are farmers, are telling the young people of this country that conditions are just terrible on the farm. Anyone who has lived on a farm knows that in connection with wheat the situation has not changed, in so far as having good and bad years is concerned, from the times of Joseph. Even then they prepared in the seven good years for the seven bad years. You can grow No. 1 hard wheat only in a dry country, a country similar to our west. When you live and farm there you must prepare for the poor years in the good years. There have been three years when the average income has been $4,850 a year. All my hon. friends talk about is 1954 when it went down to $1,194, but it 67509-132
Economic Position of Agriculture is still higher than it has been in any other year during that long period except when you had a Liberal government in power.
Those are the facts taken from that table; they are not facts coming out here. They are not facts put out by this government, they are facts put out by this commission which sat in Saskatchewan.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand that the minister will require permission to place this table on Hansard. Has the minister unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hazen Robert Argue: Print the whole report.


James Garfield Gardiner: You will find it difficult enough before you are through with it without having it printed here.


Hazen Robert Argue: I had nothing to do with it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Someone said something about the farmer having his proper share of the income.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Give us the 1954 figure.


James Garfield Gardiner: I gave the 1954 figure, $1,194.


Hazen Robert Argue: And 1955?


James Garfield Gardiner: 1955 is not out yet, at least they do not have it. I am giving the commission's figures.


Hazen Robert Argue: The estimate for Canada is lower than for 1954.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it is not.


Mr. Sinclair:: If you are a farmer you look awfully prosperous from here.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have here on my desk the official publication of the C.C.F. party and they have classified the population of Canada. They show the number of families of working classes at 815,000. This was based on the 1931 census.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What is the minister reading from?


James Garfield Gardiner: "Make This Your Canada".


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What year?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was published in 1943 with a foreword by your leader.


James Sinclair: Shortly after the Regina manifesto.


James Garfield Gardiner: Families of farm classes are given at 598,700. Those figures indicate that 42 per cent of the population is made up of working classes and 31-2 per cent of farm classes. Middle classes, including small and medium business people, professional, technical, managerial, white collar workers and independent industrial workers, 492,000 families. Those total 1,905,700 families, which they say is 99-4 per cent of the total population.

Economic Position of Agriculture
The next class is the $10,000 a year or more, including finance, industry and professions, 10,500 families, or 0-06 per cent. Among those are the 50 big shots. I wonder if my hon. friends have forgotten all about the 50 big shots. What is the reason why we do not hear any more about them? I would like to ask my hon. friends if the C.C.F. now think that all groups but farmers should be taxed in order to give the farmers more? Is that their present policy? Do they think that all these other people, labourers, middle class and others, should be taxed in order to give the farmers more, or are they only talking about the 50 big shots? Are those the people they are going to tax in order to get more for the farmers?
I do not think that the C.C.F. have been so keen on getting things done, as they should be done, as they try to make out in this house or even outside of it. There is one industry in Saskatchewan which is known to make more money than any other industry there. The government buys all its products and sells all Its products. They have not nationalized that industry during the whole period of eleven years they have been there. Why haven't they?
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) yesterday if action was going to be taken against the producers and distributors of beer in Canada. The only organization that produces and distributes beer in Saskatchewan is the organization which sells beer to the government of Saskatchewan. With all their plans about nationalization and getting industry started which will make money they seem to take a lot of time in dealing with one industry. If they did it would pay more in the way of assistance to farmers and others in Saskatchewan . than any other industry they could start with.
In addition to that, my hon. friends' friends are now bringing a cement corporation into Regina to make cement out of Regina clay. I have some doubts whether cement can be made out of Regina clay. I have some doubts about a policy which would ship rock all the way from Winnipeg to Regina in order to make cement. I have some idea about who the persons are who are going to organize this. It is not going to be a government owned and operated organization. These men who object to bonds being guaranteed to build a gas pipe line across Canada are not opposed to bonds being guaranteed by the government of Saskatchewan in order to put up a cement factory out there. All these things were not in this handbook I have here in my hand.
IMr. Gardiner.!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are you giving credit to Arthur Blakely?


James Garfield Gardiner: I had it in my mind
long before Arthur Blakely knew anything about it.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Give us the whole story.


James Garfield Gardiner: The fact of the matter is that they are going to try to start a factory to make cement, and it is not going to be the government that is going to do it.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The Liberals opposed it.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Liberals will take care of you when you come around.


An hon. Member:: That is a joke.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that we are now wandering a little far from the subamendment that is before the house, which reads:
"in such a manner as to provide for a fair share of the national income for agriculture".


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I have wandered a little far, but I have been trying to find out where they have to go to get the money to give effect to the amendment and whether they have forgotten all about the old policies they had when they first came here. I presume that they are comparing the position today with that in 1951. As I have said before in this house, there has been a constant increase in the farmer's income from 1931 up to the present time, and most of that has taken place in the years when this government has been in power. I still repeat that. But there is one year in which it went up much higher, 1951, and in some provinces it went up still higher the next year. Are my friends advocating that we should return to the conditions we had in 1951 and 1952 in order to give us that higher return?
There is only one reason why we had that high return in 1951 and 1952, and that is that we were at war in Korea. There is no other reason. There is only one reason for the increased cost of farm implements, and that reason is the preparations that we made for defence while we were at war in Korea and the preparations we are making for defence now. So, if my hon. friends are in the position where they are thinking in terms of how we are going to balance these things, then I would suggest to them that, in order to follow the plan they have been following in their speeches, they will have to depart entirely from the program they had before them when they came to this house about 20 years ago. What was that program? Absolutely no part in any defence program. As a matter of fact, I heard members on the floor of this house say they were particularly pleased that their sons had come to them and

said they would take no part. That is not the policy that is being talked of today.
If members on the other side of the house actually disagree with the policies of this government, which result in high expenditures in order to keep up defence, they ought to get up and say so, as they did before these policies were put into effect some years ago. This government has laid down a policy in connection with these matters. Of course, it is costly; it requires great taxation; it requires that farmers pay more taxes than they ever paid before across this country; and it requires, too, that costs of implements made out of steel, implements made out of aluminum, clothing made out of wool or any other fibre, all these are more costly in this country today because we find it necessary to carry on with those policies.
If my hon. friends are going to be honest with themselves and the voters in advocating their policies, they are going to come right out and say either that it should be done or it should not be done. I suggest to them that, if it should be done, there is not much possibility of changing the cost of some of the things that are made out of those materials. Those costs are going to stay up so long as it is necessary to carry on those policies. Neither this government nor any other government in a country so small as this in population can do very much about that, but we are hopeful that the policies of this government, the policies of the farmers in producing food for people throughout the world, and other policies will result in a condition of peace among the nations of the world that will make it possible for us not only to put down the prices of the things the farmer needs but make it possible for them to put them down.


An hon. Member:: Are the farmers getting their fair share of the national income?


James Garfield Gardiner: I ask my hon. friend what he now thinks about his 50 big shots. Where are they? What does he think about all the population that is off farms? Should they all be taxed to help the farmer out in these cases? Should we all be taxed? With that in mind, I am going to say to the house that I am going to vote against the motion, largely because of the fact that it has been tried out in the United States and voted out within the last few days.


An hon. Member:: By one man.


James Garfield Gardiner: It took 46 of them. He was just the forty-sixth. That in itself, it having been tried out in the great country to the south, is sufficient reason for me to say I am still going to carry on on the advice I got 15 years ago from the best officials we had in these departments at that time, to the effect 67509-1324
Economic Position of Agriculture that this policy would wind up just as it has wound up. They filled their caves with eggs, they filled their storages with butter; they filled their storages with wheat; and they had to crush their potatoes in piles on the ground in order to utilize them to produce starch, rather than food that could be consumed. All these things resulted from having the policy at that time, and I agree with the present government and the policies that have followed to the effect that that kind of thing is not a good thing to adopt in this country, or for the United States either for that matter.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I wonder if the minister
would answer my last question. Does he consider the farmers are getting a fair share of the national income?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have already said in answer to that question that I thought the farmer did require more than he is getting.


Hazen Robert Argue: A lot of words to prove nothing.


Mr. J. A. Smith (Battle River-Camrose):: In rising to take part in this debate on the amendment to the motion to go into committee of supply and on the subamendment, I do so with great pleasure. However, before commencing my remarks, I must pay my compliments to the Minister of Agriculture. As I mentioned in another speech, he is a wonderful man. He reminds me somewhat of the United States, of which we have had so much mention this afternoon. He reminds me somewhat of a great orator, shall I say, such as the late Senator Borah of the United States, or the late Huey Long.
We have been told this afternoon in a speech that took nearly two hours that the plight of agriculture in Canada is not too bad. With that impression, which the minister left with me, I must almost immediately take exception. I was very pleased that at the close of his talk the hon. member for Mackenzie got from the minister the statement that the farmers of Canada were perhaps entitled to a slightly larger share of the national income. With that premise before me, I propose to commence.
This amendment is one that should appeal to agriculture from Nova Scotia westward to British Columbia. It should appeal to the potato grower of Prince Edward Island; to the apple grower of Nova Scotia; to the potato grower of New Brunswick; to the dairy farmer of Quebec; to the stock man, the fruit producer and, shall I say, the tobacco raiser of Ontario; to the beekeeper of Manitoba; and now I come to Saskatchewan. I did have in mind to say the grain farmers of Saskatchewan but perhaps, as I followed the course of the minister's remarks so closely, I should say something, about the cement farmers of Saskatchewan as well, the stock raisers of
2092	HOUSE OF
Economic Position of Agriculture Alberta, the fruit growers of British Columbia. This particular amendment appeals to all branches of agriculture. It is national in scope. It does not select any particular phase of the industry. It requests parity prices for agriculture generally throughout Canada. We are not any longer going to hear through the halls of this building, "We have heard enough about wheat; we have heard too much about wheat". Today we are pleading in the interests of agriculture throughout all of Canada.
To me this particular amendment is one that should transcend the realm of party politics. Apparently it did not do that. I feel that the plight of agriculture in Canada at the present time is something that should be beyond party political lines. History shows us, Mr. Speaker, what happens to great nations when the governments of those nations let agriculture go down. We have had a great deal of history this afternoon. We have been taken from 1930 right up to 1956. Let me go back a little bit prior to that. Let me go back to the good old Roman days. What happened to the Roman empire when they let their agricultural industry decay? It went down slowly and steadily to oblivion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It must have had a Gardiner.


James Alexander Smith: Maybe they had a Gardiner but they did not have a guardian to see that that did not happen. Again, to come back to modern times, may I point out that students who have studied the cause of the great depression in the United States in the thirties find now that one of the first danger signals which pointed to this ever-approaching depression in the United States was the sorry plight in which agriculture found itself in the United States during the twenties. Also coupled with this danger signal we find that they say that the ever-increasing instalment buying of the people of the United States was another danger signal. Mr. Speaker, I submit that we have those two danger signals right here in Canada today. I am only sorry that our present government is not prepared to pay more attention to these signals that we have with us.
I was very happy in January to notice that the leader of the great republic to the south of us, namely President Eisenhower, in his message on the state of the union assured the farmers of that country that federal administration was prepared to see that agriculture remained a stabilized industry in the United States. I should be only too happy if the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent) would come before this house with a similar statement.
We have gone back to 1951 already this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. May I take you back just once more. I want to take you back to


December, 1951, and to the city of Saskatoon. I am quoting from a statement to be found in the Ottawa Journal. It is dated December 7, Saskatoon. The headline of this article runs in this way, "Howe reminds wheat farmer taxpayers raised $65 million". I will quote just a bit further from this article:
Mr. Howe told the delegates: "You have asked the people of Canada for help on many occasions and it is not so long ago that the taxpayers came through with $65 million"-the reference was to the final payment on the five-year wheat pool.
Just in that connection, Mr. Speaker, I wish to put on the record once again a statement which was made by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) no later than yesterday. He had this to say, as reported at page 2034 of Hansard:
I have in my hand figures showing the losses that were suffered under the British wheat agreement by comparison with the world market price for class II wheat in the years 1946 to 1950, during which period the farmers lost $431,676,844. Then as the result of subsidizing the Canadian consumer at the same price at which we sold wheat to Britain instead of at the world market price, the farmers lost another $136,920,921. If you add those two figures together you get an over-all total of $568,597,765. If you subtract that from that figure $65 million which the government paid to the farmers on account of their losses, you have a net loss of approximately half a billion dollars.
Still in 1951 one of the leading spokesmen of this government reminded the farmers of the west that the taxpayers of Canada had come through with a measly $65 million. Then coming right up to January of this year the same right hon. gentleman, namely the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), has this to say or it is reported that he had this to say: "Booming economy sees good year ahead". Every branch of industry in Canada, according to the statement, is booming. The statement was supposed to have originated from the office of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Every branch of industry in Canada is booming with the exception of one, and what is it?
Agricultural income, down in recent years, appears to have about reached a current bottom.
Mr. Speaker, I noticed with great interest that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) had searched through the records for evidence to advance showing that the farmers of Canada were not in favour of parity prices. He must have been working about the same time as I was because this afternoon I wish to submit evidence to this house which I believe will support the pleas for parity prices. These pleas that I am going to bring in here this afternoon have been made by every farm organization throughout Canada. In starting on this discussion I might point out that in western Canada we have an active and aggressive farmers' organization which is rapidly growing eastward

across Canada. I am referring particularly to the interprovincial farm union council. This interprovincial farm union council has for years been submitting briefs to the federal government. I do not want to start at 1951 because it would take too much time and I have not an hour and forty minutes at my disposal at the present time. I want to point out that this is the submission made to the federal government on March 16, 1953. In dealing with livestock marketing they had this to say:
There is considerable evidence to indicate that our western livestock industry is lacking in required stability; this applies not only to cattle and hogs but also poultry and other livestock products.
That was a submission made to the federal government on March 16, 1953.
Again on page 5 of the same submission they have this to say:
We believe that as long as there are millions of people in the world who are underfed, as evidenced by reports of FAO, that every encouragement-even emphasis-ought to be placed on an all-out production program to bolster dwindling supplies of much needed foodstuffs. However, if as a result of such a program surpluses are built up, then provision should be made that such surpluses-be they long or short term-are not allowed to interfere with the prices on our home market.
At the same time, the interprovincial farm council pointed out this:
Farmers have often been penalized by even smali temporary surpluses, and the export price of their products have determined the price on the home market even in cases where only a small percentage of the total production was exported, and the largest share of it used for home consumption.
We realize, Mr. Speaker, as the minister pointed out this afternoon, that the vast percentage of livestock raised in Canada is consumed in Canada. We can see no reason for the general decline in the price of livestock during recent years.
Again in May of the same year a submission was made by the interprovincial farm union council to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization of this house. They had this to say. I think this is the keynote of their submissions throughout the years.
The prosperity of agriculture, like any other industry or individual, cannot be judged by any calculation based on gross receipts, but it is the farmers' net income or "take home pay" that really tells the story. While it is admitted that the gross income to the agricultural industry has been increasing, like all other major economic groups in Canada, the fact remains that the net income to agriculture has been decreasing, and. in spite of the higher than average production recently, we are concerned to find that the amount of agricultural improvement loans are, of necessity, rapidly increasing. The amount owing to finance corporations on purchases of various types, as well as the outstanding accounts to local merchants, are a further matter of deep concern, and we are somewhat fearful that the present prices and income to western agriculture, as our share
Economic Position of Agriculture of the national income, does not leave the farmers sufficient reserves to protect them from the natural production hazards to which the agricultural industry is annually subjected.
We believe that some definite steps must be taken by the government of Canada to raise the basic prices for agricultural commodities, and particularly that portion of our production sold on our domestic markets and consumed in Canada,_____
That was a submission made in May, 1953. Then again, the same brief deals with livestock marketing and says:
To those who have made a study of the present unsatisfactory situation of livestock marketing, the need for some new and definite program on a national or regional basis for establishing a plan of forward pricing in order to give the necessary stability to this most important branch of agriculture is becoming more and more evident.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in November, 1953, the same body in their submission to the government of Canada presented the following, dealing with livestock markets. They were not dealing with the price of wheat, the shortage of box cars or the weather, but with livestock markets.
The farm unions are very concerned with the lack of long range stability of our livestock markets. We fail to see any Justifiable reason why livestock prices, particularly beef cattle, should have been so drastically reduced to farmers.
Then, farther down:
"We note in this September's issue of 'Current Review of Agricultural Conditions in Canada', issued by the federal Department of Agriculture at Ottawa, that our own Canadian people consumed 95 per cent of our total marketings of cattle and that only approximately 5 per cent was surplus for export during the first seven months of 1953."
Therefore, our own government publication provides conclusive proof that the so-called overproduction bogey, so often advanced by others as an excuse for lowering prices to farmers is a myth at this period.
Now, in February, 1954, the Canadian farm union council made another submission to the government and they said:
We believe the government's floor price system is inadequate for the producer;
Now, this has been brought out time and time again during the course of this session, with particular reference to the floor price on hogs. The matter of whether or not that floor price is being maintained across Canada is of great concern to the people of western Canada. I continue to quote:
-in many instances only the packers and processors have benefited by the government's support policy. A fundamental flaw in the present Agricultural Prices Support Act is the absence of a proper price formula for establishing floor prices.
What happens far too often is that the floor price becomes the maximum price paid for that particular type of goods. Farm machinery has been mentioned by the minister and he explained the reason for the price of farm machinery being so high. I cannot


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


James Alexander Smith: I am
glad that somebody agrees with that. I think we have a convert over there, and I hope we can keep him that way. Just keep on smiling, because that smile of yours across the way amuses me.
Let us look at the record. I can read statistics into the record just as well as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), but I do not have to go to socialist doctrines to get my records. I can find them elsewhere. However, let us look at the record. I hold in my hand a chart. I had better read where it comes from to keep the record straight. This is taken from figures compiled by the dominion bureau of statistics. It is a table which deals with gross and net farm income for the prairie provinces for the period from 1951 to 1955. It says the figures were compiled from the sale of farm products and participation payments on previous years' grain crop. The part in which I am particularly interested is the decline in net farm income from 1951. I find that in 1952 there was a decline in net farm income of 3-13 per cent. In 1953 it was down 21-60 per cent. In 1954 it was down 66-64 per cent.
From what we can gather, there is going to be a further decline this year. What position does that put the farmer in? Surely no one in this house can stand up and argue that the net farm income has not been rapidly going down in the last three or four years.
In closing I want to pay a further tribute to the Minister of Agriculture. I could not help but think as he was making his remarks that he is actually one of the great wheel horses in the field of politics in the history of Canada. He is a man who can stand up and speak for an hour and forty minutes in defence of the policies of his government in the field of agriculture and I admire him for that, but may I say in closing that I would have been far more pleased to have listened to some of the Liberal backbenchers from western Canada attempting to defend the Liberal policies in that regard.


Mr. C. E. Bennett (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I am not a backbencher from

Economic Position of Agriculture western Canada but I am a backbencher from eastern Canada and I am interested in farm problems because my riding is half rural and half urban.
Much has been said today about the reduction in farm income. The right hon. minister at the last of his very worth-while review today said it was his opinion that in some cases farm income was down. In certain respects that definitely applies in my riding. In Grey county we produce, as farmers, cattle, pork, poultry, apples and dairy products. Dairy products, of course, remained on an even keel in 1955, thanks to the floor support plan of the government. Poultry and eggs were up a little bit. Cattle remained fairly steady but hogs and apples were away off. The reduction in the price of pork was very serious to a great many of the farmers in my riding because Grey county is one of the leading pork producing districts in Ontario.
The farmers in my constituency realize there is no easy solution to these problems. They realize that if a solution could come about by doing any of the things suggested by the C.C.F. group or by the resolution which was put on the order paper by the hon. member for Prince Albert, this government would have done it a long time ago. The farmers in my area recognize and appreciate the agricultural support policy of this government and the other farm policies that have been invoked by the present Minister of Agriculture.
The hon. member for Prince Albert in introducing his resolution stated that the farm policy of this government operated on a hit-or-miss basis. The farmers in my area do not feel that way. They appreciate particularly the floor support program. They recognize, for instance, that hogs were supported during the epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease at 26 cents and cattle at 25 cents. Not only was the floor support beneficial, we all know the support prevented the collapse of the hog market at that time. The same obtains on eggs. Eggs dropped to 19 cents a dozen in 1949. The minister stepped in and supported them at 38 cents, which means about 32 cents to the producer, and since that time eggs have not fallen through the support except on one occasion last year and that was of brief duration and the minister quickly corrected it.
We all know that other products have been supported, such as cheese, milk, apples, butter and potatoes, to mention only a few.
At the present time the floor 'under hogs is 23 cents. We do not think it is enough but I would like to put on Hansard the fact that if

it were not for that floor support hogs would be selling at a much lower price than they are today. It goes without saying that we people who represent farm ridings will support any workable and practical measure that will raise the price of cattle and of hogs because it is in the interest of all of us. No matter what we interpret the word "parity" as meaning, we want the farmer to have his fair share of the national income.
I do not know what the hon. member for Prince Albert has in mind as a means of achieving this position of parity. He did not say very much about that; all he complained about was that prices were down. He did not give us any of his ideas as to how he was going to get the price of hogs or cattle to where he considers the prices would be at parity. He said only that we should have teeth in our hog floor legislation. Even if we have teeth in the legislation it does not put the price up to 26, 27.or 28 cents where we would all like to see it. That is the trouble with all the people who have been talking on the other side of the house. They say, "Let us have prices where they should be," but they do not give us any constructive ideas concerning how to do it.
If the hon. member for Prince Albert was thinking in terms of a higher floor he knows, of course, that many factors have to be taken into consideration. If we put up the price on hogs by means of a floor that contains an inducement to produce, I think we will all readily recognize that the farmer with two or three sows will soon have four or five, and the fellow living at the edge of town who has not gone into pigs will soon go into pigs. We found that out in 1952 when the floor was 26 cents. We did not think it was too high for hogs at all but we found that the government ended up with a great deal of pork. That floor support program in 1952 cost the government $35 million for hogs and $33 million for cattle but it was certainly money well spent in the national interest.
The United States has discovered, and the minister mentioned this, that if you have your floor support too high without any quotas or without a marketing scheme you soon have a surplus which will depress prices and will hurt the farmer in the long run. That is why Mr. Eisenhower in an election year, trying desperately to do something for the farmers did not, you will notice, come up with anything for the cattle producer or the hog producer because the surpluses in the United States are depressing prices.
In this country we are up against another problem. If we have our floor support high enough to attract United States cattle and hogs, after the duty and freight have been

paid, which do not amount to too much, our floor would be supporting the entire North American continent and we just cannot afford to do that.
I would like to mention an exception to the general rule. Hon. members will recall that a few weeks ago United States livestock was coming into Canada because prices there for the first time were lower than ours. I received representations to the effect that we should close the border. This, of course, would be an extremely narrow and short-term policy. As the minister said today, the United States has always been our floor for cattle. There are 160 million people there and it is a great potential market for our farmers.
If I have the permission of the house to do so, I would like to table some figures.
13, 1956	2097
Economic Position of Agriculture These show exports to and imports from the United States for 1953, 1954 and the first nine months of 1955 ending with September, of cattle, beef, hogs and pork. The figures show clearly that the trade is just about all one way and it is of tremendous value to us to keep that border open.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: What is the source of the figures?


Colin Emerson Bennett: The economic division, Department of Agriculture.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to place these figures on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Colin Emerson Bennett: The figures are:



CANADA-TRADE WITH U.S.A. IN SPECIFIED PRODUCTS

[Stage Direction]
[DOT]20.1.56
[Stage Direction]
-	Unit	Exports to U.S.A.	Imports from U.S.A.	1953	1954	9 months ending Sept/55	1953	1954	9 months ending Sept/55Quantity	Cattle and Beef-	Cattle purebred	1,000	20	16	14	1	1	iDairy cattle	it	22	17	16	-	-	-Cattle and calves n.o.p	26	55	23	-	-	-Beef and veal, fresh	1,000 lb.	16,816	9,445	5,698	1,440	1,095	1,795Beef, canned	u	-	-	-	300	158	10Beef, pickled in barrels	<<	-	-	-	10,576	12,857	6,917Extract of beef	it	35	52	26	a	a	aValue	Cattle and Beef-	Cattle purebred	$1,000	5,529	3,939	3,495	570	916	475Dairy cattle	"	4,008	2,783	2,636	-	-	-Cattle and calves, n.o.p	"	5,009	9,120	3,666	-	-	-Beef and veal, fresh	it	5,276	2,783	1,872	479	466	629Beef, canned	"	-	-	-	91	48	7Beef pickled in barrels	it	-	-	-	1,806	2,346	1,235Extract of beef	a	25	28	15	116	27	3Total value	ii	19,847	18,653	11,684	3,062	3,803	2,349Quantity	Hogs and Pork-	Hogs purebred	1,000	1	1	i	-	-	-Hogs, n.o.p	<<	20	24	7	-	-	-Pork, fresh	1,000 1b.	35,245	40,184	31,874	57Bacon, hams	u	6,097	9,566	9,276	56	59	22Hams canned	"	16,939	11,268	8,381	-	-	-Pork pickled in barrels	it	1	3	-	0	-	-*	Value	Hogs and pork-	Hogs purebred	$1,000	48	95	50	-	-	-Hogs, n.o.p	«	1,009	1,082	177	-	-	-Pork, fresh	It	14,908	17,180	12,197	-	19Bacon and hams	It	4,951	8,009	6,605	20	32	17Hams, canned	it	14,337	9,879	6,342	-	-	-Pork pickled in barrels	it	0	0	_ 	0	-	-Total value	"	35,253	36,245	25,371	20	32	36
* Quantity not available. 67509-133
[Stage Direction]
Economic 'Position of Agriculture
My hog producer is very much interested in the supreme court reference mentioned today by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). While some of my farmers are still individualists, more and more they are coming to believe that they must have a marketing scheme, preferably one run by themselves through a marketing board, in order to have orderly marketing and establish the prices which they should get on the market. I must say that I personally am coming more and more to that line of thinking.
I happen to be in the apple business and with a bumper crop this year we had no control over the marketing of apples. Without any government assistance at all-we are not asking for that-without any floor support if we had had a marketing agency so that we would have had some over-all control over the marketing of our apples we would have been much better off this year.
My hog producers feel the same way. I was glad to hear the minister say that there is to be a conference with the provincial ministers of agriculture to discuss marketing legislation. I think that is a step in the right direction. Whether we believe in quotas or just selling through a central agency under a free enterprise system, I think there should be marketing schemes and marketing boards.
Most of my farmers now believe that there should be marketing boards for just about every farm product. As the minister said, there are about 20 schemes in Ontario. In ending my remarks on hogs I would urge the minister to go ahead with this marketing conference just as soon as the decision on the reference is known.
James Garfield Gardiner: April 19.


Colin Emerson Bennett: If the minister does not mind, I should like to urge him, if the decision of the supreme court is to the effect that the marketing legislation of the Ontario government is ultra vires and further authority is needed, to see that legislation is ready to be passed at this session. That is one thing we can do to help the farmer to set up machinery so that he can help himself.
My riding is very important from an apple producing point of view. The famous Beaver valley and Georgian bay apples are grown in my district. There are very important orchards too in the Meaford area. I see the hon. member for Durham (Mr. James) is looking at me, and I am ready to admit that perhaps there are some McIntosh apples down there although I have never heard of them too often.
As I have said, we had a bumper crop in the Georgian bay district this year. I am not


appealing to the government for any help and I am not even going to offer any constructive suggestions. The only thing I would like to say is that we have had a very poor year. I have heard some hon. members from Nova Scotia and British Columbia complaining, and I just want to assure the house that the Georgian bay grower did not make any money this year either. With our large crop we had high costs for containers, spraying materials, labour and fertilizers. In the end the small grower, if not the large grower, lost money. Instead of the price of apples being $2.50 or $2.75 per bushel, apples were selling at around $1 per bushel and some apples were not even picked.
The Ontario growers this year went on record as being against the idea of a subsidy and perhaps I should explain that. They do not think that the government should grant subsidies year after year to encourage the growing of varieties of apples where it is not economical to grow them. They emphatically oppose the granting of subsidies which help the growers of another province to compete in their traditional markets in Ontario. I remember that four or five years ago this government did one of the few things it has ever done wrong: a subsidy was granted to the apple growers of another province and the following week these growers took the back page of the Star Weekly and did considerable harm in our traditional Ontario-Toronto market. Using your own money to ruin your own market is certainly rubbing it in.
I hope the minister will continue the generous grants which have been made under the Cold Storage Act. We found this year that there was a scarcity of cold storage in Ontario and many McIntosh apples were put on the market because of lack of storage. That is another way in which this government is helping the farmer and can continue to help him.
Turning from apples, I should like to speak briefly about butter. The price of butterfat and cream was and is one of the bright spots in the farm picture in my riding. I never hear complaints about the price of butterfat. Most farmers are high in their praise of our butter policy. Our butter policy has been stated many times as being a means whereby the government purchases butter during the heavy butter producing months and feeds it back to the consumer during the winter months, thus stabilizing the price and helping both the consumer and the farmer. The farmer is able to get the same or higher price all the year round, and by putting purchasing power in the hands of the farmer we are helping the whole economy.

I urge the government to maintain this support price of 58 cents under butter. Much has been said about the importance of the dairy industry and I do not think I need to elaborate on that. In my riding the cream cheque is spent on Saturday night or during the week end by the farmer and his wife and is quickly distributed throughout the economy to the benefit of all. Last year the cream producers of Grey county were paid close to $3 million and it will be appreciated what that meant to a riding such as mine.
I am not afraid that the government will abandon the floor price under butter, but I am a little nervous that they may drop it 2 or 3 cents. Some hon. members seem to believe that more butter would be sold and consumed if the price were dropped 2 or 3 cents, but I do not hold that view at all. By thus reducing the purchasing power of the farmer you would be working to the detriment of the whole economy. We have margarine eaters and we have butter eaters and the spread in price between the two is too great to induce some margarine eaters to eat butter just because the price has been dropped 3 or 4 cents.
When introducing this resolution the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was critical of the sales which have been made to iron curtain countries. I think too the hon. member who spoke last referred rather disparagingly of this policy. They ask: Why give bargains to communist countries? I suppose that is a pretty popular thing to say, but I submit that the government policy is the correct one. My farmers certainly think it is the correct one.
If the hon. member for Prince Albert considers we can take 15 million or 20 million pounds of butter surplus and dispose of that in a special sale I would like to ask him how he expects to get around the administrative problem. There are thousands of retail and wholesale outlets and how could you make sure that the bargain of 20 or 25 cents was being passed on to the consumer. A sale of 15 million pounds would last only two weeks and would mean a saving of only 25 cents to each person in Canada. I do not think you could do it, but even if you could there would be the more serious objection that you would be undermining the permanent price of butter. We might get away with one fire sale at 40 cents and go back to 65 cents, but you could not do it more than once or twice. The housewives just would not buy butter for 65 cents after getting it at 40 cents. The result would be that sooner or later you would be bringing down the price of butter, and the 67509-133J	; |
Economic Position of Agriculture price would be determined for the 317 million pounds we produce in Canada by that small surplus of 15 million pounds.
I have listened very carefully to the members of the opposition on this butter question and I cannot for the life of me figure out what they advocate. They seem to be in favour of this 58 cents support, although they do not underline its importance to the farmer. They do not say what they are in favour of. Some members opposite apparently are in favour of the two price plan and one of the leading associations interested in the dairy industry in Canada is also in favour of this two-price scheme. Under that scheme, of course, butter would be allowed to find its own level, say 40 cents, and the government would continue to support the producer at 58 cents per pound, paying to the producer 18 cents per pound. You can see how much that would cost by multiplying 18 or 20 cents by 317 million. It would cost $60 million a year, unless of course you had a quota system. That was the plan that was advocated by Mr. Brennan in the United States, but the republicans and democrats over there found that that just would not work, because the cost was prohibitive.
You may say, "Let us have a quota." If you are going to have a quota, you must have a marketing board, and that is a different story altogether. But I do not think we should disturb our butter policy, which is the bright spot in my riding. My farmers say to me, "If you do not say anything else in this session, get up and praise the minister for the 58 cents support, because it is essential to keep it."
The hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) made a very worth-while contribution in the throne speech debate and he quoted some figures that showed that the gap between production and consumption, was 17 million pounds this year. He was worried that that gap might increase, although his figures do not bear that out. In 1953, for instance, the gap was 17 million pounds. In 1954 it was 20 million; and in 1955 it was estimated at 17 million pounds. The president of the Canadian federation of agriculture does not agree that the gap is going to widen; he thinks it is going to close. It is difficult to say what will happen. There are some people who think we are going to be short of butter in three years. The gap might well be closed in one year with the wrong weather. It might be closed on account of our growing population. It is obvious that there are many factors, and it is difficult for anybody to say right now what the situation is going to be with regard to butter two or three years from now. That is all the more reason why we should keep to the present policy.
2100	HOUSE OF
Economic Position of Agriculture
Let us continue the present policy. Let us support butter at 58 cents. Let us offer butter at reduced prices to our institutions at home, although the minister said two or three weeks ago he had that policy under review and he was not too sure that it was the right one. In any event, let us offer the surplus to the friendly countries in the west, and then to the countries behind the iron curtain. We are getting rid of the surplus. We are supporting one of the greatest industries in Canada, the dairy industry. That dairy industry is very important to the mixed farmer. In my county there is no better way of putting money into the hands of the man engaged in mixed farming than to keep that cream cheque at a decent level.
So I urge to the best of my ability that the present floor support policy be kept on as it is. What is wrong if it costs the taxpayer a little money? We give special tariffs, subsidies and concessions as has often been said, ;o subsidize industry. Take the western farmer for instance whom we are helping this session. I should like to say this to the C.C.F. group. I came down here prepared and anxious to help the western farmer. After hearing all the repetitious debates that took place here, I was reluctant to vote for those bills. I think the western farmer has not had the kind of representation here that he deserves. Members of the opposition keep talking about the big reduction in the income of the western farmer. True, the western farmer has had a big reduction, just as a millionaire might have a reduction. However, if you take the income of the farmers in the west as compared with the farmers in the east, dividing it by the number of farmers, you will find that the man in the east is much worse off than the western farmer.
I would reiterate what the minister has said today about oleomargarine. How can I go back to my farmers after voting to the western farmers all that money? As the minister said this afternoon, the C.C.F. government told the farmers' union that they would not spend about $25,000 to provide butter instead of oleomargarine in their provincial institutions. They talk about the farmers sticking together. That is certainly a united front. I am ashamed of them.
May I call it six o'clock?


An hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: vould put it to the hon. member that there is a time limit to this debate.


Colin Emerson Bennett: It is hard to get wound up again. In finishing off this subject, this butter program has not cost us much money.


A few million dollars sounds like a good deal of money but it is a very insignificant sum as compared to what it has done for Canada. If it does turn out in two or three years that we develop a surplus-I believe the minister does not think we are going to develop a surplus-perhaps he might consider a wider base for dairy products support. Perhaps we could support powdered milk and cheese. We are always talking about increased help to the poor underprivileged countries in the east and one of the agricultural products we could ship there would be powdered milk. There are not many agricultural products that we can ship to the Far East.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Colin Emerson Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the amendment that we are considering and the subamendment are as follows. The amendment moved by the hon. member far Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) reads:
That all the words after "That" be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this house consideration should be given by the government to the advisability of introducing during the present session legislation to create a parity of prices for agricultural products at levels to ensure producers a fair price-cost relationship".
Then the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) moved his subamendment which reads:
That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding thereafter the following words:
"in such a manner as to provide for a fair share of the national income for agriculture".
The only reason that I read the amendment and the subamendment is that I cannot see that the subamendment adds anything to the amendment. I would think that the subamendment is redundant, Mr. Speaker. I do not expect you to rule on that point. But if parity means equality, then if there were parity prices as set out in the amendment it would naturally flow from that "in such manner as to provide for a fair share of the national income for agriculture". If you accept that parity means fair, then certainly the subamendment does not add anything to the amendment. There are of course two ideas about the word "parity". To me parity means par, something that is equal. But apparently there is another more technical meaning attached to the word "parity". The hon. member for Assiniboia sets out clearly what he and his party think the word "parity"

means. As reported at page 2026 of Hansard, the hon. member for Assiniboia said:
I want to point out to hon. members of this house that the concept of parity prices is that the government shall so regulate the prices of farm products as to give to agriculture an income which bears a very direct relationship to the income of other groups in our economy.
Then he goes on to chide the Conservative party for getting away from their free enterprise thinking. That kind of parity I do not believe in. I think it has been shown many times that it would be impossible for this government to set floor prices which would contain an inducement to produce. As I said before the dinner recess, our experience during the foot and mouth disease epidemic, when we literally got up to our necks in hogs because the floor price of 26 cents contained an element of profit, I think, was a lesson to all of us. Let us take, for example, potatoes. I would ask the hon. member for Assiniboia whether, if there were a fixed parity price for potatoes, which contained a profit element would not half of the whole province of Ontario be planted out in potatoes. I know that my county would be. I do not think you can work that conception of parity unless you have marketing boards and quotas. You must have control over production. If the resolution means that kind of parity, I am against it. But if it means parity prices, with the intent that the farmer shall get his fair share of the national income, I think everybody in the house is in favour of it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No; not everybody.


Colin Emerson Bennett: I am.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister is not in favour of it.


Colin Emerson Bennett: I have only another seven minutes and I do not want too much heckling.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Well, well, a privileged character.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member is speaking extremely slowly.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The hon. member wants to hand it out but he does not want to take it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Colin Emerson Bennett: I think we all want to see the farmer get his fair share of the national income.


Mr. Casileden:: Why don't you do something about it?


Colin Emerson Bennett: We want a balanced economy. We want all segments of the national economy to receive their fair share
Economic Position of Agriculture of the national income. I think that is obvious. I think every member of the house wants that.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Why don't you do something about it?


Colin Emerson Bennett: I am a small town lawyer and I know that most of my income comes from the farm districts. When they have money, I have a little bit also.
The government can help the farmer achieve this position but the farmers in my riding are beginning to realize more and more that they must help themselves. The government can offer floor supports. They can offer subsidies. They can pay premiums for grade. They can spend money in research. They can spend moneys to develop our markets, domestic and abroad. They can help the farmer by setting up machinery so that he can help himself; I refer to marketing legislation machinery. But the farmer must help himself and he knows that. He must concentrate on becoming better organized. By that I mean he must give more support and he must stick to his farm organization. In my riding there are two farm organizations. One is the farmers' union and the other is the Canadian federation of agriculture. I can say that there are good farm leaders in both those organizations and they are taking on their responsibilities as they should. As I said before supper, a good example of farmers not sticking together is for the C.C.P. government to buy oleomargarine for their provincial institutions. I am proud to be associated with a department that buys butter for its hospitals from coast to coast starting at Shaughnessy on the Pacific and ending in Camp Hill in Halifax. The farmer can also improve his efficiency by cutting costs. He can do a great deal towards developing a better marketing technique.
From my remarks you may think that I am hipped on this subject of marketing legislation. But unless the farmer markets his products in an orderly fashion, I submit you cannot help him too much in other ways. Marketing legislation and marketing boards of course do not constitute a panacea but I cannot help but think that in my own riding the one farmer who is particularly well off right now-at least he is much better off than are the rest-is the fluid milk producer, and he is well organized. He is under a quota system under provincial legislation. I should like to see that plan developed in other fields. I remember less than two or three years ago when the Ontario apple growers went to the Minister of Agriculture for help and he said, "How can we help you from here? You are just not organized". While I am talking about the Minister of Agriculture, may I say
2102	HOUSE OF
Economic Position of Agriculture that I could not help but think of the occasion when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) made that extremely abusive, unfortunate and irresponsible statement that he made a month ago when he said he could stand on Sparks street and throw snowballs and they would land on people who would make better cabinet ministers than we have in front of us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   Benneli@: I could not help but think that the arm of the Leader of the Opposition is not that strong. He would have to have an arm like Johnny Podres and Robin Roberts combined, and some more, because he would have to be able to throw from Sparks street a lot farther than the House of Commons, because as I look across the floor here I see nobody that can take the place of the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture has fought, battled, argued and scrapped for the farmer in connection with farm problems for 20 years now and for the sake of our farmers I hope he continues at his post. My time is running out. I just want to bring in the parliamentary assistant. He is our representative in Ontario and he has done a grand job in representing the farmers.
An hon Member: A mutual admiration society.


Mr. Bell:: Are you trying for a cabinet job?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Saved by the bell.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have just been informed by the Clerk that it is now 8.10 p.m. Under standing order 56, paragraph (d), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and forthwith to put the question on the amendments before the house.


Mr. Cameron (High Park):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
, Mr. Speaker:	The question now is on the
amendment to the main motion. Those who are in favour of the amendment will please
say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are opposed to
the amendment will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Do hon. members
consider that their members have been called in for the purpose of this division? Would the whips be kind enough to so indicate?



AGRICULTURE-FROST DAMAGE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting with a great deal of patience or impatience for the opportunity to present itself to bring before the house a particular grievance. This is a matter of real, vital concern to the residents of my particular area and therefore I feel justified at this time in bringing it to the attention of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: As only one hon. member is in possession of the floor there should be only one hon. member standing.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the debates which have taken place in the house during this session on agricultural problems. I have not taken part in those particular debates, but I believe there are two factors which might qualify me for doing so and which would warrant my participation in debates on agriculture. One is the fact that I was raised on a farm, a farm where they grew a lot of that wheat we have been hearing about, and the other is that I represent a predominantly agricultural area in British Columbia.
I have been endeavouring to fit into the general framework of our discussion this serious problem to which I :hould like to call attention at this time. It has to do with the serious situation which exists in British Columbia because of the exceptionally severe frosts which struck the province during November last year. Perhaps I should say that we are not used to having severe frosts in British Columbia at any time, and certainly last year was the exception. Not only did it come with great intensity, it came at an early period in the season when no one was expecting it or was prepared for it. The result was that the agricultural producers in my area and in other areas as well suffered very severe losses.
I should like to call attention to this situation tonight. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn) intends to make some remarks in this connection. I know that his remarks will be perhaps complementary to

mine and will carry forward some of the statements which I shall make at this time.
The problem which faces us is a serious one. Since these frosts occurred a number of briefs have been drawn up by various interested parties and groups of individuals for presentation to different organizations and governmental authorities. I have one here dealing with frost injury to nursery stock which was prepared by the Canadian association of nurserymen, British Columbia division, in co-operation with the Vancouver island association of nurserymen. It was compiled at the request of nurserymen operating in British Columbia and is the result of a fairly complete survey representing approximately 90 per cent of the nursery injury. It indicates the extent of the frost damage throughout the province and brings to the attention of governmental authorities the problem which the producers are facing. It asks also for financial assistance in one form or another. I should like to place on the record one paragraph from this particular brief to be found on page 2 which reads:
The resulting losses sustained by nurseries are of such a serious nature that the future of the industry is seriously threatened.
Some nurseries have lost up to 85 per cent of their total production not only for this year but also to their young stock coming along for future years. For example, cherry trees are among the most seriously damaged. The growers have lost all their one year trees which were ready for sale during fall 1955, spring 1956. They have lost a large proportion of the young stock coming along for 1956-57. It will therefore be 1957-58 before a normal crop will again be available and this will be contingent upon the nurserymen being able to finance through this period from 1955 to 1958 when returns from production of this crop should again commence coming in.
This same situation applies to peaches, apricots and some apple varieties although the damage is not as extensive as for cherries.
The estimated losses to nursery stock at wholesale prices for the different regions are as follows:
Vancouver island	 $ 75,455.70
Lower mainland	 210,159.65
Interior	 73,757.00
Total	 $359,372.35
We must realize that not only have severe losses been suffered by those engaged in this industry; there will be repercussions in various other fields as well. Employment may be threatened, as already some of the grower nurseries have laid off approximately 80 per cent of their field staff. As I intimated at the beginning of my remarks, this brief states that as a result of the frost losses this industry is in grave danger of extinction. Part of the last paragraph of the brief reads:
Assistance of a very concrete nature is urgently needed and this submission is made in the hope

that help will be forthcoming and that it will be of a nature appropriate to the gravity of the situation.
That has to do only with the production of nursery stock,	one	particular	phase of	theindustry in British	Columbia.	I should	like
to call attention as well to the losses suffered by the berry growers of British Columbia, especially the strawberry growers who have suffered a crippling blow. The bureau of statistics gives the following farm value of strawberry production in different years:
1952		 $2,163,000
1953		 2,716,000
1954		 2,531,000
Raspberry growers also suffered seriously from the frost, and in the case of this group the production values are as follows:
1952		 $1,256,000
1953		 1,702,000
1954		 1,791,000
We can see by this that this is an industry that is vital to the economy of British Columbia and certainly, speaking for my own riding of Fraser Valley, it is of tremendous importance to us in that section. The estimated loss, as far as the strawberry stock is concerned, is just about 100 per cent. The estimated loss for raspberries for the coming year would be 80 per cent, and possibly that loss would be reduced a little each year as they get back into production.
We can see that this is a very serious problem which our producers are facing at this time. A table has been drawn up. I am not going to take time to read it but, unless assistance is forthcoming, the total estimated losses are as follows: for 1955, $2,214,070; for 1956, $7,086,500. The estimated loss between 1955 and 1960 is $17,244,570.
Following the disaster last fall, meetings were held in the various sections of the Fraser valley to consider what steps should be taken and what approach should be made to the governments in their quest for assistance under these difficult circumstances. It was decided at some of these meetings to make an appeal to the provincial government of British Columbia, and that was done.
Following the appeal to the provincial government, they decided to carry the matter further by an appeal to the federal government for some type of assistance. On February 9 I asked the Minister of Agriculture in this house whether he had received a request from the representatives of the berry growing industry for a meeting, and the reply I received at that time was that the Minister of Agriculture had received communications in this respect from the representatives of the berry growers and he had also received a communication from the provincial government.
13. 1956	2105
Agriculture-Frost Damage in B.C.
Following that particular question and answer, the situation just carried on for a brief time, but there were certain communications that passed between the representatives of the berry industry and myself and also some other authorities. The result was that the delegation came to Ottawa and had a meeting with the Minister of Agriculture. The reaction was very encouraging. At least, the delegation felt it was making good headway and had received a very fair and very fine reception from the Minister of Agriculture.
Another meeting was planned for the following day. Following that meeting, their hopes were shattered. Instead of being met with smiles from the summit, those smiles had turned to frowns. The next time I saw the delegation, they remarked to me that they had received a very spectacular brush-off. As they discussed the situation and as they considered their next steps, they felt the Minister of Agriculture had given them very little hope of any assistance from the federal government. In fact, he gav*e them the impression that this was a provincial responsibility and that the provincial authorities were quite capable of looking after the situation.
I appreciate the fact that he commended the British Columbia government so highly in this respect, but anyway he implied that there would not be any help coming from this source, that is, from the federal government. However, in order to get the matter clear I asked another question of the Minister of Agriculture on February 28. The question is as follows:
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Could the minister comment at this time on the results of his recent conversations with the representatives of the British Columbia berry and small fruits growers?
You will note that I asked the question, "Could the minister comment on the results?" but all he did was comment on the meeting. He gave an answer that was neither illuminating nor-


An hon. Member:: Nor intelligent.


Alexander Bell Patterson: It has been suggested "nor intelligent". I was not going to use quite that term, but certainly, when I asked what I considered to be a sensible question, and I asked it in a courteous manner, I thought I would get an answer that was at least somewhat intelligent and helpful.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member is new around here.
2106	HOUSE OF
Agriculture-Frost Damage in B.C.


Mr.   Paiierson@: Here is the answer, as recorded on page 1613 of Hansard:


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his Question.
Perhaps if I had not I would have gotten a better answer.
Representatives of the British Columbia berry and small fruits growers discussed their problems with the provincial authorities before coming to Ottawa and expressed their intention of doing so again on their return to British Columba, after which we will probably hear from them again.


An hon. Member:: What does that mean?


Alexander Bell Patterson: That was really a masterpiece of an answer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He was probably misquoted.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I was slow on the draw. I should have asked a supplementary question, but I sat rather dumbfounded that the Minister of Agriculture would give such an answer in connection with a matter in this category. Anyway it more or less confirmed what the representatives of the growers had said, that this government was not going to do very much to help them out in this particular situation. I have a clipping of an editorial from the Abbotsford, Sumas and Matsqui News, printed in my home town of Abbotsford. It is headed "The Berry Grower's Case" and states:
The berry Industry did not ask for a handout. It asked for a measure of government support, either loans or guarantees of loans, so growers could finance purchase of new stock, fertilizers and insecticides to get themselves back in business.
This is the particular section to which I wish to refer:
If a man becomes indigent, they-
That is, government funds through various agencies.
-are available.
If a man is unemployed, they are available.
If he is injured and unable to work, they are available.
We recognize that in some of the instances cited the people who receive benefits have themselves contributed a portion of the funds upon which they may draw. But the point we are making is that government assistance, in part or whole, is no new principle in our national life.
Then it goes on to state this:
It seems eminently sensible to the News to recognize the same principle when a fruit grower needs help. If loans will help hundreds of valley fruit men get back on their feet the government will be doing a good piece of business in making them available.
A little further on it states:
With help, this situation can be met. Without help, the Fraser valley is likely to see the last of an important industry. The fruit industry is not in 

a good position to pull itself up by the bootstraps, because a large volume of tonnage is moved by grower-organizations.
As the newspapers are looking at the situation they feel that, under the circumstances, the berry growers of my area are entitled to some consideration and some assistance at this time. Another paragraph in this same editorial states this:
In Washington, just a few miles away governments have recognized the importance of their fruit industry. They have made long term, low interest loans available to both fruit growers and the businesses that supply them.
As the growers in my area are faced with this difficult situation in which they have suffered loss-as far as their strawberry stock is concerned they suffered 100 per cent loss and in respect of other types of berries and small fruits they have suffered serious loss 

I want to suggest that this government should be in a position to render some assistance and to help tide them over this difficult period in which they find themselves. We have discussed other agricultural problems. We have discussed agriculture in other sections. During past days we have passed legislation with respect to giving help and assistance. Hence I feel that we are not out of order in requesting that the government take this matter under advisement and stand ready to give assistance to the berry growers and the nursery men in the province of British Columbia.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, in their annual presentation to the Prime Minister of Canada and members of the cabinet, Ottawa, February 14, 1956, had this to say in paragraph 3 on page 13:
To establish a policy for providing emergency or disaster credit on an interest-free basis where the nature and extent of a farmer's loss justifies the granting of such credit. It should be noted in this connection that the growing demand for some disaster loan legislation was reflected again this year, in resolutions coming before the federation's annual convention. Because of the fact that there is no existing credit legislation to cover emergency situations of this kind, it is a matter of the most immediate and vital importance that such legislation be provided. The extensive losses due to frost suffered by strawberry and other fruit, vegetable and flower growers in B.C. is a case in point, and the damage was sufficiently severe that U.S. coastal states, struck by the same frosts, were declared emergency disaster areas by the United States government.
I want to make it clear that these farmers, like the farmers in other areas, are not asking for handouts. I just want to refer to the brief of a group of Fraser valley small fruit farmers presented to the minister of agriculture of the province of British Columbia

with regard to the freeze-out of small fruits and allied crops. On page 4 there is this significant statement:
When a large group of fanners are in financial straits, all businesses in their communities suffer likewise but if financial aid is forthcoming to the farmer, he, and his community, can carry on at a nearer to normal level. Although suffering great losses, the berry growers at the aforementioned meetings stated they did not wish to receive grants in the form of financial aid but rather, as a free enterprise industry, they stand on their own feet and meet this crisis in the normal manner of securing a loan to rehabilitate themselves.
Let me therefore state again that they are not asking for just a handout but that they are asking that credit facilities be placed at their disposal whereby they can again get into business and carry on with the normal processes of agriculture. Just to make this point clear and to emphasize what their request really is,. I refer to page 2 of the brief prepared for the federal Minister Of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) for the government of the Dominion of Canada and submitted by this delegation that was down here recently. The brief states as follows:
It is with the above serious situation in mind,-
They are referring to the losses and also to the cost of rehabilitating the industry:
-we formally request the government of the Dominion of Canada to take steps to prepare the necessary legislation which will make immediately available long term low interest loans and/or government backed bank loans to those sections of the agricultural industry who require assistance.
Mr. Speaker, I have given some consideration to various measures, wondering whether it would be possible to fit this objective in within the framework of any of the existing legislation such as the farm loan act or the farm improvement act, but it seems as though some amendment will be necessary in order to accomplish that objective. I may be wrong in my deduction but it would appear to me that that would be the case. Just to mention some of the obstacles in the way of coverage through the farm loan act, there is the matter of the first mortgage; and I might say that this would constitute an extremely serious handicap or obstacle because of the fact that there are a number of the farms that already are mortgaged. Again, the assessed value of farms under this particular measure are still too low to bring the necessary help to these farmers. Certainly the interest rates are far too high. That matter has been mentioned in other connections as well. Then there is the matter of the time required to appraise all the farms that would be affected in these particular circumstances. I notice that under the regulations the assessments would be made between May 1 and December 1 and,
Agriculture-Frost Damage in B.C. they state, not while any snow was on the ground. Unfortunately we still have some snow in British Columbia, I understand. Nevertheless, the delay that would be occasioned by assessing all these individual farms would carry the matter far beyond the time when assistance would bring the desired results.
As we look at the particular act I have mentioned, it seems as though its provisions would not be sufficient to bring the assistance that is needed. It may be possible, I am not sure, that under the Farm Improvement Loans Act some assistance may be given. But again, I have been unable to see just where these conditions would fit in under the regulations made under that particular measure.
Coming back, Mr. Speaker, to the meeting of the delegation with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) I may say they were under the impression-perhaps the minister will correct me if I am wrong or if they are wrong-that the minister said that so far no proposals had been forthcoming from the provincial government.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that, Mr. Speaker, because I had a telegram and a letter from them on my desk.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Thank you, Mr. Minister; that helps a little. But certainly the delegation were of the opinion that that was one of the obstacles. They felt that was one of the things that stood in the way of favourable consideration, the fact that no proposals had been received from the provincial government.


James Garfield Gardiner: I might give the whole story. When the delegation came to see me, I was under the impression they had received the letter.


Mr.   Patierson@: Pardon me, I cannot hear.


James Garfield Gardiner: When the delegation came to see me, I was under the impression they had already received the letter. I found out the following morning the letter had not gone out from the office, so I sent it over to the hotel.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Thank you. Well, the provincial government certainly had, as the minister states now, made some representation. I know they were subjected to a little criticism in some sections of British Columbia because they had not backed up the growers' request. The reply the minister gave to my first question was that he had received a communication from the provincial government in that respect.
I should like to refer to the proposals the provincial government made to the federal
2108	HOUSE OF
Agriculture-Frost Damage in B.C. government. I have a copy of the telegram that was sent to the minister on February 4, in which the British Columbia minister of agriculture referred to his previous letter of January 17 concerning abnormally heavy losses of small fruit plantings in this province resulting from unusually heavy freezing. The telegram goes on:
I am directed to advise you government of British Columbia prepared initiate legislation authorizing agreements with government of Canada along following lines quote when abnormal conditions of drought flood or frost cause losses of crops over an area sufficiently large in the opinion of the minister to cause a condition jeopardizing livelihood of substantial number of producers concerned and seriously affecting economy of that portion of the province or where in a livestock producing area the same conditions create similar situations the minister may declare such area a distress area. Government of British Columbia prepared following declaration and gazetting any such area enter into agreement with government of Canada share equally in guarantee to chartered banks against loss from loans made to bona fide farmers in the area within specified time under Farm Improvement Loans Act or other appropriate legislation for purpose of replanting or purchasing feed for livestock. Guarantee would apply only to loans made to producers where farm operation concerned major source of income. Guarantee would not apply areas where other federal or provincial legislation provided insurance against any or all conditions indicated unquote. My government will appreciate earliest possible consideration this matter and advice your government prepared to collaborate in such a policy of rehabilitation and assistance. Would appreciate you arranging have senior officials your department and department of finance visit this province to confer with us.
That is one telegram. Then another telegram, of which this is a copy, was sent to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris). It deals with the same matter and submits somewhat the same proposal. I feel that the growers in these areas have made their representation very clear. I do not think they are asking anything that is not fair. They are only asking that they have placed at their disposal facilities by which they can acquire low interest long-term loans in order to rehabilitate this vital industry. I say that farmers in other areas are receiving such aid. Legislation has been passed for that purpose. I certainly feel that now the growers of British Columbia have made their position clear and presented their request, this government should give careful consideration to their request and come to the assistance of the farmers at this time. I know it will be greatly appreciated by all those who have suffered from this catastrophe.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: do not intend. Mr. Speaker, to occupy the 40 minutes that I might occupy on this important subject because I realize other members in this house are waiting for an opportunity to endorse, at least I hope they will endorse, 

the sentiments so ably expressed by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) on behalf of the small fruit growers of British Columbia. I sometimes feel it might be about time the farmers of Canada had a Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) who represented other than a wheat growing area. There are far more farmers in Canada who do not grow wheat than there are farmers who grow wheat. Most of the time that is spent in this house on agriculture is devoted to the single subject of wheat. I feel that is regrettable and that the farmers of Canada have wider interests.


Mr. Lesage:: How about telling that to your friends?


Erhart Regier: I do not wish to express any disagreement with the needs of the wheat farmers. Granted they have needs, but there are other sections of agriculture that are also under the responsibility of the minister. I feel that ever since he assumed that office he has not paid fair attention to these other sections of Canadian agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: You ought to follow me around.


Erhart Regier: The minister says I have not been around long enough.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I did not say that. I said you ought to follow me around and see how far I do go.


Erhart Regier: I might inform the minister I have followed his political activities even before the days when he became the federal Minister of Agriculture. I feel that the case, which was so ably brought to the attention of this house by the hon. member for Fraser Valley, is one which merits more serious consideration than has thus far been displayed by the minister. I think the two answers he gave to the hon. member for Fraser Valley as found on pages 997 and 1613 of Hansard, are a clear indication of the complete disregard he has for farmers who live in areas of Canada other than the prairie provinces. I was pleased to see him answer on February 9 that the questions involved are under consideration. However, I was disgusted when I saw the reply he gave on page 1613, when he said that it was their intention to see once more the provincial authorities on their return to British Columbia, after which he would probably hear from them again. I do not know whether he had in mind that he would be hearing from them again on the floor of this house. However, I do hope that the rest of the time this evening will be devoted exclusively to letting the minister hear from the farmers on the floor of this house.

We in the C.C.F. group are ever willing to support any section of the Canadian population that is adversely affected by conditions beyond their control. We are on the record on innumerable occasions asking the government to help our people who are adversely affected. Only the other day I indicated that I was in full accord in the main with the activities of the fisheries prices support board. We have been consistent supporters of the Unemployment Insurance Act, under which workers who lose their source of income through no fault of their own are assured of at least a minimum income. In this instance several thousand farmers have suffered terrific losses. I am not going to bother the house with any figures. The hon. member for Fraser Valley has ably placed them on the record. However, when you have a group of farmers whose plants have been wiped out to the extent of 75 per cent to 80 per cent, who have no hope of income in 1956, and very little hope of any income in 1957, I feel the subject should not become a matter of political expediency, as I am afraid this may well have become.
I noted the remarks of the hon. member for Fraser Valley with regard to how these farmers might possibly be helped. I do not need to comment upon that. I am sure the minister is resourceful enough to find ways and means of using the existing legislation, or asking the house to amend existing legislation, so that the help that is asked for might be forthcoming.
I should like to remind the government that if this catastrophe had hit almost any other section of the Canadian economy the people would have been running to Ottawa asking for a handout. I should like to commend the berry growers on their modest appeal. On page 4 of the brief that they prepared initially for presentation, as is proper, to their own minister of agriculture in British Columbia, they said:
They did not wish to receive grants in the form of financial aid.
Farther on they said:
They stand on their own feet and wish to meet this crisis in the normal manner of securing a loan to rehabilitate themselves.
I would have thought that an appeal of such a nature might find some measure of response.
I notice in the press that the attitude of the government seems to be that this is something that is not beyond the abilities of the government of British Columbia to deal with. I agree it is not beyond the abilities of the government of British Columbia adequately to meet the situation. However, Mr. Speaker, I see no reason why the government of British Columbia should be asked to
Agriculture-Frost Damage in B.C. assume the whole responsibility of helping these farmers. In many other instances we have had the federal government helping out where the provincial government was also able by itself to take care of the situation. I am thinking of the flash flood that occurred in the city of Toronto at the time of "Hurricane Hazel". Nobody can tell me that the government of Ontario was so hard up that it would have been unable to meet the situation. However, the federal government- and I am pleased to note this-did not hesitate to share a part of the load at that time. I can think of a number of other disasters that hit people in various parts of Canada, and the local governments were well able to look after the situation. I cannot blame the government of British Columbia for asking the federal government to share the risk that might be involved in meeting these very modest demands of the berry farmers on a fifty-fifty basis.
If I have any complaint at all about the government of British Columbia in this matter it is that it introduced a bill in the British Columbia legislature and obtained the consent of that legislature under which the government is authorized to spend up to a certain amount of money to guarantee loans to those farmers if the federal government will share the risk with them. I feel that the condition which they attached to their bill completely ties their hands so that in the event that Ottawa turns them down-and I hope Ottawa will not turn them down in the long run-the British Columbia government will be unable to render the help that these farmers so badly need.
I feel the British Columbia government made a mistake. They should have left the door wide open so that if the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) continues to think this is a relatively unimportant problem, unworthy of his attention, the government of British Columbia would be able to act on its own and look after the situation.
I know the favourite reply that we often get from the government on difficulties of this kind. It is that if people cannot make their living in this way they should turn to something else.
Again I should like to refer to the brief- I will not read it-which very adequately points out why these berry farmers are unable to follow the advice that is so glibly given to them to start growing vegetables or potatoes. They point out that they are unable to render effective competition to the mass produced vegetables from other more favourable areas of the province and south of the border. There might be some substance to the advice to them to plant something else if the Minister of Trade and

Agriculture-Frost Damage in B.C. Commerce (Mr. Howe) would be a little more considerate of the vegetable and potato growers of British Columbia. If his tariff policies were such that they might have reason to believe that they could make a living by growing vegetables and potatoes, I am sure the farmers would gladly comply. However, as in most other respects, he seems determined to sell out Canadian interests to United States interests. Therefore, in effect, this advice to the berry farmers to grow vegetables and potatoes is ill founded, and I do not blame the berry farmers for hesitating to switch to anything else. The replantings of strawberries and raspberries are needed at the present time. The market is running short and we have to import these fruits. I think the growers have a good case when they say their future depends on the replanting of their traditional crops.
I have taken some 15 minutes, Mr. Speaker, to make these few remarks. As I indicated before, there are other speakers who are at least as concerned about the problem as I am, and in concluding I would like to repeat the plea to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that he consider other sections of Canadian agriculture besides the prairie provinces. I should also like to address a plea to both the Social Credit and the Liberal parties not to play politics with each other at the expense of the berry farmers of British Columbia.


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) suggested that I would be complimentary but he did not indicate whether that was going to be spelled with an "i" or an "e". I am satisfied that the hon. members in this house, as stated by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier), recognize what a fine job he did in presenting the case of the fruit growers of the lower Fraser valley and Vancouver island as well, of course.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam suggested there might be some playing of politics between the Liberal and Social Credit parties in respect to this matter.


Erhart Regier: I said I hoped there would not be any.


Frederick George Hahn: Thank you. I think if the hon. member were completely familiar with what was taking place with respect to the conditions in which this brief was presented to the federal government at least he would recognize that nobody was playing politics with this particular group of people. I for one would very much condemn any group who would feel that this is a good time to play


politics especially when these people are finding things so difficult and when they need so much help in order to get back into business once again.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley did mention one point I would very much like to complement, and here I use the "e" spelling, and that is the loss that would be incurred from 1955 to 1960 as referred to in the brief that was presented to the federal minister of agriculture. This amounts to $17,244,570. That is a long-term loss which is going to be incurred over the next few years unless these fruit growers go back into business immediately. The most important part of the difficulty, of course, is getting them reestablished. It is not a matter of an over-all loss of $17 million at this time but it will mean a loss of production in that amount.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam indicated that he did not wish to take too much time in making his remarks because he felt there would be others who would want to take part in this discussion. I am most interested in hearing from the Minister of Agriculture in order to see whether or not he has given any further consideration to this particular question, and therefore I hope to make my remarks brief and give him an opportunity to reply. In respect to this question, however, the minister indicated earlier today that he received a representation from the delegation of fruit growers which approached him. He told them that the problem was a provincial one. In listening to him I was under the impression that he said if the British Columbia government passed enabling legislation something might be done in this matter.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) indicated today, and I was advised earlier, that there is legislation on the statute books of British Columbia. I am not sure that what he said is completely correct, but I suppose it is, but he indicated that the British Columbia government is prepared to back bank loans to be made to farmers to set them up in business again. I would be interested in discovering whether the federal government is prepared to assume its share of losses if any are incurred in the repayment of these loans at future date. Is it willing to accept its responsibilties?
The delegation which came to visit the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was received most kindly. As the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) indicated, they were quite optimistic the first day they were here. I understand it was suggested that they remain overnight to see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris). It would appear to me that the purpose would be to see a member

of the treasury board to discover whether or not means could be found of passing the buck. I was not just sure which way it was going to turn out. However, when they returned the next day the members who interviewed the Minister of Agriculture decided that the buck was being passed back to the provincial government.


An hon. Member:: It was passed the other way.


Frederick George Hahn: The buck was passed from the federal government to the provincial government. It is a little difficult to understand these things.


An hon. Member:: It will not sink in.


Frederick George Hahn: It will sink in about the next election.


An hon. Member:: This would not be a political speech you are making?


Frederick George Hahn: No, this is not a political speech; I simply want to ask the support of Liberals in this house on this matter. That is all I am asking for on behalf of the people of British Columbia. British Columbia is my province and it is the province of the hon. member who is making these interjections.


An hon. Member:: The provincial house is sitting.


Frederick George Hahn: The fact of the matter is that this is an opportunity to bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture as I am doing at this time. It is my intention to try to get from the minister a statement as to whether or not he is prepared to give the assistance asked for by the fruit and berry producers provided the British Columbia government passed the necessary enabling legislation. It may be that this legislation is not exactly what the minister hopes for. If it is not, I hope he will tell us when he gets up just what kind of legislation he expects the province of British Columbia to pass so that in future they can be guided.
As the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam indicated, I am satisfied that these farmers want only an opportunity to borrow money. I checked the farm loan aot and the Farm Improvement Loans Act to see if there was anything that could be used. It may be that either one of these acts requires amending and it may be that the minister intends to bring in such amendments. We have not yet seen the Farm Improvement Loans Act amendments. In any event I am satisfied that the question is an urgent one and needs attention today, not tomorrow. This is not one of those things that should be allowed to run over for a few years.
Agriculture-Frost Damage in B.C.
The fact that there may be no berry crop in British Columbia will be felt not only in that province but by the housewives of Alberta, Saskatchewan and the western part of Manitoba. The people in those areas get most of their berries from that particular region. I am quite familiar with this because I was in the business of selling groceries on the prairies. I lived for a time in Medicine Hat and I saw berries which had come from Mission in British Columbia. I am quite satisfied that if you were to go over the province of Saskatchewan and western Manitoba you would find that they get a good portion of their fruit from that particular region.
The urgency of this question is apparent. In the Vancouver Province of January 9 there was an article entitled "Fruit, Nurserymen Seek Frost Loss Aid". I have not the time to read all of this article, but there are one or two points that I think should be brought out. It states;
"Full extent of the damage Is only now becoming apparent," said R. H. Williams of Victoria, president of Vancouver Island Nurserymen's Association.
"Fraser valley strawberry growers alone have lost 16,000,000 plants", he claimed.
"That alone is a disaster. It means they can produce no crop this year even if the plants are replaced."
The Department of Agriculture operates an experimental farm at Agassiz and undoubtedly the minister has been advised by the officials of that farm, who are most efficient in their way, that their nursery stock is gone, that they have no berry plants which might be supplied to the lower Fraser valley. If we are going to get plants it is necessary that enabling legislation be passed now or some form of assistance be made available to these farmers. This should be done now, not later in the year, because this is the time when farmers must set out new plants, otherwise they will lose another full year. This article goes on:
The position of the B.C. industries is worsened "because competitors in Washington and Oregon are to get federal aid,'' said another man.
"Those states, which also suffered in the frost, were declared to be disaster areas. So their growers' losses are being made good. We shall face their competition at a time when we can't possibly meet it unless we get help."
These particular farmers are not asking for financial help in the form of a grant; they are not asking for $30 million in the form of storage facilities or anything like that; all they want is what this government has been trying to press upon the farmers of the prairie provinces, that is, an opportunity to borrow. The government suggested that the prairie farmers be granted loans instead

Agriculture-Frost Damage in B.C. of advances, but these people do not want advances. All they want is the opportunity to borrow, and I submit that they have a just claim.
My grievance is that no means are made available whereby these people who are distressed may be able to stay in business. With this in mind, on January 30 I placed on the order paper a motion reading as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of setting up a committee composed of federal, provincial and municipal authorities or their representatives for the purpose of studying the problems of and determining what constitutes a disaster area in Canada.
I do not intend to debate that particular resolution at this time. As the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam mentioned earlier, it was considered desirable to give the people who suffered from "Hurricane Hazel" some assistance, and I submit that the same considerations should apply here. Only 3 per cent of the land of British Columbia is arable and most of the farmers of the province live in this particular area on 3,500 small farms. Those farmers are in dire need.
It is just twelve minutes to ten o'clock and I have only two short items that I wish to place before the minister in respect to this matter. The first is in the form of a brief, a copy of which I am satisfied the minister has. This reads in part:
It is with the above serious situation in mind, we formally request the government of the dominion of Canada to take steps to prepare the necessary legislation which will make immediately available long-term low interest loans and/or government backed bank loans to those sections of the agricultural industry who require assistance.
We hear a great deal about the federation of agriculture and the requests that it has made to the minister and the government. Reference has been made to some of those requests at an earlier date. The February 1956 issue of Country Life in British Columbia, a British Columbia publication, had this to say:
To meet disastrous situations a special type of federal government credit agency should be formed to be known as the agricultural emergency loan administration.
I do not intend to read any more of that because I am satisfied the minister is fairly familiar with it because he has been listening to the debates in this house. I feel quite sure that it would not be necessary to pass a completely new act as other means must be available or the Farm Improvement Loans Act could be amended in order that money could be put into the hands of these farmers so that they could put in their berry plants. I should like to have the minister comment upon the legislation the British Columbia


government has passed in respect to making loans available to these farmers.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, one of the hon.
members who spoke a few minutes ago made the suggestion that we should do the same for farmers everywhere as we do for the wheat farmers, that we should give them the same consideration. This particular matter has to do with the obtaining of plants to be planted at the right time of the year for those who have had plants destroyed by frost.
We have had similar situations on previous occasions on the prairies and in other parts of Canada and they have always been looked after by the provincial governments. Someone said something about politics in connection with this, but it has not made any difference what political party was in power in the particular province. As I say, matters of this kind have been looked after by the provinces and provincial legislation has taken care of them.
For example, during the years when they had no crops on the prairie provinces and it was difficult to obtain seed, provision for obtaining that seed was made by the provincial governments at a cost of millions of dollars.


An hon. Member:: Who paid for it?


James Garfield Gardiner: Someone asks, "Who paid
for it?" Members from Saskatchewan who are here ought to know who paid for it because it was partly on that issue that they won the province. The provincial governments paid the bill right through.
The matter of dealing with people in British Columbia will be handled just the same as it is anywhere else in Canada. All that was suggested to them was that this was a matter in connection with which the provincial government should take action. Even the delegation which was here understood that. The first letter that I had from the delegation was to the effect that they had seen the provincial government and they did not think that government was going to assume their responsibilities and therefore they came to us. When they got here I discussed the matter with them as I would discuss any matter with anyone who came here. I told them that the matter would be taken up with the treasury and others and I would give them an answer the following day. As I stated a few moments ago, I found that the letter which it was intended should go forward to them before had not left the office. I sent it to the hotel, and they obtained it, I presume, either that night or the following morning. I am not sure they actually came

back, but if they did they were only there for a very short time. But the suggestion was that they should discuss the matter further with the province, and we expected that we would probably hear more about it. So far as I know, we have not heard any more about it, and I assume somebody out there is dealing with the problem.
It is purely a provincial matter and always has been. The federal government never does say in connection with any matter brought in from the provinces that we will not even consider it. We listen to what they have to say, and, where it is a matter that should be looked after provincially, we simply say that, and sometimes that is the last we hear of it. At other times the province takes action and still asks us to help pay for it. In this particular case, as the hon. member has just said, it is a matter of guaranteeing loans of a certain kind in order to be able to buy plants. It is much the same in principle as the loans that were made to farmers to permit them to buy seed in other parts of the country. They eventually pay off these loans in some way or other.
I do not know that there is anything more I can say about it. I do not know whether or not we shall hear any more about it. If we do, we shall give whatever consideration we can to it and give advice along the same lines as in other parts of Canada. We are not going to make an exception of the case. We do not think this is something that is so costly or so difficult to arrange that the province is not able to do it. Knowing, as we do, it is a responsibility of the provinces, we think they should take action.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resiigouche-Madawaska):: In the remaining few minutes I should like to deal very briefly with a problem that has become increasingly important in northern New Brunswick. It has to do with unemployment insurance.
The information I have gathered in the survey I have made across the northern part of New Brunswick in regard to unemployment insurance comes from employees and officials employed by the unemployment insurance commission itself. One of the gravest problems with which we have to deal is the fact that we do not have reciprocity in regard to unemployment insurance with the state of Maine.
The state of Maine is one of two states in all the United States of America that does not have unemployment insurance reciprocity with Canada. At the moment 1,800 men from the county of Madawaska and 6,000 men from all over Canada have been employed in Maine
Unemployment Insurance and are being denied unemployment insurance merely because this government has not taken steps to enter into reciprocity agreements with the state of Maine or, if it has entered into negotiations with the state of Maine, they have not been successful in getting that state to accept reciprocity with Canada. Our people who work there have to pay unemployment insurance; yet when they come back home they cannot collect unemployment insurance benefits.
Another very great problem, which I think has been brought up by several members on the other side of the house recently, had to do with the directives of the unemployment insurance commission in forcing men to go many hundreds of miles away from their homes to work under conditions that prohibit them from earning enough money to live, let alone enabling them to buy their tickets back home. Four hundred or five hundred people from the county of Restigouche were requested to go to La Tuque to cut pulpwood. Some did go, but were unable to earn enough money to buy their tickets back home. Some of them suffered many hardships, having to live in camps where they were improperly treated and the food was insufficient.
As I think has been brought up by several Liberal members recently, this dictatorship in the unemployment insurance commission must be forced to cease immediately. We cannot continue to force our people to accept employment many hundreds of miles away from their homes under conditions that prevent them from earning a living.
Another matter I wish to bring out this evening is this. Until two years ago, people cutting pulpwood on farms, that is, cutting pulpwood for farmers on farmers' lots, were able to get unemployment insurance. Two years ago this was abolished. I do not know why, but one thing is very certain. There was some suggestion at the time that abuses had crept in. I ask, are we going to prohibit driving on our highways because the odd man exceeds the speed limit? Are we going to abolish credit because the odd man does not pay his bills? Are we going to prohibit one class of people from unemployment insurance because possibly a few abuses have occurred? I am not denying those abuses, but I am saying that they in themselves, however true, are not sufficient to deny these people unemployment insurance benefits as a group.
Another point I wish to bring out in the next few minutes that remain to me is this. When I asked the Minister of Labour some weeks ago questions regarding unemployment insurance, the information that I had and on which my question was based came from officials and employees in the unemployment
2114	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance insurance offices themselves. They were bombarded with complaints and questions because of the tie-up and delays that were occurring in the unemployment insurance office in Moncton. This was very true. The minister answered my question three weeks after I asked him. There is no question but that in that time action had been taken to remove the causes of delay.
If the minister had taken time to inquire, he would have found out also that the R.C.M.P. had been sent to the Campbellton office to inquire and investigate and be on hand when a disturbance there threatened. These items may not appear to you, Mr. Speaker, to warrant the special few remarks that I am making here tonight, but I say that with all the approximately 6,000 people on unemployment insurance in northern New Brunswick, mostly in my riding, there are another 4,000 or 5,000 people in my riding who should be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits and who are not receiving them.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: I just want to touch upon two points made by the hon. member. One was that the Minister of Labour had delayed for two weeks before replying to the hon. member's question. I did delay for a total of seven sitting days. I delayed for those seven sitting days because it was not until then that the hon. member was in his seat to receive an answer to the question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the minister permit a question?


Mr. Speaker:: It is now ten o'clock. Do hon. members-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member cannot speak twice. Having spoken once he cannot later intervene in the debate, even for the purpose of moving the adjournment. I should like to submit to hon. members that there are being carried over from a former debate ten minutes which may be carried over again unless hon. members give unanimous consent to spend those ten minutes now. If hon. members are not agreeable, they will be carried over.


George Alexander Drew: Can they be carried over?


Mr. Speaker:: As it is ten o'clock, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the main motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence services-
235. To provide for the Canadian forces, the defence research board and other expenditures relating to defence, including contributions toward the military costs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; to authorize expenditures in the current year out of the amount hereby provided, not exceeding $143,000,000, Under the provisions of section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, and to provide that, notwithstanding subsection (3) of that section, where equipment or supplies are transferred, the estimated present value thereof shall be credited to this vote instead of being paid into the special account mentioned in the said subsection (3), and when so credited may be expended for the purposes of the Canadian forces; and notwithstanding section 30 of The Financial Administration Act to authorize total commitments for the foregoing purposes of $3,470,423,461 regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $1,675,484,744 will come due for payment in future years), $1,722,797,717.


Walter Edward Harris: Stand.
Item stands.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
344. Departmental administration, $1,128,150.
Walter Edward Harris: Stand.
Item stands.



DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
498. Departmental administration, $2,215,472.
Walter Edward Harris: Stand.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall take the motion to set up the committee on atomic energy, then the second reading of the bill to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act, then the resolution in my name with respect to farm improvement loans.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister care to tell us what will happen on Thursday?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes. We will take the Trans-Canada pipe line resolution on Thursday.


[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

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

Mr. Zapliiny: 1.	Has the government, or any department thereof, entered into an agreement with the government of the province of Manitoba, or any department thereof, for the purpose of constructing or maintaining drainage and/or conservation projects in 1956?
2.	If so, what amount of money has the government committed under the said agreement?
3.	What is the nature and location of each such project?
4.	What amount of money is the government to contribute with respect to each said project?
Answer by: Mr. Pinard:
1.	No.
2,	3 and 4. See answer to No. 1.


TREASURY LIABILITY WRITE-OFF, SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Leboe: What is the total dollar value of treasury bills and other liabilities of the Saskatchewan government that have been cancelled by the dominion government since 1944?
Answer by: Mr. Harris:
, Pursuant to the provisions of the Western Provinces Treasury Bills and Natural Resources Settlement Act, chapter 77 of the statutes of 1947, treasury bills of the province of Saskatchewan in the amount of $36,336,797.79 were written off in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1948.


RESERVE ARMY STATISTICS
Mr. Bell: Questions
Summer camp attendance of the militia by
commands:	1953	1954	1955Eastern 	. .. 2,588	2,070	3,750Quebec ....	. .. 3,255	2,588	4,398Central ....	. .. 5,964	8,702	7,561Prairie ....	. . . 1,212	1,312	2,245Western ...	.. . 1,549	1,921	2,614Total 	... 14,568	16,593	20,568


C.B.C. &quot;TABLOID&quot; PROGRAM, FEBRUARY 6
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 225
Mr. Fleming:: 1.	Did the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation telecast on CBL-T.V. "Tabloid" program on Monday, February 6, a film of a marriage which was solemnized on February 4?
2.	If so, who approved of this broadcast on behalf of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
3.	Was any remuneration paid to any of those participating in the ceremony?
4.	What was the cost of the program, by items?
5.	Are any more of such programs contemplated?
6.	Does the government consider such programs in good taste on television?
Answer by: Mr. McCann:
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation advises as follows:
1.	On February 6, "Tabloid" carried filmed sequences, of approximately six minutes duration, which dealt with the wedding of one of the participants regularly appearing in the "Tabloid" program.
2.	This broadcast was approved by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which has full responsibility for it.
3.	No.
4.	Total cost of "Tabloid" program for this
occasion:
Performers' fees	 $190.00
Production staff, studios, and
technical facilities	 337.00
Staging and design	 48.00
Film	 186.00
What was the strength of the militia (formerly reserve force), and the number of said personnel attending summer camp in 1953, 1954 and 1955, by commands?
Answer by: Mr. Campney:
Average monthly strength of the militia by commands:
1953	1954	1955Eastern ... .	. . . 8,052	7,698	7,324Quebec ... .	. . . 10,385	10,645	10,344Central . .. .	... 15,815	15,581	14,992Prairie . ...	.. . 5,414	5,270	5,840Western . ..	. . . 7,125	6,909	7,260Total 	. . . 46,791	46,103	45,760Total	'	
$761.005.	No.6.	The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is not in a position to answer this question.


SUFFIELD EXPERIMENTAL STATION, RALSTON, ALTA.
Mr. Monteith: What was the name of the successful bidder and what was the tender price for the following equipment required for the Suffield experimental station of the defence research board at Ralston, Alberta, which tender was let under the approximate date of February 16, 1956, (a) one only, soaker bottle washer, Girton model 49SA 6 wide: (b) one only, model 5A Fort Wayne filler and capper?

Questions
Answer by: Mr. Howe (Pori Arthur):
(a)	A.P.V. (Canada) Equipment Limited, Toronto, Ontario-$3,700.
(b)	A.P.V. (Canada) Equipment Limited, Toronto, Ontario-$2,000.
2.	These programs were authorized by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which has responsibility for them.
3.	(a) "Plainte contre Inconnu", $17,024;
(b)	"Le Chant du Rossignol", $16,715.


WHEAT STORAGE STATISTICS
Mr. Diefenbaker: How much wheat of each of the following grades: (a) No. 4; (b) No. 5; (c) No. 6; (d) lower than No. 6, and including feed, was in storage in, (i) local elevators; (ii) terminals; (iii) all other storage facilities, except wheat stored on farms, on the following dates: (a) August 1, 1955; (b) October 1, 1955; (c) February 1, 1956?
Answer by: Mr. Howe (Port Arthur)			:
			(iii)
(i)	(ii)	OtherLocal	Terminal	storageelevators	elevators	positionsbu. (a) July 31, 1955	bu.	bu.(a) No. 4	north'n	19,284,130	6,270,635	7,341,817(b) No. 5	28,628,549	9,164,135	994,275(c) No. 6	10,103,964	3,293,670	77,509(d) Feed	Information not available	1,836,704	83,167
(b) September 28, 1955 (a) No. 4
north'n * Information 9,329,137 7,504,767
(b)	No. 5
(c)	No. 6
(d)	Feed
1,870,846
203,205
20,319
not available
"	12,602,335
"	4,029,129
"	1,917,966
(c)	February 1, 1956
(a)	No. 4
north'n information 10,154,120 7,618,899 not available
(b)	No. 5	"	9,548,578(c)	No. 6	"	2,108,660(d)	Feed	"	282,695
* Detailed information as to the grades of grair in storage in the different country elevators is onl\ obtained at the end of the crop year.


T. V. PROGRAMS, C.B.C.
Mr. Dufresne: 6,376,884
2,530,034
156,407
1.	What are the names of the producers of the following television programs: (a) "Plainte contre Inconnu ; (b) "Le Chant du Rossignol"?
2.	Who authorized these programs?
3.	What is the cost to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of the two above mentioned programs?
Answer by: Mr. McCann:
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation advises as follows:
1.	(a) Georges Groulx; (b) Jean St-Jacques.

Question No. 235-Mr. Johnston (Bow River):
1.	Are there any national parks in Canada provided with golf courses, lawn bowling greens or tennis courts, owned or operated by the federal government?
2.	If so, where are they?
3.	How long have they been so operated?
Answer by: Mr. Lesage:
1. Yes.
2 and 3.
(a)	Golf courses have been in operation in the following parks since the date indicated:
Waterton Lakes (1922); Riding Mountain (1931); Elk Island (1936); Prince Albert (1934); Prince Edward Island (1939); Cape Breton Highlands (1940); Fundy (1950).
(b)	Lawn bowling greens have been operated in the following parks since the date indicated:
Riding Mountain (1948); Prince Edward Island (1950); Prince Albert (1950); Elk Island (1954); Fundy (1952); Cape Breton Highlands (1951).
(c)	Tennis courts have been operated in the following parks since the date indicated:
Prince Edward Island (1940); Riding Mountain (1932); Prince Albert (1933); Jasper
(1950)	; Waterton Lakes (1925); Georgian Bay Islands (1952); Elk Island (1954); Fundy
(1951)	; Cape Breton Highlands (1941).
Note: In addition to the golf courses listed
above, a golf course is operated in Jasper park by the Canadian National Railways and in Banff park by the Canadian Pacific Railway. These courses are open to the general public on the payment of green fees.


CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS
Mr. Balcom: 1.	How many civil service employees are covered by section 86 of civil service regulations?
2.	How many postal employees are covered by section 86 of civil service regulations?
Answer by: Mr. Pinard:
1.	53,729.
2.	18,702.


OLD AGE SECURITY STATISTICS
Mr. Smith (Battle River-Camrose): 1.	How many people in Canada were receiving old age security on January 1, 1956?
2.	How many non-citizens of Canada were receiving old age security on January 1, 1956?

3.	How many of these non-citizens of Canada receiving old age security are citizens of the United States, France, Germany, Scandinavia, Russia, Belgium, Holland, Italy and others?
Answer by: Mr. Martin:
1.	768,188.
2.	Eligibility for old age security pensions depends solely on age and residence. No information is required from applicants regarding citizenship. It is therefore not possible to state what number of pensioners are non-citizens of Canada.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


IMPORTS, 1955  BUTTER, CHEESE, ETC.
Mr. Hodgson: 1.	How much (a) butter; (b) cheese; (c) margarine; (d) vegetable oil, was imported into Canada in 1955?
2.	From what countries and what amount from each country?
Answer by: Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):
1 (a, b and d) and 2. The amounts by countries of butter (statistical classification 2282), cheese (statistical classification 2284), and vegetable oil (statistical classifications 231 to 236 and 1601 to 1627), imported into Canada during the calendar year 1955, were as follows:
Vegetable Butter Cheese oil		
Country	Lb. Lb.	Cwt.United Kingdom ..	4,999 39,109	131,955British East Africa	451India 	108,417Ceylon 	306,615Nigeria 	19,072Jamaica 	85Leeward and Windward Is	10Malaya and Singapore 	103,183Hong Kong 	3,349Australia 	- 11,126	102New Zealand ....	- 5,501,230	Argentina 	- 128,340	25,421Austria 	- 1,834	Belgium 	500Belgium Congo ...	154,990Brazil 	56,473China 	4,280Denmark 	- 1,472,798	Finland 	- 14,161	France 	- 359,178	1,022French Africa ....	551Germany West . ..	- 46,261	367Greece 	- 11,656	1,003
(Table Con.)
Country
Questions
Vegetable
Butter Cheese oil Lb. Lb. Cwt.
Haiti	
-	-	16Indonesia	
-	-	70,780Italy	
-	1,482,194	14,505Japan	
-	-	3Mexico	
-	-	28Morocco	
-	-	220Netherlands	
-	1,009,566	6,614Norway	
-	76,577	__Paraguay	
-	-	49Portugal	
-	-	9Spain	
-	_	6,087Sweden	
-	7,822	__Switzerland	
-	1,629,186	223Ireland	
-	-	50United States ______ 6,572	923,988	754,522Totals	11,571 12,715,026 1,770,952
1 (c) and 2. Imports of margarine prohibited.


CANADIAN BOOK CENSORSHIP
Mr. Knight: 1.	Who is the chief censor of books for Canada?
2.	What reading staff is maintained for the purpose of censorship?
3.	Who are these readers?
4.	Who makes the final decision in a borderline case?
5.	How many books were refused admittance to Canada in 1955?
6.	What, by categories, were the grounds upon which entry was refused?
Answer by: Mr. McCann:
1.	There is no chief censor or censorship board in the Canadian government.
2.	See answer to No. 1 above.
3.	See answer to No. 1 above.
4.	See answer to No. 1 above.
5.	In 1955, 140 books were prohibited entry into Canada under tariff item 1201 which reads: "Books, printed paper, drawings, paintings, prints, photographs or representations of any kind of a treasonable or seditious, or of an immoral or indecent character".
6.	The books referred to in 5 above were classified as immoral or indecent under tariff item 1201.


HOSPITAL COSTS
Mr. Nicholson: For 1943 and 1953, what was the estimated cost per patient per day in the following hospitals: (a) mental; (b) t.b.; (c) public?

Questions
Answer by: Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):
Estimated cost per patient per day (Canada average):
	1943	1953
	$	$
(a) Mental	
0-98	2-70(b) T.B	
2-76	6-29(c) Public	
4-08	10-77HOSPITAL	STATISTICS	
Question No. 275-Mr,	, Nicholson:	
For the last year for which statistics are available of the number of patient days spent in Canadian hospitals, how many and what percentage were in the following: (a) mental hospitals; (b) psychiatric wards in hospitals; (c) t.b. hospitals; (d) public hospitals; (e) federal hospitals; (f) private hospitals?
Answer by: Mr. Howe (Pori Arthur):
Patient days, 1953
No.	p.c.
(a)	Mental hospitals .. 21,722,911	39-72
(b)	Psychiatric wards
in hospitals	488,268	0-89(c)	T.B. hospitals ....	5,828,000	10-66(d)	Public hospitals .. 23,056,858 c1) 42-16(e)	Federal hospitals .	2,740,063 ( = )	5-01(f)	Private hospitals ..	853,324 (3)	1-56Total	
54,689,424	100-00(1)	Excludes 18,155 days included in (b).(2)	Excludes 470,113 days included in (b) and 667,609 days included in (c); includes fiscal year 1952-53 figures for five hospitals with a total of 11,127 days.(3)	Excludes 108,935 days included in (a) and 870 days included in (c).
Wednesday, March 14, 1956



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Maurice Boisvert (Nicolel-Yamaska)
presented the first report of the standing committee on external affairs, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. B. McCulloch (Pictou) presented the first report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.