[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he is in a position to make a statement concerning the attendance of the United States consul general, located in Toronto, at the Ontario municipal board when sitting in Toronto on Thursday of last week.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs):	No, Mr. Speaker, but I can assure the hon. gentleman that the matter has not been overlooked. Some of the pertinent facts have already been brought to our attention, but we have not yet obtained all the information I should like to have in making a statement. I can say at once we have been informed that the consul general appeared before the board in response to a public notice published in the Toronto papers inviting all those, who might have any interest in the matter, to appear before the board. I have not yet all the information, but I hope to have it early next week.
Mr. HACKETT:: The point is he said he had been instructed by the Department of State to appear.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I have not yet precise information on that point.



FOREIGN EXCHANGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to the article in the Toronto Globe and Mail, May 4, reporting that Distillers Corporation-Seagrams Limited, has
concluded the purchase of eight million gallons of whisky for the sum of 340,000,000? Will the minister make a statement as to whether this amount of foreign exchange has been authorized or not?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, my hon, friend was good enough to send me notice of his question, but I received it just a few minutes ago. I have not seen the article in question. I shall look into the matter and will no doubt be able to make a statement at the appropriate time.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I shall be glad to send the article to the minister.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: What do you mean, the whisky or the paper?


Mr. COLDWELL:: Not the whisky.



COST OF LIVING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, I directed a question to the Minister of Finance on Wednesday last. The parliamentary assistant to the minister said that he would draw it to the minister's attention. I should like to know whether or not he is in a position to give a reply.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I was notified that this question had been asked1. The question was as follows:
In view of the further increase in the cost of living as reported by the bureau of statistics, what action does the government intend to take to prevent further increases in the cost of at least staple food products, such as milk, meat, butter and bread?
This is a matter, of course, of government policy which will be announced in due course. However, I might point out that the price of milk, for instance, is, and has been for some time, under the control of the provinces. Butter is controlled by a ceiling price at present. I have no indication or information that the price of bread has been increased unduly.
Supply-Agriculture



The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Administration service-
1. Departmental administration, $234,297.
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: When we went into supply in agriculture on April 27 I asked a few questions of the minister and he intimated that he would give the answers later. Since then I have received other information which I should like to discuss for a moment or two and on the basis of which I will submit one or two more questions which the minister can answer along with those I have already submitted to him.
I have here a journal called Foreign Trade, issued by this government on May 1, 1948, in Ottawa, in which I find an article under the heading:	"Slight improvement indicated
in world food situation this year". This article is by G. R. Paterson, agricultural counsellor, Canadian embassy. It is in the form of a dispatch from Washington on April 8, 1948. I quote:
On January 1, 1948, the international emergency foqd committee of the council of the food and agriculture organization of the united nations assumed the functions of the former international emergency food council in the field of international distribution of foodstuffs and fertilizers continuing in short world supply.
The article points out that there was a slight improvement over last year, which was a very serious year in the matter of foodstuffs throughout the world. I quote further:
Many problems-*
That is, food problems.
Many problems still remain. Rations in some countries have been lower than in the winter of 1946-47 and operating stocks have been less adequate. The gap between available supplies and requirements cannot be wholly closed. While moderate improvement is at present indicated for the period following this year's harvests, nevertheless even the most favourable weather and other conditions would not produce food supplies sufficient to provide pre-war levels of consumption in many countries.
Food shortages in 1948-49 will continue to affect industrial production adversely, to create problems of inflation in many countries and to constitute a continued heavy drain on the foreign exchange resources of many importing countries.
I think that last sentence is significant to agricultural producers in Canada. I raised a question on April 27 with reference to quantities of beef stored in Canada, and having in mind the article from which I have quoted, I should like to repeat-I have said it before

that Canada is the only country

which deliberately channels exports where the producers will not be paid for them. Other countries use controls to send exports where they will be able to secure United States dollars, but the Canadian government does the exact opposite. It imposes embargoes on the shipment of agricultural products to the United States, and it exports to Britain at reduced prices, even though Britain lacks dollars to pay for those exports. Surely this is a mistaken policy, especially wrhen we are the only nation in the world that fosters it. A recent press report indicated that sixty per cent of the $45,000,000 contract figure in respect of beef has been purchased by the meat board for export to the United Kingdom. The year is only one-quarter finished, and our heavy fall marketing period is still ahead of us.
As I have often done in the past, I wish to appeal, with all the eainestness at my command, to the Minister of Agriculture to use his influence with the Minister of l.ade and Commerce and the Minister of Finance to have immediately lifted the embargo against Canadian beef cattle entering our most natural market in the world, the United States. This is tremendously important.
I asked some question about what prospects we had of marketing during this year our agricultural products through the Marshall plan, or what is now known as ERP. According to a press report yesterday, Britain is to get $33,000,000 through this plan in Canada; wheat to the extent of $17,000,000, wheat flour $5,500,000, and bacon $11,000,000. This has been authorized by Paul G. Hoffman, economic administrator of the fund in the United States.
The article in Foreign Trade, issued by the government, to which I have already referred, mentions the possibility of foodstuffs being produced this year under very favourable this country today. I do not think that anyone, judging from past experience, will deny that the wheat producers on the prairies should have their wheat seeded before the 10th of May. It is almost that today, and while we are having difficulties the very opposite of those we experienced in the nineteen thirties- not a dust bowl but extreme flooding even for the prairies-even where flooding has not taken place we have had a tremendous loss up to the present time.
I listened the other morning to an expert who, speaking over the radio, was telling about a survey that had been made, and he said that with favourable conditions from now on, wheat seeding could not become general until

Supply-Agriculture
the middle of May, in the southern part of the prairies, and the end of May in the north. That will be quite late. An exceptional season will be necessary if we are to garner a good wheat harvest, and the weather has not cleared up yet. At the present time, therefore, the prospects for a good wheat harvest are not bright. I am pretty much of an optimist, and I am not yet downhearted about it, because it is marvellous what this country can do in short order. The situation, however, could be a serious one, especially with respect to the marketing of beef. Even the beef producers had great difficulties this spring and are still having difficulties because of the flooding.
Once more I urge the minister to give us a lead as to when the embargo can be lifted from the shipment of beef cattle to the United States, which is by far the best natural market we have in the world. It would mean a good deal to the producers from the standpoint of breeding in the future if they could have some intimation from the minister on that point, and I trust that he will be able to give it to us. I should also like to have him state the figures for meat in storage in the countiy. I asked for that on April 27.


Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: This, as has been said, is the second meeting of the committee of the whole to consider the estimates on agriculture. Some questions were raised on the previous occasion which I think it would be well to deal with.
The main objective of the questions is, I think, to determine whether we have had an increase or decrease in production in agriculture up to the present time, and as to where we are going from the present position. I believe that in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion on that question it will be necessary for me to establish the present position in relation to the past on a few of the important products, those that enter most largely into the income which the farmers receive across Canada. I feel that we shall not get very far by dealing with the war years alone. The truth with regard to the war years is that income increased year by year from the beginning until the end of the war, and income is still continuing to increase. Nevertheless we can select individual commodities, such as bacon or butter or cheese, and we can prove certain things with regard to them. Bacon production, for example, increased very rapidly in the early years of the war and decreased in the later years of the war. But when we take the over-all position of production in agriculture and returns from 5849-235
agriculture, there was a gradual increase all the way through the war years. So I think we shall get on the soundest basis for considering the policy for the year 1948 and the years beyond by establishing the position at the end of the war in relation to the position at the beginning of the war so far as production is concerned.
In the first year of the war I stated to the farmers at the time my estimates were going through the house that, in our opinion, the farmers found themselves at the beginning of the war producing most of the commodities that would be required throughout and at the end of the war, and that our efforts ought to be to increase production in certain lines as required, and to establish our industry on a sounder financial basis in order that we might come out of the war in a better position financially than when we went into it. I think the farmers have done that, and I am going to give a few figures which will indicate why I believe so.
If we take the last year before the war, 1939, and compare it with 1946, the first year after the war, we find that milk production was in 1939, 15,781,000,000 and in 1946, 16,936.000,000, an increase of 1,155,000,000 pounds. In other words we came through the war producing more milk than when we went into the war. I am not able to give comparisons in the price of milk for the years before and after the war, for the obvious reason that milk prices vary so much across Canada that it would be impossible to give any one figure which would cover the whole.
In eggs the production in 1939 was 221,000,000 dozen, and in 1946, 316,000,000 dozen, an increase of 95,000,000 dozen. The price in 1939 was 18-5 cents and in 1946, 33-5 cents.
Cattle, slaughtered, in 1939, 1,337,000 head, and in 1946, 2,226,000 head, or an increase of
889,000	head. The price in 1939 was 6-77 cents, and in 1946, 12-52 cents.
Hogs, slaughtered, in 1939, 5,122,000, and in 1946, 7,896,000, an increase of 2,774,000. The price in 1939 of live hogs was 8-85 cents, and in 1946, converted to live weight prices, 14-91 cents.
Barley production in 1939 was 103,000,000 bushels and in 1946 148,000,000 bushels, an increase of 45,000,000 bushels. The price in 1939 was 34 cents and in 1946, 67 cents.
Oats production in 1939 was 384,000,000 bushels, and in 1946, 399,000,000 bushels, an increase of 15,000,000 bushels. The price in 1939 was 30 cents and in 1946, 56 cents.
I have gone over these figures but if the committee will permit me I should like to have the figures, from which I have been quoting, inserted in Hansard in- tabulated form.
Supply-Agriculture


Mr. CHARLTON:: I would like to have the figures for the years between 1939 and 1946.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend has heard them very often. He can put them on the record afterwards if he desires to do so.


John Thomas Hackett: Without those figures it is a onesided picture.	.


James Garfield Gardiner: It does not establish a different side of the picture. If the other figures were put in. it would simply establish
that there was a variation between grain and livestock products, but the net return was higher year by year throughout the period.


John Alpheus Charlton: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend had better get the figures and put them on Hansard, and he will find that is true.


The CHAIRMAN:: Has the minister consent to put the figures on Hansard?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.
Price
Commodity	1939	1946	Increase	1939	1946
				cents	
Milk (thousand pounds) 	 Eggs (thousand dozens) 	 Cattle (slaughtered, thousand head) ... Hogs (slaughtered, thousand head) ... Bariev (thousand bushels) 	 Oats (thousand bushels) 		... 15,781,000 . 221,000 . 1,337 ,5,122 .. 103.000 .. 384,000	16,936,000 316.000 2,266 7,896 148.000 399.000	1,155,000 95.000 1,071 2,774 45.000 15.000	18-5 6-77 8-85 34 30	33-5 12-52 14-91 67 56


John Thomas Hackett: 
James Garfield Gardiner: I will come to that a little later. Just now I want to lay the foundation for my figures.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Has the minister
figures as to the cost of production?


James Garfield Gardiner: 
John Thomas Hackett: That is only for the first six months?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, for the whole year. In 1947 there was a considerable increase, as compared with 1946. When added together, the figures I have placed on Hansard will indicate that the production in 1947 was brought back to about where it was in 1945. Those figures are important, I think, but there is another set of figures which are also important, having to do with the production of cheese and butter in the various months of the year. The percentage of cheese produced in the first six months of 1945-


John Thomas Hackett: Will the minister please say what elements he is considering? There are cheese, butter, raw milk, and all the other things.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have butter, cheese and ice cream here, and the commodities other than whole milk are very small in relation. I have the others here, and I can give them if necessary; but for the time being I am dealing with the three items.
In the first six months of 1945 the production of cheese was 84-4 per cent of the total, with 15-6 per cent in the second six months. In 1946 production was 85-2 per cent in the first six months and 14-8 per cent in the second six months. In 1947 production was

Supply-Agriculture
S6-8 per cent in the first six months and 12-3 per cent in the second six months. The production of butter in the first six months of 1945 was 7Y9 per cent, and 28-1 per cent in the second six months. In 1946 production was 72-7 per cent in the first six months and 27-3 per cent in the second six months. In 1947 the production was 73-5 per cent in the first six months and 26-5 per cent in the second six months. With respect to ice cream the proportions are a little lower in the first six months. In 1945 production of ice cream was 67-7 per cent in the first six months and 32-3 per cent in the second six months. In 1946 production was 67-9 per cent in the first six months and 32-1 per cent in the second six months; and in 1947 production was 72-9 per cent in the first six months and 27-1 per cent in the second six months.
I give these figures in that form, Mr. Chairman, in order that we may fully understand some of the discussion that takes place in relation to the marketing of these products. It will be noted that well over four-fifths of the cheese is produced in the summer six months of the year and that very close to three-quarters of the butter is produced in the same period, while on an average something under seventy per cent of the ice cream is also produced in that period. When one considers the quantities of milk utilized for these purposes it will be found that very little is left to be used for purposes other than fluid milk which might be enumerated. I can obtain the exact figures for hon. members; if they are required I have them here somewhere.


John Thomas Hackett: It is not possible for the minister to take the total milk production

Bacon	To April 1	 22.50
(100 lbs.) to Jan. 11/47	 25.00
Beef (100 lbs)
Choice	Red		 22'.75
Blue		 21.75
Medium	 20.75
cents
Cheese (lb.)		 20
Eggs	(A	large)	per dozen average .... 41-5
which he gave as his first figure, and indicate what portion of it is converted into cheese, what portion into butter and what portion into ice cream? The other products, he has intimated, are rather insignificant. If he could give that information I think it would be of particular assistance to the butter producers, for instance, who are having so much difficulty at the present time.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have the exact figures my hon. friend desires, and I can give them in a moment, but until they are located I will go on to develop this other point.
Other matters of information I should like to place on record were discussed the other evening, having to do with bacon, beef, cheese, and eggs, in relation to price. These are the prices as they were established under the various contracts we have had with Great Britain. I am giving the figures for the year 1946, and I am doing that because under our present agreement with Great Britain a certain price level is called for in 1948, and we have been given an undertaking that the prices for 1949 will not be less than those of 1946, so I think it well to put on the record the prices in that year. It will be noted that two prices are shown for bacon for 1946, so that price will have to be averaged on the basis of the amounts of bacon handled in the two periods. I should like to place this table on Hansard, if I have the permission of the committee.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: The minister desires to put this table on Hansard. What is the pleasure of the committee?
Some hon. MEMBERS : Agreed.
	1947	1948
	$	$
Jan. 1 to Sept. 1 			 27.60	
Thereafter 			 29.00	36.00
24.25	27.50
23.25	26.50 21.10 23.10
cents cents 25	30
Spring	 41	47'50
Fall	 47-75 54-25


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member for Souris asked for the storage figures on various commodities, and I have them here for each month of 1947 and up to April of 1948. If it would meet with the approval of the commit-5849-235i
tee I should like to place this table on Hansard as well; it is quite lengthy.


William Henry Golding: What is the pleasure of the committee?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.
Supply-Agriculture



STORAGE STOCKS OF MEAT, FIRST OF THE MONTH

[Stage Direction]
-	Pork	Beef	Veal	Mutton and lambDomestic	Export	Bone in	Boneless	Bone in	Boneless	Frozen1947	January	12,423,094	7,655,724	11,145,098	9,510,570	2,055,628	794,230	6,581,872February	13,755,185	8,409,613	5,475,502	6,715,354	1,092,010	572,234	5,116,395March	15,461,236	5,802,378	3,984,295	6,233,804	419,468	456,617	3,370,992April	15,638,098	6,035,701	2,714,318	5,462,769	246,891	320,046	2,544,775May	18,109,895	9,535,105	2,174,641	5,813,567	1,370,155	583,819	1,979,436June	18,678,418	12,348,960	1,920,656	5,019,322	2,871,392	1,058,835	1,545,444July	18,143,140	12,673,243	1,516,289	3,874,419	3,323,502	1,138,539	1,202,255August	14,723,424	8,965,403	1,358,564	3,886,903	3,364,700	1,305,978	1,196,365September	9,615,249	4,040,222	2,746,440	5,653,466	3,333,976	1,458,365	1,717,352October	8,167,537	3,247,932	2,069,847	4,411,252	3,119,827	1,236,020	1,729,238November	7,983,345	3,156,550	2,116,651	2,952,737	2,929,467	871,373	1,891,376December	13,905,588	2,917,016	13,670,053	7,314,935	4,208,926	1,507,500	6,338,8791948	January	24,490,137	2,858,575	14,509,040	10,943,330	4,338,619	1,355,886	7,937,241February	31,772,655	9,261,600	16,209,551	11,333,368	3,377,693	1,191,842	7,657,808March	31,061,227	17,825,480	12,826,809	11,335,761	1,581,039	857,920	6,773,707April	26,255,865	23,204,043	9,573,245	9,783,022	849,889	652,260	4,938,997
Actual storage stocks of meat-excluding fancy meats, fresh meat and pork in cure.
James Garfield Gardiner: These figures are five weeks old. They bring us down to April 1, which is five weeks ago.


James Arthur Ross: That is a satisfactory date, anyway.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a satisfactory date, except for this, that we had a much higher storage at that time than, we have now. The figures at April 1 were at the end of the first quarter, and it is correct to say that we had a considerable storage even at April 1. It is not correct to say, however, that we have any storage of beef today in Canada to the credit of the meat board. We asked permission of the British to send to storage in Britain beef of which we did take delivery ini the first quarter, to cover whatever period it would of the second quarter. That beef was sent to Britain at the beginning of April.
[The Deputy Chairman.]


James Arthur Ross: What quantities have the meat board purchased from January 1 to April 1 this year for that contract?


James Garfield Gardiner: I can get those figures. I believe it would suit our purposes just as well if I were to give the amount which we did purchase in the first quarter and which we shipped to Britain. That will cover all the requirements under the contract for beef down to the end of May for this year. In other words sufficient beef has gone forward to cover the contract requirements down to the end of May.


James Arthur Ross: On the same percentage basis throughout the year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, figured out on the same percentage basis. As a matter of fact, at April 1 all we were entitled to have in



194S

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
Britain was a certain amount per week down to April 1. We were supposed to be paid for that amount up to that time. We had more in storage, but we knew we were not going to take in much beef in May; so we asked the privilege of shipping this beef forward. It has been shipped forward, and it is there. We have purchased no beef off this market; or very little, almost nothing.
Hog storages are a little different. I am told that this figure with respect to pork includes all pork products-bacon, ham and everything of that nature-in storage, wherever it may be stored.
Mr. HARKNESS:: Is that the figure of
86,000,000?


James Garfield Gardiner: The actual amounts in storage on April 1 were 26,255,865 pounds for domestic use and 23,204,043 pounds for export. I am told that there is an amount which would be in transfer between one place and another in Canada, but which would not be found in these storage figures. That may bring the amount close to the 86,000,000 mentioned.
I think these figures will give the picture. I would rather have had the figures for May, and while we are discussing the estimates if I find it possible to give those figures I will do so. That would give the complete picture of what has happened since April 1. I believe I have given all the information that was asked for.


Major James William Coldwell: I asked about the cost of production, and the minister referred to an earlier statement he had made. I turn to page 3392 of Hansard for April 27, where the minister gave some gross and net figures. I look particularly at the figures for 1946 and 1947. In 1946 the gross income from agricultural production, in round figures, as the minister gave it, was 81,759,000,000, and the net income as he gave it was $1,267,000,000. Then when we come to look at 1947 we find the gross income had gone up by about $455,000,000, the figure being S2,213,900,000. But the net, lower down on the page, is given as $1,259,000,000. What had actually happened was that the net income from 1946 to 1947 had decreased by approximately S8,000,000. The difference, however, in the gross income for the same years was $455,000,000, which means that the cost of production must have gone up by approximately $463,000,000.
I look at the figures for 1938 which the minister gave, and I find he said that in that year the net income of farmers was $387,000,000. The difference which I have indicated, approximately $463,000,000, is greater than
the whole net income of our farmers in 1938; in other words the cost of production had risen to a larger extent than the entire net income in that year. That struck me as a serious factor in the prices now under discussion, and that is one point I draw to the minister's attention.
When I asked the question about cost of production I was hoping it might be put in tabular form, because I have had to look at the figures on this page to get the information. I believe I am correct in my computation from the minister's own figures. This is a point which struck me as alarming.


James Arthur Ross: It is still alarming.


James Garfield Gardiner: What was the gross figure?


Major James William Coldwell: These figures are given at page 3392 of Hansard, where we find the gross for 1946 is given as $1,759,000,000 and for 1947 as S2,213,900,000. Then we come to the net for 1946 given as $1,267,000,000 and for 1947 of $1,259,000,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is just a small correction. For 1946 the net is $1,160,760,000. Apparently the figure 7 was displaced.


Major James William Coldwell: That was the point which struck me as disturbing in connection with the statement the minister made that day, and the argument he was building up today.


Mr. BURTON:: Before dealing to some extent with some figures to which my leader the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has just referred I should like to express my appreciation of the comprehensive statement the minister has just placed on the record. While he was doing that, however, I could not help thinking of the old saying I have heard many times in years gone by, that figures do not lie, but that some people can do some terrible things with figures.
It appears on the page of Hansard which my leader quoted that back in 1938 the net income of farmers right across Canada was $387,000,000. From such a statement the word would go out among our people that the farmers of Canada had received a very tidy sum of many hundreds of millions of dollars; yet I am sure the minister will admit that in 1938 thousands of farmers were working long hours to produce foodstuffs at less than the cost of production. The minister covered the period from 1938 to 1947, and for nearly half of that time far too many farmers in this country were producing foodstuffs at less than the cost of production. I think the
Supply-Agriculture

minister, on sober reflection, will realize that the fault lay in the fact that on a previous occasion he had given the people in other parts of Canada the impression that farmers could produce wheat for forty cents per bushel.
Referring to page 3393, I find the minister said this:
We like to talk about irrigation developments; we like to talk about waterpower developments and great expenditures of money. We have got into that habit, but I would not care how- close a power line was to my farm, I would not put electricity on to the farm from a power line.
That statement is also bound to be misleading to many people. The minister went on to say that for a reasonable sum he could have a windmill or wind charger on his place. While I agree that you could have a wind charger in many parts of this country that would supply a certain amount of electricity, the fact is that there is as much difference between that type of power and what you would obtain from a power line as there is between electric lights and the old coal-oil lamp. I know from my own personal experience, and others have had the same experience, that when I had to get along with a wind charger I thought that we were just a little ahead of the coal-oil lamp days. There certainly is no comparison with the benefits to be derived from the use of power from a power line.
I have not the exact quotation before me, but I am given to understand that on a previous occasion the minister said that he did not want a tractor on his place. So far as I am concerned the minister can continue to operate his farm with oxen, and in all probability he would have a good form of farm power. But it would be similar to the agricultural policy of this country. In many ways that policy is still in the oxen days.
We sometimes use a lot of figures to indicate the picture we want to show, but that does not get us away from realities. The fact is that a major industry of this country, even during the boom period brought on by the war, had to wait two or three years or more to get the benefits of the wartime increases. This industry now finds itself with its reserves being depleted, owing to the rising costs of everything that goes into farm production.
I come now to the position of our farmers as far as coarse grains are concerned. I contend that we have been in a muddle from last fall until the present, and in all probability we shall continue to be in a muddle right on through, with the minister and his department and his associates in the government sitting there waiting for something to turn up. The

coarse grains situation will go down in the history of farming in this country as one of the severest letdowns that any government has ever given the farming population.
Our farmers produced coarse grains in spite of drought and other handicaps, and even with the limited number of bushels they were able to produce they continued their deliveries. Yet the people who were in need of coarse grains found that they could not get supplies. Then the minister comes along with a halfthought-out scheme-I almost said "half-baked"-whereby the people who handled coarse grains would compensate the farmer. I shall not go into the details except to point out that this simply created a worse position than we had before.
Under the economy in which the minister apparently believes I contend that he had no right to ask those people to make a refund. While the farmers were entitled to compensation, that was not the fault of these people. Like any businessman they simply took advantage of a situation which the government had handed to them on a platter. If anyone should make compensation, it is the government. Some of the elevator companies continued to let coarse grains go into the ordinary channels of consumption in an orderly way, and they will not have as much to return in proportion to the others who held on. You find yourself in the position where it is hard to justify that action either to the farmers or to the other people involved.
Then there is the other idea of the government making adjustments over and above that. I should like to know when those adjustments are to be made. On different occasions the minister indicated that he was waiting for further word from some of these grain handling firms. It is a plausible explanation, but it does not relieve the situation of the farmers. Will these payments be made some time when it is opportune? If so, just how soon that may be, I do not know.


James Garfield Gardiner: Has the hon. member had his?


Joseph William Burton: So far as coarse grains are concerned, no.


James Garfield Gardiner: To whom did you
deliver?


Joseph William Burton: I delivered mine to the pool elevator. Every bushel I produced since we have had a pool elevator in our neighbourhood went to that pool elevator. I have no regrets with regard to any grain I produced that I put through the pool. I also wish to

Supply-Agriculture
say to the minister that I got everyhing I had coming to me for the grain that I delivered to the pool elevator.


James Garfield Gardiner: You will get your oats and barley payments also.


Joseph William Burton: I will, but the minister uses the most unfair method in trying to make somebody else straighten out the mess that his own department and his government have been responsible for.
This year, as the hon. member for Souris has just said, because of the lateness of the season we shall in all probability have more coarse grain seeded than before; yet we do not know what the government's policy is to be on coarse grains. They say they are waiting. When a certain act was under consideration we were almost daily urged not to delay the proceedings and thus hold up the passage of the measure. What do we find now? There does not seem to be any great hurry at all. They are trying to shift the blame onto the provincial governments, as my colleague said. The government in Saskatchewan acted rapidly. The producers in Saskatchewan are depending on the federal government to do something about the very thing they seemed to be in such a hurry to pass through this house.
I have often complimented the Minister of Agriculture. Perhaps he did not always appreciate the compliments I extended to him, but I do believe that the minister is one of the few members of the government who really has a grasp of the department over which he presides, and that makes me feel all the sadder. Why the minister will so often take only one side of the picture, and a certain set of figures, and then proceed to justify the stand of his department, I do not know. I am prepared to be fair with the minister, but I do not like to be put in the position in which hon. members from agricultural districts find themselves when they try to present the viewpoint of the people whom we represent, and the minister rises in his place, either in the committee stage or in formal debate, and tries-not in so many words, but in the way that he knows best- to confound us. For instance, the other night he referred to wind chargers. Does he think that those of us who have lived out in that country do not know anything about wind chargers? The same is true of the whole list of things that the minister tries to put across. Sometimes I wonder what he has in his mind. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that he had better go out to Saskatchewan and find out what the people there think of him.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the hon. member for Stanstead is not in his seat. I have the figures which he asked for, and I think I had better put them on the record so that they will be close to the question which was asked.
The question asked was: What proportion of the milk produced is utilized for different purposes in a year? I think it will serve the purpose to use the year 1947, because the proportions are just about the same back to 1931. Therefore I shall put the one year on the record.
The total production of milk in 1947 was
17,213,900,000	pounds. The amount that entered into butter was 8,133,300,000 pounds, or 47 per cent of all the milk produced. The amount that entered into cheese was 1,375,-
900,000	pounds, or about 8 per cent. The amount that entered into concentrated milk was 655,900,000, or 41 per cent. The amount that entered into ice cream was 335,900,000 pounds, or 2j per cent. The amount that entered into fluid milk sales was 3,462,200,000 pounds, or about 21 per cent. The amount that was consumed on farms was 1,722,900,000 pounds, or about 10 per cent. The amount that was fed on farms was 817,200,000 pounds, or about 5 per cent. These figures indicate the ' amount that enters into the production of each product, and I think they will answer the question asked by the hon. member for Stanstead.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to the statement just made by the hon. member for Humboldt with regard to what was said the other night. After listening to it I can agree with the first remark he made that figures never lie-"but". The suggestion has been made, and it has been made continuously since 1939 that I made a certain statement in the House of Commons at that time. No one believes that I made that statement except a few members of the C.C.F., and they have continued to peddle that statement ever since 1939. My hon. friend repeats it on the floor of the house now. As a matter of fact, the figures which were used were quoted from the findings of a gentleman, Mr. Hope, who is today one of the leading organizers for my friends of the official opposition. I am quite sure they will believe that any figures he put out at that time were authoritative and correct. The figures were to the effect that it cost a certain amount to seed and harvest grain. My hon. friends have continued ever since to convert that statement into meaning that the Minister of Agriculture said it cost that amount to
Supply-Agriculture

produce grain, which, of course, is an entirely different thing. Again I repeat that while figures do not lie, there is a "but" in them.
The statement which was made a few moments ago with regard to wind chargers is another one which I presume is being prepared for a similar purpose. The only statement I did make the other night on which I have had any comment from Saskatchewan is that one. It may surprise my hon. friends to know that a gentleman who covers the greater part of the province of Saskatchewan in very useful employment wrote me to tell me that he agreed with it one hundred per cent.


Mr. WRIGHT:: He was not selling them?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; he is selling the gospel, as a matter of fact, and therefore usually tells the truth. He has remained with the job that he started with when he had his first call to the ministry, and therefore, when he makes a statement, he continues to tell what is actually true with regard to the matter.


James Arthur Ross: That would not be the Premier of Saskatchewan, would it?


James Garfield Gardiner: The fact of the matter is that ever since I have been in western Canada the people have been talking about getting power from the development of water. I left Ontario in 1901 and they were talking then about hydro-electric development in that province. I remember that in the evening around the fireside, the chief topic of discussion on the farm on which I resided, was this very one, and it was said that one of these fine mornings we would have a radial line, propelled by hydro-electric power running down right in front of our house, and we were all going to have electric power on our farms.


Mr. WARREN:: Me too.


James Garfield Gardiner: Me too, my friend says. Well, that was away back in 1901. I own that farm today, and the first power line that came by it came about five years ago.


Ralph Melville Warren: Mine hasn't come yet.


James Garfield Gardiner: As soon as the power line did pass it, I put power on that farm and it is there now, so I know something about the cost of hydro-electric power. But returning to the west, I went into the legislature of Saskatchewan in 1914, and I remember one of the first speeches I made in the house. It is still on the record and is still to be found widely quoted in the press of that day. If my hon. friends will take the trouble to look it up they will see that I was advocating the development of hydro-electric power in Saskatchewan.

Some years later, in 1928 I believe, as premier of the province I established the first power commission in Saskatchewan and that gave us government-produced, -distributed and -operated power.
I had long since got by believing that we could cover Saskatchewan in any reasonable time with hydro-electric power. We have verv little of it yet. The power which we have in the province is developed from the utilization of coal and gasoline, and one of their lines runs within two miles of my farm. I could put power on my farm from that line, but it would cost me more to put that power on my farm than it did to put there the plant that I have, and then I would have to pay for the juice after I had got the power there. Under the present plan I do not need to do so.
So far as I know, and I think I know as much about it as anyone in Saskatchewan, there is no possibility of having any considerable water-power development in that province inside ten years.


Ralph Melville Warren: Except in the spring.


James Garfield Gardiner: Except in the spring, my friend says. There is no possibility of building the type of dam and putting in the form of construction that is necessary to have hydroelectric power in Saskatchewan on any large scale inside of ten years. I do not know whether I shall be alive ten years from now.


Ralph Melville Warren: Oh, yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: My friend has more confidence in that respect than I have.


James Arthur Ross: You will be leader of the official opposition.


James Garfield Gardiner: Whether I am alive or not, however, I do know that I will not wait ten years to get my house lighted with electricity. As a matter of fact, I gave up waiting fifteen years ago. I think it is very much better to have whatever you can get from a wind charger in the meantime than it is to go without and then stand up in this house, as a member from Saskatchewan, and describe conditions, as my hon. friends of the C.C.F. have been describing them for some time.


An hon. MEMBER:: Your wind charger is not wearing out anyway.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have been hearing a great deal of complaining about the amount of wind we have in Saskatchewan, blowing the soil around.


Mr. BRYCE:: There will be lots in a month's time.


James Garfield Gardiner: It will be mostly put out by C.C.F.'ers, and I am not so sure it will be

Supply-Agriculture
in a month's time. It may be my friend has inside information which I have not got. There are some reasons for believing that it will not be in a month's time. There is some reason for believing that there were things that happened within the last two weeks in Ottawa which may make it inadvisable for it to be held within the next thirty days. In any case, out in Saskatchewan we did have a considerable movement of wind-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Garfield Gardiner: -and I am one of
those who believe that you ought to harness what you have got. If the waters do not flow in the right places to permit our developing power, and they have not made it possible for us to develop it for the last forty years, and if they are not going to make it possible to develop power over the next ten years, then I think a good way to provide power is to put up a few wind chargers so that we can have light on our farms. If we find after a short time that it serves as well as the other would, and at less cost, then if we are wise we will keep it. I think it is necessary to say that much in order to avoid having to explain later what was said with regard to the matter.


Joseph William Burton: In view of the statement which the minister has made, considerably clarifying the short statement he made the other night, will he please inform me why his protege in Saskatchewan, the present leader of the Liberal party there, is advocating the electrification of the province in a hurry?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I will explain that. The hon. gentleman in question, who is not a protege of mine but the product of a very good Liberal convention, and also a product of his own activity in Saskatchewan over a considerable time, will be premier after the election, and when he is premier of Saskatchewan he will make good use of the next ten years in seeing to it that waterpower is developed in the province if at all possible. That policy he has outlined very carefully for the people of Saskatchewan, and he has added to it exactly what I have said, that in the meantime the people have this other means of supplying themselves with electric power on their farms, which they should utilize to the greatest extent possible.
The suggestion has been put forward by the hon. member for Humboldt that some time ago I made a statement in the house, under conditions similar to these, with regard to the use of tractors on farms. Of course, members who were here will know that statement is not a true account of what happened 5849-236
at that time. Six members of the C.C.F. got up, one after another, and said in this house that I knew that it cost less to produce grain with a tractor than it did in any other way; and after six of them had made that statement I got up and made a very short correction, that all I wanted to say about it was that I did not have a tractor on my own farm. My hon. friend can put whatever interpretation on that he likes, but I did not at any time say that it either would or would not pay to have a tractor on my farm. I said I did not have one and I can still say that. I have not one yet. He can take whatever meaning he likes out of that statement, but to get up now and say that I said that farmers could not produce their grain or crops or operate their farms successfully with a tractor or to better advantage with a tractor-well, no such statement was ever made in this house by me, and is not being made in this house by me now.
Then the hon. member made some suggestions with regard to coarse grains and what has happened with regard to them, and what is going to happen. My hon. friend had a lot to say for the Saskatchewan wheat pool. He said he had never delivered any grain to any other organization since that wheat pool was formed, and he never intends to deliver any grain to any other organization so long as that wheat pool exists. This question he has been discussing has been discussed with the Saskatchewan wheat pool on three different occasions. It is the only organization in western Canada that asked the government to wait until May for their final figures with regard to this matter-the only organization. They suggested to me when making that request that I was quite free to mention it on the floor of the house as a reason why we are not making settlement prior to the month of May. I repeat that statement now for the benefit of my hon. friend, in order that he may go back and ask the wheat pool authorities whether that statement was made.
I may say that there are seven companies which have paid. The Premier of Saskatchewan, at a public meeting the other night, in Saskatoon I think, said he was prepared to give the stuffed head of a cabinet minister to anybody who could show him that any payments had been made under this arrangement. I reply to that by saying that seven companies have already made payments to farmers, and very considerable payments, ranging up to 14 cents a bushel, in order to take care of the situation which developed as a result of what was done on the 21st of October last.
Supply-Agriculture

The only reason for this government not taking action before now is the request that was made to us by the Saskatchewan pool that we wait until after the month of May in order that they themselves might be able to act in the manner in which they considered it wise to act.
May I add this, that so far as any information available to me is concerned I have reason to believe that the farmer is not going to get less because they did that. My hon. friend suggested a few moments ago that it would be to the disadvantage of the farmers of western Canada because some companies were waiting until after May and allowing the grain to pass through the ordinary marketing process before determining what they were going to pay out to the farmers. I repeat that the only organization which suggested that we wait until after May was the pool organization, and so far as information available to me is concerned, there is not going to be less paid because they did that, but very likely there will be more. The criticism therefore is one which not only stands against the government itself but stands against the pool, the one organization which did the thing which has just been criticized by the member for Humboldt.
I make this statement at this time only to indicate to my hon. friend that while I have listened to quite a number of statements similar to the one he has just made and have not [DOT]taken the trouble to answer them in the past, now that he has recited at one time all these jokes with regard to agriculture it gives me an opportunity to deal with them all at one time, and if there are any more criticisms of that kind I shall be pleased to deal with them also.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to make a few remarks about the beef cattle and hog industries, and ask the minister a few questions in regard to them. Before doing so I should like to say, in connection with what was said a short time ago about stocks of stored meat, that it would be an excellent idea if the minister would go before the prices committee and explain just what the situation is in regard to stored meat. The last figures available from the bureau of statistics for April 1 showed that our stocks of stored meat at that time were the highest we have ever had in Canada, particularly of pork. I think the figures indicated that there were in storage some 86,000,000 pounds of pork and 36,000,000 pounds of beef. If those stocks have now very considerably declined I think it would be an excellent idea if the minister

would make that clear before the prices committee. It would save a great deal of time and prevent the misapprehension from getting abroad throughout the country that there is an oversupply of meat in storage at the present time.
Dealing now with the hog industry, a considerable portion of the minister's remarks on the last day we discussed this matter, April 27, was devoted to the hog industry, chiefly in an effort, I thought, to produce reasons, other than the policy which he has followed, to explain the tremendous reduction which has taken place in hog production in western Canada. One of the reasons he gave was that the farmers there preferred to grow grain rather than to produce hogs. I thought that was very much on a par with the answer the minister gave me in our discussion last year when he said that a lot of the farmers there were too lazy to raise hogs. I do not think the minister should try to find what I would call piffling reasons to explain the drop in hog production. The minister put some figures of hog production on the record a few moments ago for 1939 and 1947-


James Garfield Gardiner: 1946.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, 1946. Those figures did not seem to jibe with figures I have here. It is a table entitled "Hog Gradings by Provinces of Origin", got out by the dominion bureau of statistics. It shows that the production of hogs went up very considerably during the war in western Canada, and went up also, but to a lesser degree, in eastern Canada. Since 1944 hog production in western Canada has been coming down just as rapidly as it went up, and it has now reached approximately what it was in 1939, whereas hog production in eastern Canada has remained up at a high level. The figures are these. Hog production in Alberta in 1939 was, in round figures, 979,000 head; in 1944 it rose to 2,981,000. Production went down a bit, by about 1,000,000 head, in 1945, when the figure was 1,946,000. In 1946 it went down further to 1,250,000 and in 1947, 1,105,000, or to 88-4 per cent of the 1946 figure, and bringing hog production in Alberta down to only 100,000 more than it was in 1939. The same story is true of Saskatchewan. The figures are these:
Saskatchewan
Year	Hog Production
1939	   312,000
1944		 1,934,000
1945	  942,000
1946		 513,000
1947		 434,000

Supply-Agriculture
In other words hog production in 1947 was only a little more than 100,000 head above the 1939 figure. Here are the figures for Manitoba:
Manitoba
Y'ear	Hog Production
1939		 327,009
1944		 851,000
1945		 480.000
1940		 345.000'
1947	 309,000
In 1947 the production was about 20,000 below the 1939 figure. Here are the figures for Ontario and Quebec:
Ontario
Year	Hog Production
1939	 1,667.991
1944		 2,108.734
1945		 1.806,668
1946		 1,769,437
1947		 2,091,329
Quebec
Year	Hog Production
1939	 336,575
1944		 789,325
1945		 535,266
1946		 478,322
1947		 699,568
That is the position, Mr. Chairman. Eastern hog production is greater than in 1939; western hog production is about what it was at that time, having fallen tremendously from 1944 through 1915 and 1946.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to understand the effect of those figures. I understood the hon. member to say he was quoting the inspected slaughterings?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No; this table is called "Hog Gradings by Province of Origin", and I understand shows the actual production.


James Garfield Gardiner: That refers to hogs that are graded at the plants; it is not exactly the production.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is the production apart from hogs slaughtered in butcher shops and on farms.


James Garfield Gardiner: The figures I quoted are complete, including local slaughterings as well as the slaughterings in plants.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Those include estimates of local slaughterings.


James Garfield Gardiner: Those are the figures which come out year after year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Nevertheless they are estimates.


James Garfield Gardiner: So are your figures.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not think we need quarrel over each other's figures. I think there is no doubt that several circumstances have contributed to this situation. In my opinion the chief cause has been the policies followed by the government in regard to subsidies on feed grain and freight assistance. That has been the chief reason for this terrific reduction in hog production in the west and the increase in hog production in the east. Whether this method of raising hogs in Canada, growing grain in the west and shipping it east to be fed here, is in the best interests of Canada as a whole I think is an arguable proposition. Good arguments might be put up on both sides, and I am not going into that.


Ralph Melville Warren: Tell us about that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It may be that it is in the best interests of Canada as a whole. Of one thing I am certain, however, and that is that it has not been in the best interests of western Canada or of western Canadian farmers. I believe that can be readily demonstrated.


Ralph Melville Warren: Why not?


Douglas Scott Harkness: If my hon. friend will keep quiet for a moment I will explain. It has not been in the best interests of the western Canadian economy as a whole, and of western farmers in particular, first, because it has reduced the income of western farmers. They would have had a greater income and more money would have been available for spending purposes in western Canada if those hogs had been produced there instead of the grain being shipped out. On that point I think there can be no argument.


Ralph Melville Warren: May I ask a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am quite willing to answer a question.


Ralph Melville Warren: Do you actually object to the western farmer getting a market in eastern Canada for his coarse grains?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think I explained at the beginning-


Ralph Melville Warren: No, you didn't.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the hon. member had been paying attention he would have followed me when I said I was not arguing whether or not this policy was in the best interests of Canada as a whole, that it was an arguable proposition. I am merely making the point now that as far as western Canada is concerned it has not been to its advantage or in
5849-236J
Supply-Agriculture

its best interests, because in the first place it has reduced1 the total income of the western farmers. The second main reason, I think, is that it has reduced the fertility of the land, because of the fact that they have been shipping the grain out of the province.


Ralph Melville Warren: Might I ask another
question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Ralph Melville Warren: I think the hon. member would be willing to answer it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Ralph Melville Warren: This is a question I want to ask, and I believe the hon. member is willing to answer it.


William Henry Golding: Order. It is not permissible for the hon. member to interrupt the speaker. If the speaker wishes to answer a question he will resume his seat. If he does not do so the hon. member should not interrupt.


Ralph Melville Warren: I think I should be allowed to ask this question. Is it not true that the coarse grains were stacked up on the prairies, that every available space was full of coarse grains?


James Arthur Ross: Why were coarse grains stacked up out there?


Ralph Melville Warren: And we provided a market for them.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am quite willing to answer any pertinent questions, but I do not think we are getting any further ahead with this debate by interruptions of this kind.


Ralph Melville Warren: Well, tell the whole story.


Douglas Scott Harkness: To return to what I was saying, I believe the second important reason why this policy of growing the grain in western Canada and shipping it east to be fed to hogs and cattle is not in the best interests of western Canada is that it is reducing-


Ralph Melville Warren: Why not give us a chance?


Douglas Scott Harkness: -the fertility of our soil. If the hogs were fed out there, everything produced on the farm would go into the hogs and return to the soil, and you would not have anything like the loss of fertility that occurs when you have to ship out the grain. For these two reasons, the smaller financial return to the farmers and the loss in fertility, I believe there is no question that this policy is bad for western Canada and for the western Canadian farmer.

However, Mr. Chairman, to a large extent that is history, and I should like now to turn to what might be called the immediate and future questions in the minds of the hog producers, which I should like the minister to answer. The evidence before the prices committee during the past two or three weeks has been that at the end of the year we shall probably have a surplus of pork after we have filled the United Kingdom contract and supplied the domestic market. I should like to ask the minister, first, what he proposes to do about this surplus if it develops? I hope he will not get up and say there will be no surplus, because, as I say, the best evidence we have been able to get so far is that in all likelihood there will be.


James Garfield Gardiner: That there is a surplus.


Douglas Scott Harkness: After I have resumed my seat, which will be in a minute or two, I should like the minister to tell us what he proposes to do with this surplus if it develops. Then I should like to know if there is any possibility of increasing our shipments of pork to the United Kingdom beyond the amount called for under the contract. My third question is whether the new contract the minister will be negotiating shortly will be for an increased poundage.
In that connection I should like the minister to say something also as to the probable prices under the new contract. A short time ago, in placing his figures on record, he said that in 1946, under the bacon contract, the price was $22.50 up to April 1 and $25 from then to the end of the year, and that the price under the 1949 contract with Great Britain would not be less than the average of those figures. I should say that average would be about $24. The minister knows as well as I do that it is no comfort whatever to the hog producers of this country to learn that the price under the bacon contract for 1949 will be not less than $24. The present price is $36. Everyone who knows anything about the hog business knows that a price only two-thirds as high as the present price would put practically all the producers out of business, that it would break anyone depending on the production of hogs for his livelihood or a major portion of it.
Could the minister give some better assurance than that to the committee and the country, and particularly to the hog producers, as to what the prospects are for 1949? The questions I have been asking are very much in the minds of hog producers. They are entitled to know what the situation is likely to be next year, so that they may be able to make their production plans accordingly. They

Supply-Agriculture
have to start in on that shortly, and at this time they should know where they are likely to get off.
I would ask the minister to comment on one further point. Apparently the effort of the government at the present time is to bring down the price of pork-to bring down the prices of everything and thus to reduce the cost of living. We have had a great deal of discussion on this matter in the prices committee. There seems to be no question that the evidence presented is to the effect that the only way in which the price of pork to the consumer can be brought down materially at the present time is by reducing the price to the producer.
This idea of bringing down prices has been put out by the minister's colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, when he states that these prices must come down. This is disquieting to the pork producers and farmers generally. The producer feels that a threat is hanging over his head, to have his prices forced down in order to appease the demands of consumers for cheaper bacon and cheaper pork products generally.
In reply, would the minister give some reassurance to the pork producers in this matter? I think the minister and all hon. members realize that it is most disquieting to find the papers filled almost every day with talk about the possibility of the government's imposing controls on this, that or the other thing to bring down prices, and that prices are to be forced down by it. The producer is left in the position where he thinks: Well, I am going to be the goat, as usual.


Mr. SINNOTT:: He never is the goat.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I suggest that the minister should give some reassurance to hog producers on that point. I have a number of questions I should like to ask about beef, but I shall take my seat in the hope that the minister will answer my questions concerning pork.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the hon. member began his observations about meat, generally, including beef, and completed his remarks by a more specific reference to pork. The same could be said concerning the discussions in the prices committee.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I talked about nothing but pork, with the exception of my reference to beef in storage.


James Garfield Gardiner: In the last five minutes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Everything else was with regard to pork.


James Garfield Gardiner: The points raised by the hon. member for Souris had to do with beef prices and the sending of beef to the United States. Then, within the last five minutes the matter has been largely with respect to pork supplies. Perhaps it would be just as well if I were to refer to both of -them when I am replying, discussing one immediately after the other.
I turn first to the questions asked by the hon. member for Souris in connection with beef, and beef shipments to -the United States. I do not think I need go over the history of the matter.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Excuse me-


James Garfield Gardiner: Now, if my hon. friend will let me answer-


Douglas Scott Harkness: I had quite a number of questions.


James Garfield Gardiner: And the hon. member will receive answers to all of them when he comes to them-if hon. members will allow him to ask them.


Douglas Scott Harkness: My way might save time.


James Garfield Gardiner: When I am answering these questions I should begin by answering those asked first.


Douglas Scott Harkness: All right.


James Garfield Gardiner: The suggestion was made some time ago that we ought to send our beef to the United States. This, of course, would have had the effect of greatly increasing the price of beef at least in this country. Cattle have gone down about ten cents a pound since then.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What?


James Garfield Gardiner: About ten cents a pound in the United States.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Oh.


James Garfield Gardiner: And of course there
is not nearly the same urgency, apparently, for a discussion of the question at the present time. When it was being discussed on a previous occasion I made the suggestion that probably the time would come much sooner than hon. members expected when floor prices established by contracts would be worthwhile.
The other day Mr. Ross, who has been one of the chief critics from Alberta, a man who is an outstanding rancher, and whose opinion is always valued on the question-


James Arthur Ross: That is George Ross.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, George Ross. He is reported to have said to the committee
Supply-Agriculture

that grass cattle shipped from Montana comparable with those shipped from Alberta would bring on the United States market $22 and on the Canadian market $16, for a comparable grade. That is a difference of only six cents a pound. When one considers that there is duty to be paid-and it is not high-and that there is freight to be paid, he can conclude that the margin between American and Canadian prices is not nearly so wide as it was when we were discussing this matter in January. In other words, roughly speaking, the price of cattle on the United States market has gone down about ten cents.
For the benefit of hon. members in the committee, may I say it is not possible any longer either for them or for me to suggest that this is a question which is under the Department of Finance. It has been transferred back to Agriculture.


James Arthur Ross: Entirely?


James Garfield Gardiner: So I can now discuss it as the minister who may have something to do directly with what is to be done from now on in regard to the export of beef.


James Arthur Ross: Is it entirely under agriculture now?


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall explain the whole position. Hon. members should know, from legislation we have passed within the last few years concerning these matters, that we did set up an export organization in the Department of Trade and Commerce. It has always been the situation throughout the years that the Department of Trade and Commerce has handled the actual export of products. Where it is necessary to have permits, that department issues those permits. But permits are and always have been issued on most agricultural products under the advice of the Department of Agriculture, or at least on the recommendation of that department.
In 1942 the authority to make that recommendation in connection with beef cattle was transferred from the Department of Agriculture to the prices board in order to give that board full control over prices in Canada. Now -today-it has been transferred back to the Department of Agriculture. So from now on, recommendations made in the matter will be made in a greater degree as related to the actual conditions surrounding the necessity for marketing.
I wanted to say that to the committee, in order that we might be clear as to the exact position at the present time. However, that has been the position for only a few hours; therefore we are all starting off with the same knowledge. I may say there are two or three

matters which have to be discussed when the question is being considered, with reference particularly as to when and how any product may be returned to the United States market when it has been out of that market for some time. In connection with beef, however, there are special conditions. One has to do with the fact that the quota, prior to the war, for entrance into the United States, from all the world, was 220,GOO head at a weight of 700 pounds or more.
We had an agreement with the Americans that our proportion of the quota was to be about 76 per cent, and that the Mexican quota was to be about 24 per cent. When it was determined that our beef was to go to Britain under mutual aid, while United States cattle, beef or pork, or anything of that kind, was going to Britain under lend lease, we were asked to release the United States from the obligation to keep the Mexican supplies down to 24 per cent and to let them take whatever proportion of the total amount of 220,000 head or more that they desired to take. Naturally that was agreed to. We were given the undertaking at the time that, when the position was reversed and we were again shipping cattle into the United States, the fact that we had not done so in the meantime would not have any bearing upon any decisions that might be reached but that the question would be considered on its merits at the time.
We have come back to the time when some consideration will be given to the matter. In answer to the question asked, I cannot say when cattle will be shipped to the United States, but I can say we are going to open up negotiations as to what will happen when cattle are shipped to the United States. Of course the situation has changed somewhat. The cattle producers represented to us and we represented to Geneva that, because we had shipped about 525,000 head of cattle in cans and frozen, and otherwise, to Great Britain and Europe in 1945, we were likely to have considerably more than the 193,000 head which was our part of the 220,000 head quota under the old arrangement when the war was over and when we had settled down to produce.
Because the producers felt that way, and the government agreed, we made representations, and out of the discussions came the fact that there is no change in the duty on cattle under the Geneva agreements. The president has the right to reduce duties by 50 per cent as he had back in 1936 and 1939. In 1936 and 1939 we got the duty of $3 per hundred cut in two, making it $1.50. Under the present arrangement the president may cut the duty again by 50 per cent in connection with the Geneva agreements which were on the basis

Supply-Agriculture
of the same quota, but out of the discussions came the fact that the quota was to be 400.000 head and the duty to remain as it was. The duty has not been changed.
We are confronted with the situation where all the world has a quota into the United States of 400,000 head of cattle, but there are only two places from which they can get any considerable part of that quota. One place is Mexico and the other is Canada. We must negotiate what proportion of that quota we are to have. One of the facts with which we shall be confronted is that last year we did not have 100,000 head to send out of Canada and it does not appear that we shall have any more this year. This is largely because we are consuming 25 to 30 per cent more beef in Canada this year than we were in the years before the war.
These questions still have to be discussed with the United States before the United States boundary line is opened. All I can say is that they will be discussed and at an early day. Questions have been asked witl. regard to shipments to Great Britain. Storage., at April 1 of both beef and bacon were very high. So far as cattle are concerned, this was due to something which, so far as I have read, has not yet been brought out before the prices committee.
In December last year we had quite a long discussion about the removal of controls on meat ceilings and coarse grains ceilings and out of that discussion came certain ideas. One was that there would not be nearly as many hogs marketed in 1948 as had been marketed previously. Another was that we might have more beef marketed than had been marketed in some of the earlier years. It was anticipated that this beef would be marketed at *the usual time in considerable quantities, namely, around the end of March or the beginning of April.
Farmers in eastern parts of Canada have been accustomed to filling their stables with feeder cattle in the fall and feeding them with grain, either produced by themselves or purchased in western Canada, through until the latter part of March or the early part of April. That provided the full winter program on many farms in the eastern part of Canada. In the month of January we found that beef cattle were coming on to the markets, particularly in eastern Canada, in numbers away above what was expected. We made enquiries with regard to it.
I sat in on discussions with men who buy cattle in areas in western Ontario where cattle are produced and from which areas they were coming onto the market in great numbers. I was told what obviously would be true. In December we decided that, since
there had been an increase in the price of grain through the ceilings having been taken off, there ought to be an increase in the floor prices under livestock in the British agreements. This house was assured that those contracts were being negotiated and eventually would be announced and that they would be satisfactory, provided that prices of feed grain remained at rates which were considered to be reasonable when the increases were added.
At the time we were discussing the matter, barley was selling at around $1.20, and oats at a comparable figure. We said in this house that was a reasonable figure in relation to the price of wheat and therefore it was a reasonable figure upon which to estimate or work out prices that ought to go into the British agreements on all farm products produced from feed grains.
Unfortunately barley went up to $1.36 a bushel in January; it did not stay at $1.20. Obviously farmers who were feeding hogs could not act as did those who were feeding cattle. Farmers who were feeding cattle fed some Ontario soft wheat and to that extent they did not feed barley. By the middle of February we had a large percentage of these cattle in cold storage in our packing plants. Those cattle had been bought at about one cent a pound below what the market had been at the beginning.
Instead of having the cattle standing in the stalls and feeding down to the end of March, we had the beef in cold storage in the plants. There was so much of it that we had to ask the British to permit us to send part of their second quarter's supply over in advance to be stored there. On the other hand, feed grain accumulated. We did not have sufficient storage space in which to store the beef. It is some of this beef which appears in the storage figures around the end of April, and some of it still appears in the storage figures in May. But as to any suggestion that it was some manipulation on the part of somebody or other that brought about the situation, particularly if that somebody or other is someone who was handling beef and buying cattle, I think one has to go farther back in order to have the full information that is necessary to come to a proper conclusion with regard to the matter. Also one has to know that much of this beef which was in storage was beef that should not have come on the market at all until the month of April. Had it come on the market in the month of April, there would probably be 100 pounds more on each steer; we would have had beef to send to Britain in greater quantities than we did; we would probably have on our own market more beef of the type which people
Supply-Agriculture

want to buy, and prices of meat might not have gone up as high as they did in April.
I suggest that there is m that some explanation for what has happened in connection with beef. But the present position is that we have practically no beef in storage on this side of the Atlantic at the present time. We have not been buying beef since early in the month of April to fill the British contracts. We have been leaving the beef cun this market in order to assist in providing that beef would not go up to higher levels than it went during that period of time. It is true that there is a shortage at the moment. Part of the shortage is due to the facts which I have indicated, and part of it is due to the fact that they could not deliver cattle in western Canada during the month of April. Floods and road conditions have been such that cattle could not be brought in. That has had some effect upon the number of cattle that are coming on the market, and therefore the amount of beef which is available, and may have some effect upon the price which is being paid.
The storage figures for the month of May are not in my hands at the moment. I have heard approximately what they are, but I do not want to guess. I shall put them on the record later if I have them while we are considering these estimates. Of course they are much lower than the figures were at the first of April. Much that beef has been consumed. There is involved in that the other question as to when we are to open the United States marke'.
Coming to bacon and hogs, we were told, as I suggested a moment ago, that our production of hogs in this year would not be as high as it was last year. I must admit that the suggestions which were made in the house and outside the house, in newspapers right across the country, did, I think, mislead some of those who were making statistics with regard to what the situation would be. At the time that the discussions were taking place, we in the department increased the figures by 20.000,000 pounds above what we were told, by the best statisticians that we could consult, would be the amount of bacon which would be available in Canada in 1948. Even those 20,000.000 pounds do not take care of the amount of bacon that is coming in, or the number of bacon hogs coming in. We received 48 per cent more hogs on the market in January than we received in January the year before, and we continue to get hogs in greater numbers than were estimated prior to the beginning of the year; with the result, as was suggested a

few moments ago, that more is coming on the market than the British contract, as drawn up. will take.
Mr. BURTON . Will the minhter permit a question?


James Garfield Gardiner: Let me finish my statement. In direct answer to the question as to whether Britain will take more, up to the present time Britain has taken more. I am not going to try to guess what she will do in the future, but up to the present time Britain has taken more than the contract calls for. Our weekly shipments have been 25 per cent over what the contract calls for. If we were to continue at that rate the total amount of 195.000.000 pounds would be delivered by about the middle of September. Because of that, I am not in a position to say whether we shall have a surplus of hogs in 1948 or not.
During the years when we were on the upgrade, I was accustomed to taking chances in stating figures to the house, and I must say that I never over-stated them. After adding from fifty million to seventy-five million pounds to the figures which were quoted to us as the amounts that farmers would likely produce in bacon and ham, we have found that every year during the war the farmer exceeded those figures, and went on up into other figures until late in the war. More recently, when the production is on the downgrade it is just a little more difficult, because in the earlier period we were trying to coax the farmers up to higher levels.
My hon. friend has asked me, what about the future? I do not know that there is anyone in the world who can say very much about the future at the moment. All I can say is that there is not anyone who is asking us at the present time to send hogs to the United States, because the Canadian market is the highest market in the world that we can find for Canadian hogs. Hogs are selling in Canada at a higher price than they can be sold anywhere else. The United States market is lower than ours. So far as we know, there are very few places where pork can be sold at the price at which it is being sold at the present time in Canada. I state that because it is a fact. I do not say where this is going to take us, but I do say it is an indication that farmers did require floors under their prices in 1948 in the form of British agreements. It is an indication that the government was not short-sighted when it had these contracts drawn, and established the position that the farmer could be sure of, up to certain dates. Beyond that, I am not prepared to go at the moment.

Supply-Agriculture


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is the minister prepared to say anything as to what plans are being made, if any, to deal with this surplus if it develops? I think the minister said it was probable that there would be a surplus.


James Garfield Gardiner: That depends. There will not be a surplus if the British continue to take it in quantities sufficient to take care of it. We figure that around the middle of September, as they have been taking it, we would come to the point where the figures would turn the other way for a time. Whether they do or not depends upon the attitude of the farmer himself. If he thinks the returns are so good that he is going to increase, we may be wrong in our guess that the quantities will come down somewhat from September on to the end of the year, comparable with the deliveries of a year ago. I would not care to say that. I am certain at this moment that we shall have more than we can handle under the British contract, but I suggest that the British are taking more than the contract calls for at the moment, and may or may not continue to do that right through the year.
What we are doing in relation to the surplus now is finding the best markets that we can find for hog products. Small quantities have been sold in Europe. Perhaps additional quantities can be sold there. This will be all sold under arrangements which will be satisfactory in relation to prices we have under the British contract. I am not in a position to say more than that with regard to production or with regard to marketing. The situation is as I have described it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What about the new contract, as far as increased poundage is concerned?


James Garfield Gardiner: That will be discussed on the basis of the facts as they are at the end of the year. The discussions with the British with respect to the new contract have usually taken place in November and December, as was the case last year; no doubt they will take place at the same time this year, and the decisions reached will be based on conditions then existing.


Joseph William Burton: Mr. Chairman, I should like to rise to a question of privilege. I may say that I have no desire at any time to put a wrong interpretation on any statement made by any member in the house, and as I mentioned at the time I was speaking a short while ago, I did not have Hansard before me with reference to the statement to which I referred. The Minister of Agriculture having made his statement following my short remarks, I should like, as a matter of privilege, to put on the record now what appears in Hansard of April 5, 1939, on page 2623, in the first column, where the right hon. gentleman makes this statement:
It has been proven over and again that twenty bushels to the acre of wheat can be produced at a cost of from 30 to 40 cents a bushel. We have had a great deal of discussion about the cost of producing wheat. It costs a certain amount to work an acre of land whether you get any wheat off it or not; it costs a certain amount to harvest it if you do get any wheat off it. It has been proven over and over again, I say, that twenty bushels to the acre of wheat can be produced at a cost of from 30 to 40 cents a bushel. For every bushel a man gets over twenty his costs per bushel decrease. When he has a crop of twenty bushels or more per acre, his other crops are usually good in proportion.
Mr. Johnston (Bow River):	What is the
basis of that estimate of from 30 to 40 cents a bushel as the cost of production?
Mr. Gardiner:	Estimates have been made by
authorities in Saskatchewan University, and there are also the figures submitted by the Saskatchewan government to the Rowell commission.
Mr. Coldwell:	Professor Hope gives quite a
different set-up.
Mr. Gardiner: He gives a set-up based on the cost of the wheat itself, but it amounts approximately to this. By adding debt costs and other items he arrives at another figure.
There were some more interjections and then the minister said:
You will find upon a close study that he arrives at pretty much the same figure I have given.
At no time, however, did the Minister of Agriculture state that he was quoting from Professor Hope's finding, and if I erred in making the statement I did I apologize to the minister. Certainly I had taken it in good faith throughout the years as the record appeared.


James Garfield Gardiner: The statement which my hon. friend has read is never read in that form to an audience in Saskatchewan. If it were I would not take exception.


Joseph William Burton: I have never quoted it any other way.


James Garfield Gardiner: The statement made in Saskatchewan is exactly as the hon. member gave it this afternoon, that I had said that the cost of producing wheat in western Canada was the figure he used. When he reads the article, it is clearly indicated that it is the cost of putting wheat in the ground and taking off the crop, and I even go so far as to state that if you add debt costs and other costs you get a higher figure. When I was asked where
Supply-Agriculture

the figures were quoted from I said Saskatchewan University, and Mr. Hope was the man who was compiling the figures in Saskatchewan University. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) then used those figures to indicate that when you take another set of figures and add them, namely, the full cost of the production of wheat, which is interest on the money invested in the farm, returns to labour for farmers and all those on the farm, and all that kind of thing, you can get a higher figure than that. But that is the actual cost figure for seeding an acre of land and harvesting an acre of land. That is made obvious by the fact that the discussion which was then on was a discussion as to whether it made any difference whether the land was light or heavy, and I think I used arguments at the time to indicate that there was a difference.


Joseph William Burton: I find no place here where the minister referred to Professor Hope as the authority for the figures he had given until there were interjections, and then he said that Professor Hope arrived at approximately the same figure he gave.


James Garfield Gardiner: The university record is Mr. Hope's record. There was no one making records but Mr. Hope.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Will the minister answer the last question I asked in regard to the apprehension which hog producers feel at the present time over the statements made by some members of the government with regard to pushing down pork prices, among others? I asked that he might make some statement on that which would serve as a reassurance to those people who are becoming increasingly nervous over constant reports in the papers as to what might be done by way of controls and otherwise to effect that purpose.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not heard the remarks made by any minister and therefore I am not going to comment on them. I have seen headings in the papers to the effect that certain things were said before a committee, but my memory was that it had to do with meat prices, not pork prices particularly.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the minister will admit that the price paid for hogs determines largely the price that people have to pay for pork.


James Garfield Gardiner: Beef is included in meat.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The producer is interested in the price he will get for his hogs. I know the minister reads the papers regularly, and he has seen, as I have, dozens of these

reports. I wish he would say something which might serve as a reassurance to the hog producers and put their minds at rest.


Percy Ellis Wright: It is evident from certain action the government has taken that there are surpluses of certain meat products in Canada. They opened up the market in the United States for certain types of canned beef, pork and other meat products. At least some of the farmers are alarmed that the government opened that market to the packers before opening it up to the beef producers. I put a question on the order paper some time ago as to quantities that were being exported. They were not large quantities but in the total it is rather a considerable amount. To the question I put on the order paper regarding the quantity of canned beef, pork, or other meat products at present allowed to be exported to the United States, the following answer was given:
X. (a) Spreads and potted meats, 579,000 lbs.; (b) pork products, 207,000 lbs.; (c) solid pack, other than pork products, 283,000 lbs.; (d) stews, boiled dinners, hashes and chile con carne, 833,000 lbs.
The total is 1,952,000 pounds, for which permits have been granted or are in process of being granted. When we export our coarse grains we export them under a permit system whereby any money that is made on the export of those grains comes back to the producers, but apparently the United States market has been opened up to some extent to the packers without any guarantee that any additional revenue obtained from that market will come back to the producers. Can the minister say to what extent this market is being opened up and why it should be done in this way?


James Garfield Gardiner: It will be noted that the figures are about 1,000,000 pounds.


Percy Ellis Wright: It is 1,950,000 pounds.


James Garfield Gardiner: The total kill of beef alone in a week is about 10,000,000 pounds, and when you take even 2,000,000 pounds it is a small part of what is being consumed in Canada. That, of course, is not the answer to the question which has been raised. The price of livestock would be somewhat lower- it might be only a small fraction of a cent-if it were not possible to get rid of the trimmings. These trimmings may be partly fats and partly other meat, but they are all mixed into a product called pressed meat, or they may be canned into a product called canned meat. To say that they cannot have a market for them when we are shipping the quantities of bacon, ham and beef we are shipping to Britain, and

Supply-Agriculture
when there is no market for the trimmings in Canada, would not be helping anyone. As to the suggestion that a great profit is made on the trimmings, I am not so sure about that.


Percy Ellis Wright: I did not say there was a profit.


James Garfield Gardiner: I doubt if there would be sufficient involved in it to make any great difference to the farmers who are delivering from two to three hundred million pounds of bacon and some hundreds of millions of pounds of beef. What is done with these trimmings in cans would not make much difference to the farmer. If you tried to distribute it, the costs of distribution would eat it up, I should think.


Percy Ellis Wright: Is it the policy of the government to open the United States market to the packers ahead of the farmers in shipping beef over there? This is an indication that the United States market is being opened to a certain extent.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know just what process we shall go through to have the market completely opened, but when it is opened, cattle will be marketed just as they were before the war, so far as the machinery for marketing them is concerned, but I hope they will not be marketed at as low a return.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to change the subject for a few minutes, and I do so only because I have to go away. I want to ask the minister about another matter about which I wrote him and wrote the Minister of Finance and wrote the governor of the Bank of Canada, last summer.
I found that we had coming out to our part of the country quite a number of men from the United Kingdom, men who were very well off. I remember one in particular whose ancestors had a great deal to do with producing some of the types of cattle which are now so popular. I mean cattlemen from generation to generation. What they were anxious to do was to buy a place in this country and operate it, but they had, of course, no means of getting their English money out here for that purpose.
The question I asked Mr. Towers and also the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture was roughly this. Here were these men ready and willing to give, not only security on the places which they had at home in Britain, and they were large substantial places, but also security on the places in Canada which they wished to purchase for the purpose of continuing to breed prize livestock,
the best of breeds and the best of cattle. It struck me, not being a financier, that we could not possibly lose anything by that.
Obviously the Bank of Canada must have credits in the old country. The reply I got from Mr. Towers was that he could not see very much wrong with it but that it was a matter of government policy and therefore he could not give me an answer. The Minister of Agriculture was away at the time. I did receive a reply from someone in his office but I never had my question answered. I do not say that in any blameworthy way. I realize how busy the minister was, and I am grateful for the courtesy that I got from his office. I wonder if he would tell me if that could not be worked out.
One can readily see what a splendid thing it would be for the whole livestock industry in this country if we could get these men, experienced as they are, not only in raising livestock but in improving the breeds, established out here. Some of them are credited publicly with improving the breeds of cattle. I think it was they who eliminated the daylight between the animal's belly and the ground; in other words, they started getting the beef down close to the animal's heels.
I cannot see very much wrong with this scheme, nor can I find any reason-it may be that I am just ignorant; I do not know-why there should be any exchange problem at all. We take security over there, and ample security; we take another security here, and all we do is to provide them with the dollars necessary to build up those ranches in this country. I am referring particularly to some people from Scotland. Perhaps the minister did not get my letter. I wonder if he could enlighten me, because surely it would be a splendid thing for our cattle industry if we could have investments of that kind made in the Dominion of Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am no more, probably not as much, a financier as the hon. member for Calgary West. I do not know if he was at a gathering the other nighb-I think not- at which Sir Albert Braithwaite spoke. I mention him only because the same question was involved in connection with coal mining. The question raised has been discussed many times, and I have no comment to make on the answer my hon. friend received from Mr. Towers. After all, government policy on matters of this kind must be determined to some extent on the advice the government gei3, and there are men who have made a thorough study of the question and who do give advice.
Supply-Agriculture

Sir Albert was very critical much along the same line as that taken 'by the hon. member for Calgary West, as to why such a thing cannot be done. He said he had these very large holdings in Britain which had been taken over by the British government, and he had the British government's paper that so much money was coming to him; but when he went to the Bank of England to try to get dollars to bring to Canada, and put his security behind that request for dollars, the Bank of England told him he just could not get the dollars. It is not only the banking institutions in this country which have to be dealt with but banking institutions elsewhere, and Sir Albert said he had to come over here without the dollars with which to carry on the activity he was prepared to take up at once.
All I can say with regard to my hon. friend's question is that it is a matter which is outside the Department of Agriculture altogether. I may have some views on it, but sometimes that does not help very much because other people have views too. Apparently this is a matter where considerable negotiating would have to be done, not only with the British but with the Americans and some other people. It is a 'bigger question than merely a Canadian one; it is an international question.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You cannot see anything wrong with the scheme yourself at the moment?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well-
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH: The minister's statement that hog deliveries were on the increase was surprising to us from the west. May I ask what per cent of these slaughterings was due to deliveries of breeding stock?


James Garfield Gardiner: Just about the normal percentage of breeding stock. The figures I have given and the fact that pork is in storage for Great Britain indicate that these were mostly A and B hogs.


Mr. ARGUE:: Much of the information the minister has given to us this afternoon underlines the contention of the members of this group, namely, that you cannot have a properly balanced agricultural economy when you have fluctuating prices. The minister gave earlier the production in Canada in 1946 as compared with the production in 1939; but in doing so, as he said, he was taking a year after the war and comparing it with a year before the war. I would say he was taking a period when there had been little planning, and comparing it with a period which followed a time during which there had been a good

deal of planning, and when many of the benefits of that planning were still being felt. I believe farmers generally feel that during the last part of the war at least, they were doing fairly well. They considered their economic position much better than it had been for a long time. They do not want to go back to the situation that existed before the war; they do not want the conditions which prevailed then to prevail again; but every step the government has taken since the end of the war has been in the direction of the same kind of economy that we had before the war, and we are seeing the results of that policy on every hand.
The minister gave figures showing increased marketings of pork earlier this year. I do not know what is happening all across Canada, but I know the people in my area are getting out of hog production. They had a number of hogs last fall. They did not want to exterminate them, so they decided to fed them; and as quickly as possible they are getting those hogs on the market and getting out of production. The minister says he does not know what the deliveries are likely to be this fall. I believe deliveries would be much better if the farmer had a reasonable idea in advance of the amount he will earn if he feeds hogs. The minister said the marketings of cattle were increased in the first part of this year because the price of barley was very high. That definitely supports the contention of this group that the high price for barley was not benefiting either the farmer who grew it or the man who had to buy it to feed to his livestock. That price was benefiting only the middleman, and was imposing a hardship both on the man who produced the grain and the man who bought it for feed.
The discussion this afternoon has been interesting and entertaining. I do not think the debate on windmills and wind chargers was serious. I do not believe the minister really thinks a wind charger can provide all the power a farmer could use on his farm if he were getting his electricity at a price similar to that which, for instance, the people of this province have to pay. However, I believe the farmers of Canada and in particular those of the western provinces will solve their electricity problem, provided that they have a decent income each year. Give the farmers of western Canada a decent income; let Saskatchewan continue to expand its power development at the rapid rate it has shown in the past few years, and to sell that power at the lowest prices in the history of that

Supply-Agriculture
province, and the people of Saskatchewan will solve their electricity problem to their own satisfaction.
I would not wish to say, as one hon. member suggested, that the hon. member for Rosthern is a protege of the Minister of Agriculture. If he is, I think the hon. member has gone far astray. As I understand the minister's ideas, he believes in undiluted Liberalism, but the hon. member for Rosthern is getting a lot of non-Liberals around him. I doubt that he will ever be premier of Saskatchewan. The minister said he would; then five minutes later went on to say, "You know, I am not one to prophesy what is going to happen in future." If the hon. member for Rosthern ever should become premier, however, I do not think he will head a Liberal administration. He may think, "Well, now, I have a few members here elected on the Liberal ticket, but by gosh I think they are Tories," because down in my part of the country the strategy of the Liberal party is to go out and nominate as the Liberal candidate a well known Conservative, and then try to have him accepted by the members of the Liberal party.
In the constituency of Bengough rumour has it-I am not saying this is true, but I have heard it so often I think there must be some foundation for it-that a well known Liberal, with whom I am sure the minister is well acquainted, and who was a member of the legislature at one time, wishes to run as an independent Liberal. That is the only way he can support Liberalism in that constituency, because he does not like the Tory candidate the Liberal party has nominated to contest the seat. So I say the hon. member for Rosthern is not really a protege of the Minister of Agriculture, because he is doing many things I am sure the minister would not condone.
In his remarks the other evening, the minister accused members of this party of always saying that agriculture is going down and dowrn instead of going up and up, as the minister said it was. I want to admit right now that during the war the government implemented policies which did benefit agriculture a great deal in comparison with the terrible situation that prevailed before the war. I am quite ready to give anyone, including the minister, who had anything to do with those policies, full credit. But while that is so, the people of this country should not have to be plunged into war before the farmers are given a decent standard of living. Farmers say what wre did during the war we can do during the peace, and we can do it even better because we have more people in Canada who can produce the things we need.
The net position of agriculture in 1946 was somewhat better than in 1947, but even so I do not believe the position of agriculture in 1946 was as good as it should have been. In that year the net income for all Canada was something over $9,600 million, while the net income of agriculture was $1,267 million. In other words, twenty-five per cent of the population, which is approximately the percentage employed in agriculture, received much less than twenty-five per cent of the national income. A twenty-five per cent share of the national income in that year would have amounted to approximately 82,400 million, while agriculture actually received only half that amount. So that, while in 1946 agriculture was in a relatively good position compared with other years, certainly it should have been in an even better position.
To come to 1947, according to the minister's figures the gross income of agriculture improved by some $455,000,000. Farmers' gross income improved by $455,000,000 and their net income dropped by $8,000,000. I suggest that those figures condemn the policy which the government has followed in the last two years, the policy of taking off all controls and all the protection farmers had, and turning them back once again to the vicious and gambling grain exchange, placing them back once again at the mercy of the machine companies and the oil companies, and what have you. Because of that policy, while gross agricultural income increased by $455,000,000, the net position of farmers, was $8,000,000 worse in 1947 than in 1946.
That deterioration in the position of agriculture was not brought about by crop failures, because statistics show that prices worsened, so far as farmers were concerned. In 1946 the average wholesale index was about 109; in 1947 the average was about 129, or an increase of 20 points. The general wholesale index takes into account all commodities. So that the cost of all commodities in Canada increased between those two years by approximately 20 points. The average index for all agricultural products in 1946 was approximately 112, while in 1947 it was 120. So that prices of agricultural products between those two years increased by only eight points, whereas prices of all commodities increased by 20 points.
Many tables containing accurate statistics have been placed on the record this afternoon. I have here a table showing by months in the years 1946 and 1947 general wholesale indices and wholesale price indices of Canadian farm products for the same two years. This information is arranged in tabular form, so that it is easy to read and to note the relative

Supply-Agriculture
changes from month to month. With the consent of the committee, I should like to place on record this table, which is taken from a publication of the bureau of statistics.


William Ross Macdonald: Has the hon. member unanimous consent?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.
Basis-1926 equals 100		Wholesale price index
	General	Canadian
	wholesale farm	
	index	products
1946-January	104-6	109-6February 	105-3	110-3March 	105-6	110-3April 	108 [DOT] 4	110-7May 	109-0	111-5June 	109-3	112-7July 	109-7	113-8August 	109-3	111-5September ....	109-2	110-9October 	111-0	113-3November 	111-6	113-8December 	112-0	113-91947-January	114-2	114-4February	118-1	115-5March 	120-4	116-4April 	122-9	116-9May 	125-3	118-5June 	127-8	119-2July 	129-1	120 [DOT] 1August 	130-8	120-0September	133-8	120-4October 	139-3	122-9November 	142-5	126-5December 	143-5	130-7


James Garfield Gardiner: I	should	like to make
one comment regarding criticism in connection with net returns to farmers. I must admit that
I have not been able to follow all the way through the argument put forward either by the leader of the C.C.F. or the hon. member for Wood Mountain. There is, however, a fact which must be apparent to anyone. The net income, after making allowances for all costs, to farmers right across Canada in 1947 was $1,259,000,000. To go back to 1939, to which year the leader of the C.C.F. referred, the net return was $484,000,000. The simple fact is that, after considering all costs, the net returns to farmers are almost three times as high in 1947 as they were in 1939. That is the only point I wanted to make, and what I have said is clear from the figures. The net return received by the farmer over and above his costs was about three times as high.
I admit that the amount way back in 1939 did not even pay the cost of production, which means that the $1,259,000,000 is not an increase in net return in the sense that all the return is net profit. Nevertheless the farmer is getting in return three times as much as he got before.


Hazen Robert Argue: How does the minister account for the change between the 1946 and 1947
incomes?


James Garfield Gardiner: I believe there is an error in the figure appearing in Hansard for 1946. I have not checked it, but I am told that the Hansard figure is $1,267,000,000, whereas it should be $1,167,000,000.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to make a few comments on some of the statements made a little while ago concerning the removal of the export ban on beef cattle going to the United States. The minister said that, since the price dropped in the cattle markets of the United States, there had been a great reduction in the amount of talk with respect to the removal of the ban. So far as the beef men in my province are concerned, I am not aware of any reduction in their talk on the matter, or any lessening in their demand for the removal of the export ban. Those men have been asking for the removal of the ban, not chiefly from the point of view of price, as the minister knows, but from that of ensuring that the United States market for Canadian beef will be kept open, as they have expressed it, and retained for the future.
I do not think there has been any change in that regard, so far as they are concerned. The minister said that when Mr. George Ross appeared before the prices committee he indicated there would not be a great deal of difference between present prices received by United States ranchers across the border in Montana and those received by Alberta ranchers along the border. The minister gave a fairly accurate report of what Mr. Ross said, when he pointed out that there was a difference of about six cents a pound.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I might be permitted to correct the hon. member-and I know he is not attempting to misrepresent what I said-


Douglas Scott Harkness: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that; I did not make the statement the hon. member attributed to me. I gave the actual figures; and later on I did say freight and duty had to be deducted.


Douglas Scott Harkness: 
James Garfield Gardiner: I was making the suggestion that they would have to be shipped to Chicago; the freight rate from Winnipeg to Chicago would have to be added.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We can pretty well leave out freight. It might amount to a little, but not very much. The duty is H cents a pound, so that there would be a difference of from 4 to 4J cents a pound. I thought the minister left the impression that that did not amount to anything, and that, therefore, as far as prices were concerned, the beef-cattle men were doing quite well and did not need to worry about that 4\ cents a pound. I do not think that is the situation at all.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I left that impression it was not intentional.


James Arthur Ross: That is the way it sounded.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, that is the way it sounded; and I should like to make it clear that that 4 to 4} cents a pound is important to the beef men. As a matter of fact, if it had not been for the rise in beef prices during the last three weeks a large number of feeders in western Canada would have lost a great deal of money. How they will come out now, I do not know, but they certainly needed the rise that took place in order to have a chance of getting out.
The minister indicated that he now has control, more or less, of agriculture, particularly as far as the export of cattle is concerned, back in his own hands. I understand that this took place within the last day or two. I am glad to hear that, because I would hope that now there will be a much better chance of getting action in opening up the United States cattle market. I trust that the minister will, in the near future, exercise the powers which have been returned to him.
He stated that there was a quota of 400,000 head to be allowed in at a duty of one cent and a half and that it would take some considerable time to negotiate with the United States as to what proportion of that quota we could have, provided that any cattle could be shipped. He said at the same time that the only other source of supply was Mexico. I think the minister is well aware that no cattle are allowed into the United States from Mexico because of the foot and mouth disease which is prevalent in that country, and the probability is that none will be allowed in for several years to come. I cannot see why any negotiations with the United States government are required as to how that quota of 400,000 head is to be split up between ourselves and Mexico. I do not think there is any question but that we could have all of it at the present time.
We have no chance of filling it at the present time, although we might have if we were sure that it would be there for the next two or three years.
I can see no real difficulty in having this export ban, as far as the United States is concerned, removed immediately. I think the only reason the United States would not be opened up is that which has been given by the minister throughout the country on several occasions, namely, that the ban was being maintained in order to prevent domestic prices of meat from going up. Of course that is a different question altogether.
I have in my hand a letter written by Mr. Charles H. McKinnon, president of the Western Stock Growers' Association, who lives near Dalemead, a few miles east of Calgary. This letter is addressed to the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King under date of March 27, 1948. I should like to ask the permission of the committee to have this letter placed on Hansard, because I think it presents the views of the western cattle producers in as clear and complete a manner as I have ever seen them presented.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yesterday the leader of the house refused a similar request by the hon. member for Lethbridge, and I note that there has been some favourable comment on the action which was taken. Simply to have a letter, written by someone and not read in the house, placed on the record is objectionable.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If there is objection I shall have to read it. I thought I could save a little time. After I have read it, I hope the minister will make some comment on the questions, both direct and implied, contained in the letter. The letter reads:
March 27, 1948.
Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Prime Minister,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
I have been instructed by the board of directors of this association to write directly to you in connection with Canada's beef cattle industry. The decision for this instruction was arrived at only after full discussion of the industry and government policy during the war and the post-war period.
Supply-A gricullure

The beef cattle industry is one of the important basic industries of Canada. In western Canada it is basically of greatest importance because cattle population related to human population reveals that Canada's surplus cattle marketings each year are produced in the west. If you will examine the record you will find that the industry since its inception in the early eighties in western Canada, despite wide variations in climatic conditions, has always managed to carry itself without assistance from the federal treasury. It has done this primarily because of the fortitude of its operators, their willingness to take bad years with the good, managing to carry cash and feed reserves from good years to bad.
As you know, and for which the industry gives you full credit, the Canadian-United States trade agreement in 1936 marked a new era for the industry. Access was then possible to the great United States market for a quota number of cattle at a reduced rate of duty. Until 1942 our operators had a close, quick and profitable market for their surplus production. With the exigencies of the war and the establishment of the wartime prices and trade board finally came the embargo on Canadian exports. This was accepted by the industry as a war measure and it was understood that the right of export of live cattle would be lodged with the food corporation which was organized as a crown company by the prices board. The main purpose of the corporation was in times of sur plus to purchase live cattle at Canadian ceiling price equivalents, export the same to the United States in order to keep trade channels open and if a profit should accrue to keep the same for the future benefit of the industry. Despite the appearance of surplus marketings, and the decline of live cattle prices below dressed beef ceiling equivalents with embargoes placed in some instances on public markets, the corporation failed to discharge its main purpose and beef cattle producers were obliged to absorb the shock of price decline. Despite representations repeatedly made to your Minister _ of Agriculture and your chairman of the prices board, nothing was done. Our surplus production was purchased by the meat board and sent overseas to feed our troops and those of the United Kingdom.
With the commencement of mutual aid and lend-lease, we made no further representations when we were assured that our outlet to our natural United States market would be protected for the post-war period. We were disquieted when the chairman of the meat board ventured to state that the United Kingdom market would be substituted for the United States market, and were further disturbed to learn that our surplus production was diverted to Europe exclusively and wras not available for the Alaskan theatre of operations where Canadian troops were stationed. Instead, supplies were drawn from as far south as Omaha, Nebraska, and Kansas City, Kansas. We were in a position from Edmonton via Prince Rupert to aid the war effort and at the same time this action would have assisted in maintaining live cattle prices close to the beef ceiling equivalent.
During the war period, producers were concerned chiefly with preserving friendly contacts and their natural outlet to the United1 States market.

I should like to emphasize that sentence particularly in view of wnat was said here this afternoon by the minister and myself. I continue:
They had given up the American price in the interest of inflation control; their chief concern was that of preserving the market to the south and suggested on different occasions that token shipments should go forward. This was in accordance with government policy as stated by your Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with other Canadian industry. W1' were also concerned about your Minister of Agriculture's flat beef ceiling policy and its effect upon the feeding phase of our industry and made representations for upward revision of the ceiling during the first half of each year By acceding to these requests the prices board was able to keep cattle feeding on an even keel.
When the war concluded in Europe and with Japan, the industry naturally looked forward to decontrol and to the restoration of the right to private export of cattle. The operators were soon to be disillusioned, however. Despite the At1 antic charter declarations to which our gov ernment heartily agreed, and despite the possibility of favourable entry into the United States for Canadian cattle under international trade talks (subsequently confirmed by announcement of the terms of the Geneva trade agreement which is operative since January 1, 1948) your Minister of Agriculture again despite opposition of the industry's national beef council, proceeded to the United Kingdom and egotiated beef contracts with that nation. 1 officials of the British food ministry had stated that the United Kingdom could not be expected to be a purchaser of Canadian beef during the post-war period. The low-cost countries such as Australia, Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil would be the chief suppliers to that market.
In comment on this I may say, Mr. Chairman, that one of the things our cattlemen have found most difficult to understand is this. We have never had an explanation why the United Kingdom was forced to enter this beef contract at a price much higher than they were prepared to pay or at which they could get the supplies from elsewhere, and at the same time the beef men were cut off from the higher price market in the United States.


James Garfield Gardiner: That statement is not correct, Mr. Chairman.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, I have read the letter and I am just making that comment on it. I shall continue with the letter:
Let us for a moment analyse the present position of our beef cattle industry.
Price controls have been removed on practically everything beef producers purchase for use in their operations, yet the ceiling of prices written into a new United Kingdom contract continues. Price ceilings on the domestic market had been removed and prices commenced to rise to reflect increased feeding costs. Instead of your government undertaking to explain the seasonal rise, propaganda against

Supply-Agriculture
the rising price of beef was, if not condoned, unanswered, and instead a threat of a reimposition of price ceilings overhangs our market.
That is the very point, Mr. Chairman, that I asked the minister to make some comment on, and to give some reassurance to the pork producers this afternoon. Apparently he was unwilling to do that. I should like to know if the beef cattle producers are in the same position. They have a feeling of apprehension because of this threat of ceilings being imposed and their prices being forced down In a large number of cases that would mean serious losses, if not bankruptcy for some of them. I go on with the letter:
The ceilings on barley and oats which are the main coarse grains used in cattle feeding were removed at the commencement of the 1947 feeding season and immediately prices went to a higher level, approximate]} 80 Der cent higher than previously obtained. At that time a packing house strike of employees gripped the nation and it was stated that meat ceilings would be lifted after the conclusion of the strike. This was done, but in a surplus-producing industry we soon found that the United Kingdom contract price was a practical ceiling for our production. As a result today our feed lot operators are faced with heavy losses on their teeding operations.
We also respectfully call your attention to the fact that during the war and afterwards, other phases of the cattle industry have not been accorded such inconsiderate treatment. Dairy cattle producers have had no restriction placed on their exports of live cattle to the United States. In 1947 they exported 53,474 head and in 1946, 68,995 head which compares to less than 15,000 head prior to the war. The producers of registered purebred beef-type cattle have without interruption been able to export their surplus production to the United States during and since the war and they have realized full American prices. We have just witnessed the spectacle of ithe Canadian rancher sitting beside an American rancher at the Calgary bull sale. For the bull the American rancher would have to pay the equivalent of three two-year-old steers; the Canadian rancher, assuming he didn't drop out of the bidding, would have to offer the equivalent of five two-year-old steers. Is it right and fair that the commercial cattleman should be subjected to such unfair competition? Our men, who by and large are considered fair in their appraisal of business relationships, cannot understand government allowance of this discrimination.
Foot and mouth disease in Mexican herds has resulted in a United States embargo on shipments from that country. Nearly 500,000 head of Mexican cattle were previously exported each year to the United States market. With Mexico now eliminated, and in the opinion of your own veterinary director general and many others qualified to express an opinion, for many years to come. Canadian beef cattle producers have an enlarged opportunity for profitable export. The Geneva trade agreement provides for 400,000 head annually of cattle weighing 700 pounds and over to be admitted to the U.S. at 1J cents per pound duty and an unlimited number over that figure at 2J cents per pound duty. For the first time, the industry, from a marketing viewpoint, has a potential which it has not had since the years of the first world war when cattle were admitted to the U.S. without limit and free of duty. Our men cannot understand your Minister of Agriculture's appraisal of our future markets when he insists upon binding our industry to the unnatural United Kingdom market with contracts against which cattlemen have unequivoeably taken their stand.
We hear repeatedly of U.S. dollar shortages and we cannot understand why one of Canada's basic industries capable of earning from $60 to $80 millions of U.S. dollars annually by exporting to its natural market is denied by the action of the government of Canada access to it. Instead is substituted an austerity program and excise taxes which increase the cost of living and in the case of cattle producers who must purchase many taxed items for their operations, increasing production costs.
We receive letters from your prices board pointing out that the average price of beef cattle the first part of this year was higher than last year. In this way they attempt to placate our cattle feeders. They do not have anything to say about the higher cost of feeder cattle last fall and the 80 per cent rise in the price of coarse grains. We learn that Canadian packers are allowed to export to the U.S. (and to receive the U.S. price) fancy meats such as tongue, hearts, livers, etc. We learn that they have never been restricted on their exports of beef to Bermuda or controlled on the price they receive for those exports.
Mr. Prime Minister, it is the duty of this association, which has represented the cattle industry in western Canada since 1896 to outline this unpleasant state of affairs in our industry and to request that you take an active and personal interest in the same.
Your Minister of Agriculture, at our 52nd annual meeting held at Lethbridge on January 15 portrayed himself as supporting the United Kingdom contract without reservation. He attempted to lead those present to believe that the United Kingdom negotiators did not haggle -"did not spend 10 minutes in his office". He said nothing about a subsequent meeting to be arranged prior to March 31 with UK. negotiators to discuss ways and means of payment. His officials knew within a million pounds or so what surplus the beef cattle industry could produce in a given year. He estimated our surplus for 1948 would be 45 million pounds. "If we had thought we could sell more we would have written in more". Yet already over 60 per cent of the 45 million contract figure has been purchased by the meat board for export to the United Kingdom and the year is not one-quarter finished and our heavy fall marketing period is ahead of us.
At this livestock convention and after giving your minister a fair and full hearing, the heavily attended session voted unanimously the following resolution: "That this meeting go on record as favouring the restoration of the right of private export of cattle and to all the benefits accruing therefrom."
It may be of interest for you to note that your Minister of Agriculture at Woodstock, Ontario, on February 22. when addressing the Oxford county federation of agriculture, is reported by the press to have said, "I still believe
Private Bills

that the United States' market is the natural outlet for Canadian beef cattle and this country-must get back into it as soon as we can." This was only five weeks after the Lethbridge appearance of your minister, yet he completely reversed himself. Small wonder our men are greatly confused.
At our recent directors' meeting, it was voted unanimously that we take our stand in unalterable opposition to the state marketing of our products under contracts. "We are a free country of free men and we favour free enterprise, a system which has been responsible for the growth of this nation. We are opposed to state socialism, to communism and we will not desist in our battle for the restoration of the right of private export."
Mr. Prime Minister, in all of the years in which I have actively engaged in cattle ranching, over 30 years, I have never seen such an unrest among our people. There is a feeling of frustration: a denial to them of what they know to be inherently and basically right. This matter of restoring the right of private export and the cattle industry to its rightful owners is a serious business. We implore you to give your personal attention to this matter. A continuation of present policy can only in our opinion undermine the confidence of the people in established authority and result in a permanent dislocation within Canada's beef cattle industry.
We would deeply appreciate a reply to this letter. My apology for its length, but it could not have been shorter. A copy is being sent to each of your ministers-agriculture, finance, and trade and commerce-and in due course it will be given widespread publicity.
Respectfully yours,
Chas. H. McKinnon.
President.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 151, to incorporate the National Insurance Company -Mr. Rinfret-Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
William Henry Golding: Shall section 1 carry?


Mr. ARSENAULT:: I rise to record my objection to the adoption of section 1 of this bill. There are, Mr. Chairman, quite a number of insurance companies underwriting life and fire, as well as general insurance, which are concerned about the adoption of this section, and have raised strong opposition to it, for the obvious reason that to grant such a name as the National Insurance Company to this company would create con-

fusion in the minds of insurance purchasers as to the exact identity of this company. Referring to the list of insurance companies registered to do business in Canada under the Canadian Insurance Act, 1932, as extracted from the Canada Gazette of April 10, 1948, I find ten different insurance companies using the word "national." We have the National-Ben Franklin Fire Insurance Company, the National Fire Insurance Company, the Nationale Fire Insurance Company of Paris, France, the National Liberty Insurance Company, the National Life Assurance Company, the National-Liverpool Insurance Company, the National Provincial Insurance Company, the National Retailers Mutual Insurance Company, the National Surety Corporation and the National Union Fire Insurance Company. The representatives of a company whose original name was "The Nationale Fire Insurance of Paris, France," ask us to grant them a new incorporation of their parent company in Canada under the name "National Insurance" which, in my opinion, comes in conflict with the name of many outstanding Canadian insurance companies, and which will lead insurance buyers in Canada to confusion, and might cause prejudice to insurance companies which, through years and years of steady work, sacrifices and sound management, have succeeded in building up prestige for themselves, and have identified their success with the word "national" in their organization.
No objection would be raised if the sponsors of this 'bill would consent to add something to the name of the company they wish to incorporate which would identify the company more specifically, as for instance, "National Indemnity Insurance Company," or "National Casualty Insurance Company." But no; in spite of all suggestions made to them, in spite of representations made in the banking and commerce committee by the attorneys of two outstanding insurance companies, the National Life Assurance Company of Canada and the National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford, no compromise has been reached so far in order to meet, to a certain extent at least, the suggestions made by these companies concerned.
May I point out that, because of my close association with the National Life Assurance Company of Canada, I refrained from voting in the banking and commerce committee on this matter. Furthermore, and for the same reason, I shall also refrain from voting in the committee of the whole should there be a division on this question.

Private Bills
We welcome foreign capital, but not at the expense of the prestige built up by our good, secure and soundly administered Canadian insurance companies and the British and American insurance companies doing business in Canada.
We understand that this company seeks incorporation because of the fact that its parent company in France has been nationalized by the French government. Therefore this new company's intention is to take over the Canadian interests and assets of the Nationale Fire Insurance Company of Paris, France. Why should not they continue to do business in Canada under their original name, since they have used that very same name in Canada since 1914, I understand? Furthermore, I consider it my duty to warn my hon. colleagues of all parties in the house that to grant such a controversial name to this company, without giving more careful consideration to this matter, might lead to serious implications in so far as the rights of the provinces are concerned in matters of insurance.
According to the provisions of the British North America Act, and many decisions of the judicial committee of the privy council, insurance is a subject which has been declared of provincial competence, although it is true that the federal government may incorporate companies with federal objects. I shall quote a few of the decisiona of the judicial committee of the privy council. In the cases of Citizens Insurance Company v. Parsons, (1881) 7 Appeal Cases, 96, and John Deere Plow and Wharton v. the King, (1915), Appeal Cases, 330, the judgments declared that a province cannot pass an act which comes in conflict with the functioning of a company which was granted a federal charter. Here is another decision of the privy council: Great West Saddlery v. the King, (1921) 2 Appeal Cases, 91. The same principle applies in this judgment. The judgment reads:
The provinces cannot sanction an act which would paralyze the functioning of a federal company, but the general laws of the provinces are applicable to federal companies as for instance, imposing taxes and laws respecting mortmain.
Another judgment is that of Bonanza Creek Gold Mining Company v. the King, (1915) 50 Supreme Court Reports, 534, which states specifically:
The provinces have the right to incorporate companies wit-h power to be exercised within the province and also to give a general power similar to the power of a physical person which might be exercised all over Canada.
The last quotation is from a judgment of the judicial committee of the privy council, in re The Insurance Act of Canada, (1932) Appeal Cases, 41, which states specifically that:
A foreign company-
And that description can be applied to this particular case.
-having obtained permission by virtue of provincial law to do business in a province is not under obligation to obtain a federal permit.
Any federal legislation imposing the necessity of a federal permit .in this case would be unconstitutional. Furthermore, the federal authority cannot intervene in the business of insurance, since this subject is declared to be exclusively of provincial competence.
There are three ways by which a company may incorporate to sell life insurance or general insurance in Canada: through the request of the Secretary of State, through an act of parliament, or by virtue of an act of the provincial legislature. Therefore, to adopt clause 1 of this bill, without seeking the official opinion as to whether or not this name, the National Insurance Company, does come in conflict with the use of names of insurance companies incorporated in the provinces, is a greater responsibility than I wish to take as a member of this house.
I know of at least three insurance companies incorporated by the legislature of the province of Quebec which bear the word "national" in their name. In order to seek that information which is not yet available to this committee of the house, I communicated with the undersecretary of state, in the following terms:
Ottawa, Ont.,
May 6, 1948.
Mr. AY. P. J. O'Meara, K.C., .
Asst. Under-Secretary of State,
West block,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Mr. O'Meara:
As you are aware, there is now before the House of Commons a bill which has passed the Senate, entitled: "an act to incorporate the National Insurance Company". This bill is bill 05 of the Senate. The name to be given to the company, is. quote. "The National Insurance Company" and in French, "La Nationale Compa'gnie d'Assuranee".
My purpose in writing to you is to obtain from your department an official expression of opinion as to whether the names suggested would not come in conflict with names of existing companies, whether federal or provincial.
In other words, I would like to know, if, for instance, a similar application was made to the companies' branch of your department, it would be decided if whether or not, in view of the existence of similar companies (federal or provincial), the above mentioned names could be granted.
It is true that parliament is supreme and can decide to allow the incorporation under the names suggested, on the other hand, neither the Senate nor the House of Commons is in a position to know whether there is conflict in the names suggested without the advice of the government officials who have made a life-long practice of deciding the suitability of names suggested in cases of companies incorporations.
Private Bills

The difficulty resides, as far as parliament is concerned, in avoiding the use of names of companies incorporated in the provinces, or of names in conflict with that of any provincial company. It is evident that the duty of parliament in Ottawa is to protect, at all times, existing provincial rights, and it would no doubt be an invasion of those rights, if we were to give to a federal company a name already existing in any of the provinces or a name in conflict with any similar name in existence therein.
I would be grateful to you, as the matter is rather urgent, if I could have an answer at your earliest convenience.
I remain, dear Mr. O'Meara,
Yours very truly,
I wish now to table a copy of this letter and move that clause 1 of this bill stand until the officials of the Department of the Secretary of State have furnished this committee of the house with their official opinion as to whether the name "national" does or does not conflict with other names of existing insurance companies doing business under federal or provincial charter.


Mr. RINFRET:: The name of the proposed company was submitted a long time ago to the superintendent of insurance in Ottawa. He has before him the list of all insurance companies and he himself appeared before the committee when this bill was called there.


Mr. JACKMAN:: The former superintendent.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I was going to say that. Mr. Warwick, the present superintendent being unable to appear before the committee, asked Mr. Finlayson to take his place. Mr. Finlayson has had at least thirty years' experience in this work, and he stated to the committee that in his opinion the name which would be the most distinctive of all under the circumstances would be the name as incorporated in the bill, to wit: the National Insurance Company.
As the hon. member for Bonaventure has said, there are quite a number of other companies with the name "national". There is one he has forgotten and that is the National General, which was accepted and passed by this parliament at the beginning of this year. There is one thing he has not told us either, and that is, which company in particular he refers to when he objects to the use of this name.
If he is referring to the National Life Assurance Company, first of all the name of that company is "Assurance", whereas the name that we are seeking here is "National Insurance". There is quite a difference there, because the National Life Assurance covers all insurance purchasers who want life

insurance, whereas in our case the National Insurance carries all kinds of insurance except life.
The question was put to Mr. Finlayson whether this company, with the present charter, could go into life insurance, and the answer Mr. Finlayson gave was, "No, they cannot. If they wish to have the power to carry on business as life insurers they will have to come back to parliament with another bill and ask for permission to do so". They have no intention of going into that line.
As to the suggestion made by the hon. member that the addition of another name to the word "national" might help, a suggestion was put forward before the committee that this company should take the name of National General. That carried until I brought before the committee the bill which we passed at the beginning of this session.
If we take the name "indemnity" we shall clash with all other companies appearing in this insurance list to which the hon. member has referred, having names in which the name "indemnity" appears. There are quite a number of those.
If we use the word "casualty" we come into conflict with all the casualty companies, of which there are quite a number. That question was also discussed by Mr. Finlayson before the committee; and he said that, since this company has two names, if the name were translated into French it would give rise to serious difficulties and confusion with other existing companies, because if we carried the name "National Indemnity Company", the name in French would be "l'indemnite nationale; " therefore we would cease completely to have the name "national", and the company would be called by the name "i'indcmnite". If we called it the National Casualty, in French it would be La Casualite Nationale, and therefore the name would appear as La Casualite and that would do away completely with the name.
This company has been operating in Canada since 1914. The name of the company, which is mentioned in paragraph 9 of the bill, I believe, is La Nationale Compagnie d'Assurance. That is the name under which the company has been known. In English it was translated as The Nationale Fire Insurance Company of Paris, but the real name of the company is La Nationale, and whenever anybody wants to do business with that company in Montreal they always call it La Nationale. It has been known as that ever since 1914. The word "fire" was dropped in order that the name of the company would not clash with that of the National Fire

Private Bills
Insurance Company of Hartford. So, instead of creating confusion, we are avoiding confusion by adopting this new name.
The hon. member for Bonaventure has referred to foreign capital. This is not a foreign capital company. It is being incorporated with four gentlemen, everyone of whom I know. The capital is all subscribed here in Canada; it is all Canadian money that will go into the company. It is true that it is the intention of the company to buy the Canadian assets and obligations of the French company, La Rationale; but, as I have said, the capital to go into the company will be all Canadian.
The suggestion has been made that we should give a little more consideration to the names of various provincial companies. It is evident from the proceedings in the committee that no company outside of the two that appeared has any objection to the name "National Insurance Company". The two companies that appeared before the committee were the National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford and the National Life Assurance Company. These two companies offered suggestions, and both of them were represented by counsel. Mr. Finlayson was asked to give his opinion to the committee as to the advisability of adopting this name; and he advised the committee that in his estimation, after thirty years' experience as superintendent of insurance, the most distinctive name that could be chosen in the face of the objections of the National Life Assurance Company and the National Fire Insurance Company was the one we have chosen, the National Insurance Company. That distinguishes it from either the National Fire or the National Life.
The hon. member for Bonaventure has referred to various cases that went to the privy council. I know those cases well, and I cannot see how they support his contention. The conflict between a province and a federal company has nothing to do with a possible conflict between a provincial company as against a federal company. Therefore I cannot see why those references were made.
There are three authorities, the Secretary of State, an act of parliament, and an act of the provincial legislature, by which a charter can be granted to an insurance company. That is quite true. It seems to me that the place to make objections was before the committee. If the National Life Assurance Company wanted to make objections they should have appeared before the committee and have come prepared with any objections emanating from the office of the Secretary of State, but they did not do that. They were duly represented before the
committee and made their objections. A vote was taken in the committee, and the result was thirteen yeas in favour of the name National Insurance Company, and six nays against it. After that vote, the name was adopted.
The report mentions that the Hon. Philippe Brais represented the National Insurance Company, Mr. Wilson McLean, the National Life Assurance Company and Jean Martineau, the National Fire Insurance Company. They all had an opportunity to make their objections before the committee.
Reference has also been made to the list of insurance companies. It is curious to go through it and see how many of these companies have similar names. There is, for instance, the Aetna Insurance Company and the Aetna Life Insurance Company. Many companies have the word "American" in their name. There are the American Insurance Company, the American Automobile Insurance Company, the American Equitable Assurance Company.
Similarly "Continental"; is used by four different companies. There is the Continental Assurance Company, the Continental Casualty Company, the Continental Insurance Company, and the Continental Life Insurance Company. It is noticeable that the Continental Life Insurance Company was the first one to be licensed in Canada; it was licensed in 1899. Then in 1910 the Continental Insurance Company made application and got their licence, even though a company already existed known as Continental Life Insurance Company. In 1917 the Continental Assurance Company made application and got a licence, although at that time there existed the Continental Life Insurance Company and the Continental Insurance Company.
Similarly with the word "Fidelity". There is the Fidelity Insurance Company and the Fidelity Life Assurance Company.
Similarly there is the General Insurance Company, the General Accident Assurance Company, the General Accident Fire and Life, the General Security Insurance Company, and so on.
There is the Guardian Assurance Company, the Guardian Insurance Company and the Guardian Life Insurance Company. One of these companies had to exist before the other; notwithstanding that, when the second licence was applied for, it was granted.
The same thing applies in the case of the Home Insurance Company. Another company was afterwards incorporated known as the Home Fire and Marine Insurance Company.
Private Bills

There is the Imperial Assurance Company, the Imperial Guarantee and Accident Insurance Company, the Imperial Insurance Office, the Imperial Life Assurance Company. The Imperial Life Assurance Company was the first of these to be licensed in 1897. The second to be incorporated was the Imperial Insurance Office, and the third was the Imperial Assurance Company, although at that time in 1922 two other companies bearing similar names were already in existence.
The same thing with the London Assurance Company, as against the London Life Insurance Company. Similarly with Manufacturers Life Insurance Company and Merchants and Manufacturers Insurance Company.
Then we come to the Northern Assurance Company, which was granted a licence, although there already existed the Northern Life Assurance Company.
There is the Phenix Fire Insurance Company. There again we have a three-cornered fight among the Phenix Fire Insurance Company, the Phoenix Assurance Company, and the Phoenix Insurance Company.
We have the Prudential Assurance Company and the Prudential Insurance Company. We have the Royal Exchange Assurance and the Royal Insurance Company. We have the Standard Insurance Company and the Standard Life Assurance Company. The Standard Insurance Company got its licence in 1946, although the Standard Life Assurance Company had been in existence since 1933.
Again there is the Sun Insurance Office, and the Sun Life Assurance Company.
We find the same thing under the name "union". We have Union Assurance, Union Fire and Accident, and Union Insurance. In that case again one of the companies had to exist before the others were formed. We have the same thing again under the word "western". We have Western Assurance and Western Life Assurance. In this case the names are almost identical, except that one has the word "life" added, whereas in the case under consideration the one name is "National Life Assurance" and the other is "National Insurance".


Mr. ILSLEY:: If I may ask a question just for information, in the case of companies such as Western Life Assurance and Western Assurance, do they represent substantially the same interests?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I believe in the case of the Travelers there are three companies: Travelers Fire, Travelers Indemnity, and Travelers Insurance. Those three represent the same interests, and that is why I did not cite those companies. In the other cases mentioned one company is English and the other American,

and when there is a third company usually it is Canadian; but they do not represent the same interests. That is why I did not refer to the Prudential company.
In the face of all this, Mr. Chairman, and particularly in the face of the opinion or advice given by the superintendent of insurance, Mr. Finlayson, who has had at least thirty years of experience in these matters, I do not see how we can refuse to accept that advice as well as the affirmative two to one vote in committee. On the other hand, if the hon. member for Bonaventure insists that this clause should stand and the committee favours having it stand until next week, until a reply is received to the letter to Mr. O'Meara, I cannot but bow to that decision, though I doubt whether anything new will come to light.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: I intend to support the motion of the hon. member for Bonaventure, because I think the arguments he advanced were sound. I am not a bit concerned about what the insurance companies think, but I am concerned about what the people think; and this multiplicity of names is very confusing to the people. Over and over again I have heard complaint made by people who have been buying life insurance, fire insurance and insurance of other kinds, particularly by people who are not acquainted with the exact name of these various companies. I have known men to make mistakes. I have known of agents soliciting life insurance, and of men doing business with another company which they thought was the same one. I believe the arguments advanced by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat were most unsound. The main basis of his argument was that because we have done things in a certain way in the past, therefore that way must be correct and followed for all time.
This question has been given a good deal of consideration in British Columbia, where they are more careful in such matters now than they were a few years ago. Today the records are searched very carefully to see that a company seeking incorporation does not have a name similar to that of a company already incorporated. I know of a company which sought incorporation less than two months ago under the name Columbia Lumber Company. Because there was another company known as the Columbia Timber Company, the application was refused. Then a company sought incorporation under the name of the Arrow Company; but because there was already a company known as the Arrow Sales Company, that application was refused, on the ground that it would cause confusion in the public mind. Those matters are scrutinized

Private Bills
very carefully in British Columbia, and the reason is that in the past they have found people confused because of the laxity shown then in authorizing similar names for incorporated companies.
Before resuming my seat, I repeat that the arguments of the hon. member for Bona-venture struck me as being sound. I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question, though I am not quite sure whether he is the proper minister to answer it. Does the superintendent of insurance or any official of this government check with the provincial governments before granting the use of a name applied for by a group who wish to become incorporated?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, Mr. Chairman, it is a bit irregular for a question to be directed to a member who is not in any way connected with the bill, but my recollection is that the superintendent of insurance was always consulted as to whether any confusion would likely result when the name of a new company was proposed. What checking he does I am not sure, but I should imagine he would be pretty well acquainted with the situation respecting names, one way or the other.


Mr. MICHAUD:: I want to say a word in opposition to this amendment. I happened to be in the committee when this matter was discussed. There we had the benefit of the advice of Mr. Finlayson, who was asked whether there was likely to be confusion because of the name. He replied in the negative, and he was satisfied. Then we heard argument from learned counsel representing those who objected to the name and those who supported the bill. I went there with an open mind; I had no interest one way or the other, and after the discussion was over I was satisfied that this company which is making application for incorporation has just as much right to this name as any other company.
Personally I do not feel that the word "national" should form part of the corporate name of any insurance company. I think the inclusion of that word is likely to give the impression that the corporation has the support or approval in some way of the government of this country. The fact remains, however, that there are hundreds if not thousands of corporations using this adjective "national" in their corporate names.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Union Nationale.


Benoît Michaud: Yes, the Union Nationale, though it does not mean the same thing. If we refused the application of those applying for incorporation on that ground, then we would be doing them an injustice because of the status of the other companies.
Apart from that, this company has been doing business under the name "national." It is true that now they are seeking a dominion charter; but they have been known under that name, and the name for which they apply in their petition is just as distinctive as in the case of the other companies which have been mentioned by the hon. member for Outremont.
The hon. member for Bonaventure, my genial neighbour from just north of New Brunswick, has read into the record a letter he wrote on May 6, seeking advice and information from officials of the government. That was just yesterday. This bill was considered in committee two or three weeks ago. How it is that the hon. member for Bonaventure did not think of seeking legal advice or other technical advice before yesterday? After that, he would be in a position to give us the benefit of whatever advice he had obtained. However, so far as we are concerned, the only technical advice we have is that of Mr. Finlayson, who has no objection to the corporate name, and who is satisfied that it meets with the requirements of the department over which he presided for many years. For these reasons I feel I must oppose the motion of the hon. member for Bonaventure.


Bona Arsenault: I can answer the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska in one word. In the first place, we must understand that Mr. Finlayson is no longer the superintendent of insurance. In the second place, his evidence before the committee on banking and commerce did not cover insurance companies doing business under provincial charters. And that is very important.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The hon. member for Kootenay West has ably expressed the point of view which I hold in regard to this bill, and the motion of the hon. member for Bonaventure. I believe it can lead only to confusion if the name "national" is granted. Certainly that would be so in the province of Ontario. The argument of the sponsor of the bill clearly indicates that already there are a great number of companies in the insurance field with somewhat similar names, and that already there is a state of confusion. Why should that state of confusion be added to by parliament's granting the name "national" to another company which wishes to adopt that name, without any qualification, exclusively to itself, and which name is embodied in part of the titles of many companies already existing.
I believe the argument of the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska is not one which
Private Bills

can be used in favour of granting the name, but rather one which should be used against the granting of it, that is, that we should not allow the generic term of "dominion" or "national" to constitute the name or even part of the name of companies which transact business.
There has been confusion in the past when the word "dominion" has been used. I have known of a case where a man whose claim was being settled was asked if he felt he had been fairly dealt with. His reply was, "What is the use of going up against the dominion?" He thought it was the government itself.
I understand that one of the provinces in the dominion has already passed legislation against allowing the use of words such as "dominion", "provincial", or the name of a particular province. I do not recall that Mr. Finlayson, who came out of his retirement to give evidence on behalf of this company, gave evidence on behalf of the insurance branch; but he proved a very good witness for the company which wanted to use this name. Between his evidence and the very strong persuasion of Mr. Philippe Brais, the committee did vote in favour of granting this name, after considerable discussion which lasted about an hour.
While Mr. Finlayson is a man who has won great esteem from all of us because of his conduct of the insurance branch, yet he is not necessarily the best judge in the world of whether a certain name will cur will not cause confusion. Certainly in my part of the dominion the word "national" is very likely to cause confusion. One of the counsel opposing the bill came from the National Life Assurance Company, and the point was made that there might be some confusion.
It was pointed out in rebuttal that the company about which we are now speaking could not enter the life insurance business without coming to parliament and securing additional powers. Yet, if at some time in the future, perhaps five or ten years from now, it was decided by the directors of this "national" company that they wanted to engage in the business of life insurance, they could apply for an extension of their powers and there would be no reason why they should not be allowed to go into the life insurance business. The question of what name they should then operate under would come up. Having been established for five or ten years as the "national" company, it would be very difficult not to concede them the use of the name.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is exactly the way the company seeking to be incorporated has been known since 1914.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It may be known in the French-speaking part of the country as the "nationale"; but certainly it is not known, so far as I know, nor does it transact business east of the province of Quebec. If it does, it will run into conflict with the National Life Assurance Company.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: They do not transact the same kind of business at all. One is fire and the other is life.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I have stated that; if the hon. member had been listening he would have heard.
Then the name was opposed by counsel representing the National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford. It is their belief that there would be a certain amount of confusion.
May I suggest that the dictionary has by no means been exhausted if they want to get a good name for this particular company. I might suggest that if they want a name they could call themselves the National Beaver or the Anglo-French Insurance Company, or the Maple Leaf Insurance Company, or the Security Fire Insurance Company. They cannot call themselves the Travelers, they could call themselves the Wanderers, or any other name. It is perfectly absurd to say that they cannot find a suitable name. And I would say to the sponsor of the bill, who wishes to get a word which would be useful not only in the British language but also the French, that there are about 20,000 words which have the same meaning in each. Surely he could find some name among that number.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Would you object to the Rosedale Casualty?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: If you wish-or perhaps the Fraser Valley Casualty. However, as I have suggested, there are plenty of names from which this company could choose, if it wishes. There can be only one result if parliament sees fit to grant the use of the name "national" exclusively to this company, and that is, while the company itself may not willingly or may not have as its main reason the desire to poach upon other companies, it will unconsciously result in poaching and in confusion with other fire insurance and casualty companies in Canada.


Mr. BELZILE:: Mr. Chairman, the point has been raised as to whether the department of insurance had any objection to the present name.


Bona Arsenault: Not that point.


Gleason Belzile: The superintendent of
insurance has made a report to the Depart-

Private Bills
ment of Finance and, although I do not wish to read it all, I believe I should read the conclusion of the letter for the information of the committee. In the last paragraph of his report Mr. Warwick, superintendent of insurance, states this:
After hearing the objections to the name raised in the banking and commerce committee, the department believes that the company incorporated by this bill is, in view of all the circumstances, entitled to the name it has chosen, and that no injury will be done thereby to any other company with a similar name.
That letter is signed by R. W. Warwick, superintendent of insurance.


Bona Arsenault: That covers only the federal insurance companies.


William Henry Golding: Order. I
believe the hon. member's motion is out of order. Standing order 48 states:
When a question is under debate no question is received unless to amend it, to postpone it to a day certain-
And so on. The hon. member's motion is quite indefinite. It does not say when it will be considered again. I believe under the standing order the motion is out of order.
Shall the clause carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: On division.


William Henry Golding: Those in
favour of the clause carrying will please say "yea."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yea.


William Henry Golding: Those
opposed will please say "nay."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


William Henry Golding: In my
opinion the "yeas" have it.
Section negatived: Yeas, 21; nays, 33.


William Henry Golding: I shall have to declare the section lost.


Mr. IRVINE:: What becomes of this child now? We have spent a great part of the evening discussing its name.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I ask that section 2 stand.


William Henry Golding: Before we can go any further with the bill-


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I ask that the bill stand.


Mr. KNOWLES:: If we have defeated clause 1 we have defeated the whole thing.


William Henry Golding: Is it the pleasure of the committee to consider clause 2?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dropped.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How can you consider clause 2 when it speaks of persons named in section 1 and section 1 has been defeated? In fact, section 1 is the section that incorporates the company. It seems to me that the bill has been badly mutilated.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I ask that the committee report progress.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair.



CANADIAN MARCONI COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 205, respecting Canadian Marconi Company-Mr. Whitman-Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Power to sell or dispose of assets, etc.
George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to have an explanation of the bill. In the province of British Columbia we are not quite as familiar with the Marconi Company and, since this bill has apparently come in through the back door I think we should have a full explanation. For instance, the new section will read:
The new company shall have power to sell or dispose of its undertaking and assets or any part thereof for such consideration as the new company may think fit and, in particular, for shares, debentures or securities of any other company.
I should like an explanation from the sponsor of the bill as to exactly what is meant by that.


William Henry Golding: The committee is on clause 1. Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Section 1 agreed to.


William Henry Golding: Shall the preamble carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
William Henry Golding: Shall the title carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Major James William Coldwell: Are we not going to have a little more explanation? The hon. member for Fraser Valley asked for a certain explanation and all we have heard is "Carried". I do not think that is an explanation of either the clause or the bill.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am serious about this. Are we not entitled to an explanation? I do not know what the bill means and I do not think anyone in this committee does. If a bill is worth being brought before this com-
Private Bills

mittee, concerning a corporation the size of the Marconi Company, surely we are entitled to an explanation of what it means.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No, it is not carried.


William Henry Golding: I called
clause 1 and nobody objected to it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, Mr. Chairman.


William Henry Golding: I called the preamble and said, "Shall the preamble carry?" and some hon. members said "Carried" and nobody opposed it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, Mr. Chairman.


William Henry Golding: Order. What we are on now is the title. Shall the title carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: The calling of "Carried" was done with such rapidity that one did not have time even to ask a question. I remember the other evening when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was in charge of a bill, the Speaker asked the house three times and three times it was called "Carried", but the debate went on. I think the hon. member for Fraser Valley was quite within his rights in asking for an explanation, which was not given. I certainly think he ought to get the explanation for which he asked, but I see it is nine o'clock.


William Henry Golding: I do not like this way of doing business.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I do not either.


William Henry Golding: My hon.
friend says he does not either. I called clause 1 and said, "Shall clause 1 carry?" and no one got up to say "No". However, there were members who called "Carried". Then I asked if the preamble would carry and they said "Carried".


Mr. MacINNIS:: The hon. member for Fraser Valley was on his feet several times. He read a section of the bill and he asked for an explanation. Surely that is a better indication that the bill is not carried than that some one should say "No." Either he is entitled to an explanation on the bill, or he is not. I think the rule of the house is that he is entitled to an explanation.


Mr. WHITMAN:: An explanation was given on the second reading of the bill and also in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. Bill No. 205 is a simple bill. As I explained before to the house, the Canadian Marconi Company was incorporated by statute

in 1903 and it has only the power given to it by that statute. If it were incorporated today under the Companies Act it would have the powers which it is asking for. We are merely asking to be brought up to date. If there are any questions to be asked I am prepared to answer them.


Mr. KNIGHT:: On a point of order, is the committee in order in discussing a private bill after nine o'clock?


William Henry Golding: If the committee is not satisfied the only thing to do is to report progress and deal with this section at our next sitting.


Frederick Primrose Whitman: With unanimous consent we could go ahead for a few minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Henry Golding: If the committee wishes I shall report progress.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: May I have a ruling on my point of order?
Section stands.
Progress reported.

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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $234,297.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for having had to take so much time reading the letter into the record. I would much have preferred to have it printed without my reading it, but since that was denied me there was no other course open to me.
As stated in the last paragraph, the Minister of Agriculture was sent a copy and I know he is familiar with it. I know also that he received another copy because I sent him one myself.
I would appreciate it now if he would give an answer to some of the direct as well as the implied questions in that letter. As I said at the beginning, the letter expresses the deep dissatisfaction of the beef men, and their insistent demand that the ban on the export of cattle to the United States be lifted. Now that the minister has the matter of allowing these exports again in his own hands, would he not now announce the lifting of .that ban?
As I was reading the second last paragraph of the letter, which dealt with the deep sense of frustration and irritation of these people, and the undermining of their confidence in established authority, I noticed the minister

Supply-Agriculture
smiling. I do not know whether he was smiling at that; perhaps lie was. However I would assure him that it is not a smiling matter.
Some doubt was east upon the statement made by the hon. member for Lethbridge in this house some time ago, that the people in southern Alberta were talking secession. There is no reason for any such doubt to be cast upon it. I know of my own knowledge that petitions have been circulated around that part of the country and have received a large number of signatures among the farmers and ranchers, and the man signing stated he was in favour of the secession of western Canada from eastern Canada. That is how deep the feeling is on this matter and on various other matters as well, the income tax in particular. It shows the depth of their dissatisfaction.
It is of no use the minister smiling at the language of that letter, which was restrained, nor is there any use pooh-poohing the statement made by the hon. member for Lethbridge some time ago. That feeling exists, and unless action is taken by this government to give those people the satisfaction which they think is rightfully theirs, the feeling is going to grow. A great disservice is being done to the spirit of unity in Canada, to Canada's national spirit, by the continuance of this ban on cattle. Apart from the economic end of it, and from the straight point of view of national feeling and unity, the ban on the export to the United States is a bad thing and is creating a bad feeling and doing damage.


James Garfield Gardiner: The statement which has been read on to the record of the house gives a veiy good reason for the rule which does not permit statements of that kind to be put on Hansard without being read. The statement is simply a speech prepared by an organization and sent to this house to be placed on the record. I am quite sure that everyone will agree that those who prepare speeches of that kind to be sent to the house should not have them put on the record.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think the minister should withdraw that statement. This is not a prepared speech at all. It is a letter, and it was not sent to me at all with the suggestion or idea that I should read it into the record. That was never even suggested to me. I think the minister should completely withdraw that statement.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have nothing to withdraw, Mr. Chairman. Whether it was intentional or otherwise, it is a speech prepared by an organization in Alberta and contains all the 5849-237J
arguments of speeches to which I have listened. Whether it was addressed to the Prime Minister or to me-as a matter of fact, I have a copy of it-that is what it is to all intents and purposes, and it would be entirely improper to have had it put on the record of this house without being read to the members so that they could hear it at first hand. As a matter of fact, there are so many statements in it that are not in accordance with the facts at all that it ought to be answered, and answered immediately.
In the first place, the suggestion is made that I went to Britain to get the British to enter into a contract for beef when the British had no desire to have the beef. The facts are that the British at that time were prepared to pay the United States price for our beef to be shipped to Britain and the only reason for not having done so was the fact that their desire did not correspond with our own ideas in this country at that time with regard to price control. They were anxious to get all the beef they could from Canada, and there is no information available to anyone which would offset that fact.
A further fact is that the gentleman who signed the letter and all those who had anything to do with writing it, were sitting at a table in Lethbridge. I think my hon. friend the member for Lethbridge was in the room at the time, when I was asked the question whether I considered that the United States market was the proper market for our Canadian cattle, and when I answered directly that the United States market was the market which would be supplied in the future by our cattle from this country. There has never been any question about that, and when the writer of the letter states that I had reversed my position between the Lethbridge meeting and the Woodstock meeting, he is stating something that is entirely incorrect. The same statement was made at both meetings, and not only that but it has been made at every session of this house since 1942, namely, that the market which would best provide for our surplus cattle' in the future would be the United States market.
The reason the government has not permitted our cattle to enter the United States market up to the present has to do with price control, and not with the question of marketing considered by itself. But, as I have stated today, the position of the government has changed within the last day or two because we believe that the changed conditions both in the United-States market and in this market make it possible to approach the question from another point of view, and that point of view exactly the one which is suggested in the letter should
373S
Supply-Agriculture

be followed, namely, that the United States market is the natural market for Canadian cattle.
There are a number of other matters dealt with in the letter upon which I am going to touch as soon as possible, just to indicate that the letter itself is not based upon facts, and not being based upon facts there is very little reason for anyone giving any further consideration to it.
In a number of important points Mr. McKinnon's statements are not in accordance with the facts as established by actual records in Ottawa.
In paragraph 3, on page 1, of Mr. McKinnon's letter this statement is made:
The main purpose of the (food) corporation was in times of surplus to purchase live cattle at Canadian ceiling price equivalents, export the same to the United States in order to keep trade channels open and, if a profit should accrue, to keep the same for the future benefit of the industry.
This statement is, of course, directly contrary to the operating policy announced and followed by the food corporation while it was buying and selling cattle in the year 1942. The operating policy of the company was to buy cattle in Canada at the equivalent of United States values and to sell the cattle to the Canadian meat trade at the equivalent of Canadian ceiling prices for beef. In pursuing this policy, an effort was made to pay to the Canadian producer the equivalent of United States prices for his cattle up to the numbers that might have been shipped under the quota while, at the same time, keeping down meat prices to Canadian consumers. The corporation actually made a deficit of more than $800,000 which, of course, was in line with the policy which the corporation was directed to follow.
It is true that in carrying through this policy the corporation did export a few cattle, but this was done mainly to test the accuracy of the judgment of those who were appraising cattle for the corporation. The financial results
of the exports were that the corporation broke almost exactly even, thus indicating that the appraisers had done a reasonably sound job in estimating the value of the cattle at the time the purchases were made.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Before the minister goes on, may I point out that the sentence immediately preceding where he started, says, "It was understood" by the cattlemen that that was the purpose of this corporation and so forth. Who gave them to understand I do not know.


James Garfield Gardiner: They had no reason to understand that, because there was an announcement in every paper in Canada to the effect of what I have just given to the committee.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is only fair to have it appear on the record that they understood that.


William Henry Golding: Order. I would ask the hon. member not to interrupt. He has the opportunity to speak as soon as the minister sits down.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the minister agrees with me.


William Henry Golding: Order. Two should not be speaking at the one time.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I do not agree. I agree that when men start to write a letter of that kind they ought to get the facts, and get them right. There is no necessity for "understanding" such and such.
On page 3 in paragraph 3 the statement is made that, with the removal of ceilings on barley and oats "at the commencement of the 1947 feeding season", prices of these grains rose by approximately 80 per cent. The facts are that prices of barley and oats rose at less than half the rate indicated in Mr. McKinnon's letter. Here are the actual figures:
Port William prices-cents per bushel
Per cent	Per cent	Per centAverage	Average	increase	Average	increase	Average	increaseOct. 1-16	Dec.	over	Jan.	over	Mar.	over1947	1947	October	1948	October	1948	OctoberOats 	... $0.65	$0,821	26-9	$9,851	31-1	$0.73f	13-2Barley ....	... 0.93	1 -274	36-6	1.28J	38-1	1.081	16'4
It will be seen that the percentage increase in December 1947 over October was 26'9 per cent, not 80 per cent, and that the percentage increase in October over the average January 1948 price was 31-1 per cent, not 80 per cent.
If we take the whole period, there was no time when the increase in oats was more than
ritfr. Gardiner.]
31-1 per cent, and the increase for a considerable part of that time was only 26-9 per cent and for another considerable period, 13-2 per cent. And for oats and barley, there was no period in the whole time when the increase was more than 36-6 per cent, and the average increase was under 30 per cent.

S u pply-Agricu Iture
Then, on page 5, paragraph 2, this statement is made:
. . . already over sixty per cent of the 45,000,000 pound contract (for beef) has been purchased by the meat board for export to the United Kingdom, and the year is not one-quarter finished.
Well, the year is now more than a month beyond the period mentioned here, and the figure is not yet up to thirty per cent, let alone sixty per cent.


James Arthur Ross: What is the date of the letter?


James Garfield Gardiner: I believe it was dated some time in April; at any rate it was before the end of the first period. The facts are that the beef contract is for 50,000,000 pounds, and that at April 1 approximately 15,000,000 pounds had been delivered on the contract, which is about thirty per cent instead of sixty per cent of the contract, as indicated by Mr. McKinnon. There are other inaccuracies in the letter, but this will serve to indicate the degree to which the letter departs from strict statements of fact.
The memorandum goes on to say:
In the matter of policy, of course, Mr. McKinnon is entitled to hold and to express whatever views he wishes with regard to export controls, price controls and floor prices. However, it may be worth while observing that Mr. McKinnon deals with the beef and beef cattle situation as if cattle alone of all farm products had been subject to export controls and price ceilings. The fact is that practically all farm products were directly or indirectly under price ceilings and export controls during the war. Furthermore, many of the export controls have been continued down to the present moment. The basic reason for this Whole policy was, of course, to retain in Canada sufficient supplies of food to meet the needs of Canadian consumers and to enable the whole price control program to operate. Mr. McKinnon's reference to free exports of dairy cattle and purebred livestock generally has little bearing on the general situation because they do not ordinarily form part of the food supply, therefore free exports had little or no adverse effect on that supply.
In the matter of prices and general economic position, it is a simple statement of fact to say that there has been no consecutive period of similar length when the Canadian cattle industry has prospered to the degree that it has since 1940. This prosperity has been due in part to favourable climatic conditions and in part to rising prices and ready sales for all cattle produced. Early in the war cattle prices rose faster and farther than prices of most other farm products. In the later years cattle prices have been more stable, but they have still tended to rise. Prices for the first three months of 1948 have been higher than for any other three consecutive months since accurate records have been kept.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I must say I was surprised to see the Minister of Agriculture reading a very long typewritten reply to this letter and the remarks I made on it. He and his officials must have been very busy since we rose at six o'clock in order to have this all typed out and ready. It is unlike the minister to read statements; he is one man who stands up and gives a reply more or less right off the bat, and usually in exceptional form. If I had three hours more, probably I could dig up sufficient statistics and figures to throw as much doubt on the figures the minister has just given as he has been throwing on the figures given by Mr. McKinnon, but until I have time to do that I shall say no more on the matter.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just to conclude the discussion, I may say that I had this prepared in order to answer the letter at the time I received it. After I read the letter, however, I realized that I had answered it all at Lethbridge and other places, and that the gentleman who wrote it had been sitting alongside me, so that I did not think it was worth while going all over it again. I still have the document, and I have given it to the committee this evening in reply to the letter which has been read.


William Scottie Bryce: I have a few remarks I
intended to make on the various items as we came to them, but I think everything will be pretty well said before we reach the items. When you have to follow a number of western members who have been speaking on agriculture, and you are able to dig up something new to say, you are going some. Two or three times since this debate started I should have liked to take part in it. I should like to have said something about the windmill business and the use of electrical appliances on the farm, but I am not going to take up time with that; everything has been pretty well said. The only point is that in Manitoba our difficulty has always been to get enough wind to blow the charger. They do not seem to have that trouble in Saskatchewan.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are not enough members of the C.C.F. in Manitoba.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They have a coalition government there; they neutralize each other.


William Scottie Bryce: I have had some experience in these things. I am happy to say that this year the hydro came past my farm home, and the dream we have had for many years-I do not know how far back other hon. members go, but we have been talking about it for twenty-five years-has come true. At last we shall
Supply-Agriculture

be able to have these electrical appliances on the farm. Just in passing, may I say that even if hydro had been available before the war I am doubtful whether in some districts of Manitoba we would have been able to sign up enough people to make it worth while to bring it in, but that is not the case today.
I have listened to the arguments about cattle going to the United States. I have always maintained that the United States was the logical market for our surplus cattle. However, we were at war, and we had commitments to Britain. Now, however, I am delighted to hear the minister say that he is going to run this business himself. I do not agree with him half the time or perhaps seventy-five per cent of the time, but I think he will make a better job of it than the Minister of Finance because, while the Minister of Agriculture may have been born in the east he is a westerner now, and he will have to listen to the cry of the west. There are heavy rumblings out there today, and it would be a great help if we could have even a small quota to start with. The hon. member for Calgary East mentioned the situation in Mexico, where the cattle have foot and mouth disease and, as a result, are not allowed to enter the United States. If we could supply those 220,000 cattle it would be a wonderful thing. I think the Canadian Federation of Agriculture sum it up pretty well in their report, in this way:
Having in mind that the United States market in the past has been the only satisfactory long-term market for our surplus beef production, the restoration of this market at the earliest possible moment consistent with the national interest, was strongly urged. Pending this, our delegates again urged the immediate establishment of token shipments as a means of preserving contact with that market.
I believe our ambition should be to get back into that market, beginning in a small way and gradually building it up.
But there is another market I should like to bring to the attention of the minister, in regard to feeder steers. When I was in Britain last I went into this question thoroughly, and there is a good market there for our good-class feeder steers that are not properly finished in the fall and cannot be finished here because they go into the packing plants. They could go to Britain, where they would bring a good price; and we could use the Hudson Bay [DOT]railway to take them out. I think this is Worthy of consideration. I know the price *would be right, and the British farmer wants them for feeding purposes. I might say that [DOT]our steers make remarkable gains over there when they are put on that good feed they have.


James Arthur Ross: A little bit of heather?


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Do you feed them oatmeal over there?


William Scottie Bryce: I would also call the minister's attention to the matter of condemnation insurance. We have been paying the same rate of condemnation insurance since 1906, and the government has spent large sums in the eradication, of tuberculosis from among our cattle. I suggest that the rate should now be reduced. If the department has been making the progress I think it has, then a rate of half of one per cent is too large. A tremendous number of hogs have gone through; yet there is practically no tuberculosis among hogs. There have been instances where some, trace has been found in their necks, but it has not been much. The disease among hogs has not been serious; yet we have been paying this condemnation insurance on these animals right along. I would ask the minister to do some investigating into the matter. It is something that is entirely in the hands of the packing companies. As the minister has told me before, no one needs to sell his cattle to a packer unless he wants to. But that is our outlet today; there is more stuff going to the packer than ever before. Tubercular areas have been set up, and the minister told us a few nights ago that there are more veterinaiy surgeons employed than ever before, and more is being done for that work.
In the light of those facts, this rate of condemnation insurance should be lighter. I do not want to put the figures on the record again, because I have already done so. An enormous amount of money is taken in in a year; and the amount becomes very large when it is taken for the number of years the provision has been operating.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: The prices committee
intends to investigate condemnation insurance.


William Scottie Bryce: I assure the hon. member I am delighted to hear that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What can you do about
it?


William Scottie Bryce: May I reaffirm my previous request to the minister that he consider the advisability of appointing a board of livestock commissioners in Canada for the purpose of regulating, controlling, assembling, transporting, grading, marketing and exporting livestock and livestock products.
I have gone into the matter of a board of livestock commissioners very fully on past occasions when I have spoken in the house, and I do not think it is necessary now for me to repeat my remarks to the minister, since

Supply-Agriculture
this subject has been before him and has been dealt with by him on different occasions.
In an earlier debate when I advocated the establishment of a board of livestock commissioners, I compared it with the board of grain commissioners. I had in mind the splendid record which the board of grain commissioners has made since its establishment in 1912. Farmers have long been convinced that a similar board to set up and maintain standards and to encourage a steady improvement in quality both of products and of stock would be of tremendous value to Canadian agriculture.
If our bacon and other livestock products are to compete successfully in major export markets, no effort can be spared to ensure that there shall be no deviation from strict standards of quality. The minister did say at that time it was the opinion of people, who should know', that the board of grain commissioners is ultra vires of parliament, and that the board exists only because of the service it renders to the farmers of western Canada.
Being a farmer, not a lawyer, I cannot discuss the legal aspects, but I know that for thirty-three years the board of grain commissioners have given satisfaction to farmers who were very much dissatisfied before the act was passed setting up that board. I am sure that there are ways and means of making a 'board of livestock commissioners a reality, and to satisfy the continuous requests of livestock producers for such a board.
The whole argument in my opinion simmers down to this, that in order to instil confidence among growers of grain, the government felt it necessary some years ago to set up a board of grain commissioners.
Hon. members will agree with me that such action has w'orked out most satisfactorily. The very same argument applies in connection with livestock, to an even greater degree, inasmuch as grain is a non-perishable product, and samples can be retained to a much greater degree than is the case with livestock products.
There is the additional argument, of course, that in respect of grain the grading which the farmer receives is carried right through to the consumer or miller, with the same standards prevailing. In the case of livestock, the grading does not carry through. The very fact that there is one set of specifications covering the grade of hog carcasses on which the farmer receives his settlement, another set of specifications covering the grade of Wiltshire sides from the packer to the meat board for export, and another set of specifications
covering the product sold by the meat board to the British ministry of food, calls for a neutral board's supervision.
In the case of the pork going into domestic consumption, the packer is allowed to wrap almost anything in the wrappers commonly accepted by the consumers as top grade. As far as I know, the government accepts no control over the latter handling. I know the minister will argue that his department has exercised some control over the portion going into export, but certainly they do not touch anything going into domestic trade, any more than from a sanitary point of view'.
Should the board be set up in the near future, I would suggest further that farmer representation on such a livestock board should be the strongest available. It is no place for political appointments. The greatest interest in the livestock industry is the interest of the men and women who produce the livestock; and it is a matter of prime importance that they be fully and adequately represented on such a board.
When the minister speaks later I would ask him to deal with the research his department has done into the causes of reductions in prices of different commodities which are subject to slumps, and I would ask him to tell us upon what the figures are based. I refer to the operations of the prices support board. Money is there made available, if prices become too low. Perhaps the minister would tell us something about this phase of the matter. I believe some observations from him would give the farmers a sense of security, when they know that they can keep on producing and that they will be looked after, so that they will not be subject to heavy loss after producing hog3 or cattle.
I shall have some questions later on but, with that exception, I have nothing to add at the present time.


Mr. DROPE:: Most of the discussion today has been from members from western Canada, and it has been most interesting to hear them express their points of view. I should think it would be wise, however, if the committee were to hear something from the two great provinces in central Canada.
Our problems are not exactly the same as they are in the west. Our system of farming is different. We farm 12 months of the year in Ontario, and also, I believe, in Quebec. We have heard something about the troubles of beef cattle and hog producers, and I want to tell the minister that the farmers in our part of the country would like to send cattle to the United States. We raise some good cattle in Ontario.
Supply-Agriculture

There is another matter I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture. I refer to the dairying industry. We have heard a lot about butter these last few months, and we have now reached the time when production is catching up with consumption and we shall not need oleomargarine. However, we have to look a little farther ahead to see what will happen next winter.


Charles Edward Johnston: Your party is bringing in oleomargarine.


James Arthur Ross: Where?


Charles Edward Johnston: Just the other day.


Robert Earle Drope: It is important that we have a dairying policy which will assure that the consumers will have butter next winter. That would probably be brought about if the government got out of the butter business or made it profitable for those producing butter to produce it. I believe it was about January 17 last when a ceiling was put on butter to protect the consumer. It was possibly thought wise to do that. If that was reasonable at that time, it is only reasonable, now that we are coming into production, that a floor price be put on for the protection of the producer. What that floor price would be is probably a matter of opinion.
The floor under the price for cheese is 30 cents, with probably a cent or two more for a quality bonus. Then in Ontario two cents more is given. On that basis it would seem that a floor of at least 60 cents a pound would be the absolute bottom that should be put on butter. Unless something along this line is done, we may be facing a shortage of butter next year. A lot of work is involved in looking after a herd of dairy cows and keeping them up; it takes a lot of equipment and long hours must be put in. All this should be taken into consideration.
Surely the butter producers are not to be left at the bottom of the list as they were throughout the whole war. During the time of national emergency they were willing to accept that in order that cheese might be sent to Great Britain to fulfil our contracts. That time is now past, and it seems to me that the 50,000,000 pounds of cheese which we are exporting should not control the whole dairying structure.
We do not know what the consumer in Canada is willing to pay for butter, but I see no good reason for continuing the ceiling price at the present time. The producers throughout the country feel that they are entitled to a floor price. We are into the production season now, probably a week or two later than normal, and it would make a great

difference in our supply of butter next winter if the producers were assured now that a floor price would be put on. H a floor price is to be put on, or if the government is to stay in the butter business or get out of it, that should be made known immediately. It would be a good thing for the country if the minister could tell us tonight if there is a policy and what that policy is.


Mr. STUART (Charlotte):: Mr. Chairman, perhaps there are sufficient members here to carry on an agricultural debate. Listening to the debate the other night and the remark made tonight by the hon. member for Calgary East has made me wonder if I have the right information regarding income tax and if some hon. members opposite have the wrong view. During the discussion the other night the hon. member for Souris and one or two others asked to be assured by the Minister of National Revenue that it was not necessary for farmers to make out income tax reports this year. That point was emphasized.
In my constituency a number of fishermen are in the same category as farmers, and I want to tell the committee that I have advised each and every fisherman to be sure and make out an income tax form, particularly if he did not have a taxable income.


James Arthur Ross: I know the hon. member wants to be fair, but he is leaving the impression that I wanted to be sure that the farmer did not have to make out an income tax form.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I am being fair.


James Arthur Ross: I quoted the heading and I asked the minister whether the man was supposed to make out an income tax form. I have advised every farmer in my riding to make out a return whether he had a taxable income or not.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I might have misunderstood the hon. member, but several asked the Minister of National Revenue if it was necessary. Either I have the wrong information or others have. The explanation given me is that the farmer or fisherman must make out an income tax return, whether he has a taxable income or not, if he wishes to average his income over a number of years. If he has not a taxable income this year and does not make out a return, if he has not a taxable income in 1949 and does not make out a return, should he make $10,000 or $15,000 in 1950 he would not be able to go back and average his income. He must make out a return every year to be able to do that.

Supply-Agriculture
I do not bring up this matter in order to criticize anyone; I simply thought that some hon. members may have the wrong impression. Unless a return is made out each year, the man making $10,000 or $15,000 in 1950 would have to pay an income tax on the full amount.


James Arthur Ross: Just to get back again to this meat business, if I understood the Minister of Agriculture correctly this afternoon he stated that hog prices in Canada today are considerably higher than in any other country.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say "considerably", I said "higher".


James Arthur Ross: During the dinner
recess I looked up a pamphlet put out by the minister's department, the "Live Stock Review" of April 29, which is the last one we have. It states that the average livestock prices at Chicago for the week ending April 17, 1948, showed hogs, $22.37. I think that is for live weight. The same pamphlet shows the price of hogs at Winnipeg as $27.50. If it is a choice hog it will dress 80 per cent. I think that is a pretty fair average.


James Garfield Gardiner: The premium goes on top of that.


James Arthur Ross: Yes, there is a premium on top of that. It brings it to approximately twenty-two cents. I am not going to quibble about fractions. It would bring the price of hogs in Chicago and Winnipeg to an almost identical figure, even with the premium, because there is so little difference I will not argue about it. That is the point I wanted to make clear.


James Garfield Gardiner: To keep the record straight for those who read it afterwards, may I say there is still the duty and the freight to pay to get it to Chicago or Minneapolis.


James Arthur Ross: Certainly, but I am talking about the difference between the price on the two markets, because the producers in Canada also pay the freight to the yards. The point I am making is the net price to the Canadian farmer who markets his hogs in the yard in Winnipeg as compared with the United States producer who markets his hogs in Chicago.


James Garfield Gardiner: To be exact, my statement this afternoon was intended to convey the idea that there was no other market where you could market your hogs and get as good a return as you could when you marketed them in Canada.


James Arthur Ross: At any rate, I wanted to put these figures on the record from the minister's own department. I have put them
on for hogs, and I shall now put them on for cattle. The average was 28-38 cents in Chicago and eighteen cents in Winnipeg during that week. There is a difference of ten cents and a fraction there. Then again, if you want to go back to the United States shipping point there would have to be a cent and a half duty and whatever the freight happens to be there, but it still leaves quite a difference.
What I wanted to do was to support what the hon. member.for Calgary East said to the minister this afternoon when he finished making his statement about the quantities of meat in storage in Canada and the prices. I consider it important, in view of the statements that have been published in the press in the last few days as the opinion of his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the chairman of the prices committee. The statements that he has been making about the meat in storage in Canada and the prices have been disconcerting to the livestock producers of Canada. Probably the Minister of National Health and Welfare has not realized how his statements may be taken; nevertheless he is a member of this government. Therefore I hope that the minister will make the statement before that committee as to meat in storage in Canada and the prices that he gave here this afternoon. If he did that it would be helpful and encouraging also to the producers of livestock throughout this country, because the two statements made by the ministers in the last few days are at variance. I hope the minister will see either that, his statement is made clear, personally through himself, or that his statement is made available to the prices committee in order to clear up that serious misunderstanding at this particular time.
There is another point I should like to mention. I do not want to get mixed up in the tractor issue that took place this afternoon, but I happen to have Hansard of May 21, 1941. This is what the minister said, as reported at page 3028:
A number of hon. members from that corner have referred to my opinion as to the use of horses or gasoline in farming. I should like to say that I have a farm in western Canada and I have never had a tractor.
That is the point he was making this afternoon. Later on, he said:
If I were dependent upon my farm for a living, as I have been at times, I certainly would not use a tractor.
I will admit that that exchange took place many years ago, and the whole situation has changed, but to keep the record straight I just wished to refer to that.
If the hon. member for Charlotte would take the trouble to read the Winnipeg
3744
Supply-Agriculture

Tribune of May 5 he would have an enlightened picture of the most recent income tax returns filed by the farmers of the various provinces across Canada and the amounts paid by those farmers. They are about the last figures obtainable from the Department of National Revenue. The figures are interesting. If anybody is concerned about the number of farmers who have filed income tax returns by provinces and the amount of money they have paid per capita agricultural income by provinces he can get the information in that paper. I agree with what the hon. member was trying to get at a few moments ago. There has been a lot of confusion as to whether these farmers should or should not file a return if they were not liable for tax. I am sure that no hon. member in any group here would advise a farmer not to file a return if he should be liable at all. I have gone the other way, as I am sure other hon. members would do, and advised them that they should make a return and be on the safe side. I think they should do that. The point that I wanted to make was whether the heading on the form was a part of the law or just put there by some officials in the department in order that every farmer should file a return. I am not too clear on the matter yet, even after the answers I have received from the minister.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: The point I wanted to impress upon the hon. member was that a farmer should be most careful about making out an income tax in the year in which he has no taxable income.


John Alpheus Charlton: In view of the figures the minister put on the record this afternoon, I think it would be only fair that the figures for the intervening years should also be placed on the record. I do not know why the minister particularly chose the years he did because, as we all know, there was quite a hump in the intervening period between those years; that is, mainly 1944 and 1945. Production figures all across the board were very high, but now they are on the downward trend. The figures I am quoting with regard to livestock are taken from the Canada Year Book, 1947, page 351. This is the index number of animals on farms, and I think it is a very fair figure to use. I will not bother giving horses. Milk cows, 1939, stood at 97-4. I shall give each year in sequence. In 1940, the figures stood at 96-5; 1941, 95-9; 1942, 97-4; 1943 100-4; 1944, 103-9; 1945, 105-8 and 1946, 103-5! The high year was 1945. Other cattle, the 1939 figure is 95-1. The high year was 1945, and the figure was 137. In 1946 the figure was 131-1.

I now come to the total of all cattle. In 1939 the figure was 96-1. The high year was 1945 and the figure was 123-4. In 1946 the figure was 119-1. Sheep and lambs; the 1939 figure was 94-4. The high year was 1944, and the figure was 120-9. In 1946 it had dropped down to 109-6. Swine, in 1939 the figure was 110-8. The high year was 1943, and the figure was 206-9. The 1946 figure was 136-5.
I now come to egg production, which will be found at page 355 of the Canada Year Book, 1947. This figure is given in dozens of eggs, from 1941 to 1946. In 1941 the figure was 244,468,000 dozen. The high year was 1945; the figure was 373,952,000 dozen. In 1946 the figure had dropped to 346,841,000 dozen.
I now come to the total milk production. The 1942 figure was 17,448,590,000. The high year was 1945, with a production of 17,626,972,000 pounds. In 1946 it had dropped back to 16,937,028,000 pounds. To be fair, I believe the 1947 figure is a little higher, but the increase is small.
I now come to the figures for butter. The 1942 figure was 363,116,372 pounds. The high year was 1943 with a production of 367,116,476 pounds. In 1946 it had decreased to 325,591,000 pounds. The high year was 1943. There is an explanation for that. At that time the government asked that the farmers decrease their production of butter and increase the production of cheese. Therefore it was by government policy that that took place.
In cheese, the 1942 figure was 208,218,645. That was the high year, and in 1946 that figure had dropped to 148,060,000 pounds. There was a reason for that. It was government policy at that time to increase production of cheese and decrease production of butter, so as to supply the export market in Great Britain.
Now a word about hog production. As stated by the minister this afternoon, the production of hogs has probably increased in the first period of this year, but he expects it to decrease in September. I believe, as I have said before this session, that there was good reason for that decrease in the production of hogs, as there is good reason for the decrease in production of every farm product, as shown by these figures. One of the greatest reasons is the fear of the farmers across the country of what the price will be in the future. They do not know.
By order in council the price might be changed overnight, and it is the fear of that price change which is keeping the farmers from going ahead with production.
Another thing is income tax. For years the farmers have worked long hours, as we

Supply-Agriculture
all realize. Anyone who has worked on a farm knows it. The farmers are not satisfied to continue to work these long hours and then have the government tax them for the extra hours they put in. Labour in industry have done the same thing exactly. They refuse to work overtime when they are taxed highly for it, and you cannot blame them.
What is to be done? I do not know what the government figure on doing, but something will have to be done if they want to have production increased, because unfortunately it is going down and it will continue to go down as long as these two factors are predominant in the minds of farmers.
One suggestion I have made before and I should like to make it again. I refer to the extra time the farmer puts in. There is not a farmer in this country who does not want to bear his fair share of taxation. I am not suggesting that the farmers should not pay their fair share of income tax, but they are not allowed the exemptions which should be coming to them by reason of the fact that the farm is a family affair and not individual. So that, although the farmer's wife is now allowed pin money for her few hens, that is a mere drop in the bucket compared with the work she does on farms across the country.
I know the work my own mother has done, and I know the work many other women have done and are doing throughout the country, loading hay, taking the place of a man all summer and yet without recompense for that work. The return for the work is simply considered as one man's income. In many cases there may be, besides the wife, several children helping to earn on that farm, and there should be some means whereby that could be considered when the farmer makes out his income tax returns.
The minister said this afternoon that the price of hogs would be set in November or December this fall for next year. I say that is not good enough. If he expects production of hogs to go up it will take a long time for an increase in production if there is such a delay before the farmers know what price they will receive, because assuredly people will not go ahead and produce hogs now, with, as the only floor price in sight, that which they now have. As stated by the minister, the price for 1916 is the guaranteed price for 1949, which is S25. If the price of hogs did go down to $25 for next year, does the minister think he would get much production at that figure? That is the basis and the only basis on which the farmers can figure produe-5849-238i
tion now, because that is the only guarantee they have for 1949.
I made a suggestion before, and I make it again briefly, that the price of hogs should be set at least two years ahead, and that a minimum and a maximum price should be set at that time. At the present time the price of hogs is $36. There is no reason in the world why a floor of $30 and a ceiling of $35 should not be set for at least a year right now, or a year and a half, until the end of 1949. With a $5 spread in the price, it would leave the farmer with a $30 guarantee, and no one would worry much about that spread of $5. At the present time it is $11. The farmer would not worry particularly if he knew that he would get at least a floor of $30 for a two-year period, that price to be reviewed each year; a year ahead of production, instead of one month or two months, as the minister stated this afternoon, before the production period.
If the price is to be left until November or December this fall, we shall have trouble in getting production to the point where we can maintain the British bacon market, and I strongly urge that consideration be given, in the minister's price policy for hogs, to obtaining that minimum and maximum price as I suggest. I do not offer those figures absolutely. I give them simply as an example, suggesting that there might be a spread of $5 between the low and the high, and that figure be set for two years and reviewed each year.


Mr. FAIR:: I think I should say a few words, because a number of figures have been put on the record today which might lead people who do not know better to believe that farmers are making a lot of money. That statement has been made for a number of years, and there are still people who believe that the farmers are making more than many other occupational groups. The statement is certainly not correct.
A couple of weeks ago I put some questions on the order paper to find out from the government records just what the position is. I asked for information with respect to the number of farmers operating farms in each province during the years from 1930 to 1947 inclusive, and also during the same period the net farm income in each province each year.
I did this so that we should have figures dealing with the poor years and with some of the better years. Unfortunately we have not been able to get figures for the period 1930 to 1937 inclusive, but we have been able to get figures for the better years from 1938 to 1947 inclusive.
Supply-Agriculture

As an indication of the condition of agriculture during the depression years, tvhat many people call the hungry thirties, I have in mind a figure given from government sources some time ago of one year which I believe was one of the poorest, 1932. The average net income per farm in Canada for that year was 8198. It has been pointed out by the hon. member who has just taken his seat that that is not the income for just one individual because, as he rightly pointed out, the farmer's wife and family and hired help must get a share of that net income.
In making this calculation I have not been able to get an accurate statement, because 1931 and 1941 are the only years for which the government has been able to give the number of occupied farms. In 1931 the number of occupied farms was 728,623, and in 1941, 732,832. For my purpose I felt that an approximate figure could be obtained by taking, as an average, 730,000 occupied farms, and taking that figure I find that for the year 1938 the average net income for the farmers of Canada was $530; for 1939, $664; 1940, $725; 1941, $818; 1942, $1,513; 1943. $1,356; 1944, $1,680; 1945, $1,343; 1946. $1,590; and for 1947, the highest average of all, $1,725.
For the ten-year period that gives us a net income for each farmer in Canada of $1,194. This may be of interest to some who have not had an opportunity to get figures on farm
income. But again I point out that that is the net. income for 'the farmer, his wife and family and hired help, because they all work on the farm. I might also point out that the average farmer in Canada works not less than twelve hours a day, and in the harvest and threshing seasons, particularly in the prairie provinces, we have to work sixteen or seventeen hours a day. You might compare that with the forty-four hours a week enjoyed by many industrial workers and the forty-hour week enjoyed by other industrial workers. You might compare it also with what many people are aiming at today, the five-day working week. The farmer has no five-day or six-day week; he works seven days a week, and by working long hours of overtime it may run up to nine or ten days in a week. If the committee is willing I should like to place this table on Hansard. It is a return which was tabled only yesterday and gives the number of farmers in each province all across Canada in 1931 and 1941, and gives also the net income of the farming population in each province all across the dominion.


William Henry Golding: Has the hon. member permission to place the table on Hansard?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Robert Fair: I thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. The table is as follows:
1.-NUMBER OF OCCUPIED FARMS, 1931-1946 (Census of Agriculture)
-	1931	1936	1941	1946(')
	728,623		732,832	
	12,865		12,230	
	39,444		32,977	
	34,025		31,889	
	135,957		154,669	
	192,174		178,204	
Manitoba	54,199	57,774	58,024	54,448Saskatchewan	136,472	142,391	138,713	125,612Alberta	97,408	100,358	99,732	89,54126,079	26,394	
41		26	
				
([DOT]) Preliminary figures.
(2) Exclusive of the Yukon Territory. 

Supply-Agriculture
2.-NET INCOME OF FARM OPERATORS FROM FARMING OPERATIONS, 1938-1947
(Thousand dollars)
Province	1938	1939	1940	1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947Prince Edward Island	3,275	4,169	4,627	5,282	8,734	10,340	9,174	10,737	10,414	11,061Nova Scotia	13,594	9,507	12,054	10,223	12,519	19,384	17,471	15,656	23,038	18,877New Brunswick	7,337	8,631	11,259	13,141	20,471	26,888	25,432	24,504	27,098	28,222Quebec	69,484	81,935	96,218	111,378	142,058	174,473	179,177	176,998	210,937	211,183Ontario	136,998	134,779	142,230	184,749	274,188	251,655	288,812	318,326	332,614	342,424Manitoba	34,549	37,095	44,548	58,307	107,073	114,970	114,194	78,079	104,346	118,510Saskatchewan	26,032	117,866	109,210	103,889	301,572	209,638	354,792	184,396	228,417	273,108Alberta	80,825	76,580	94,396	87,737	208,965	141,570	196,824	121,664	170,441	203,342British Columbia	14,964	13,929	14,804	22,407	28,789	41,148	40,973	50,671	53,450	52,984Canada	387,058	484,491	529,346	597,113	1,104,369	990,066	1,226,849	981,031	1,160,755	1,259,711Average = 1,194.00.	530.00	664.00	725.00	818.00	1,513.00	1,356.00	1,680.00	1,343.00	1,590.00	1,725.00
I think that table will be found enlightening and help to explain why the farmers of Canada are not paying more income tax than they are at the present time. I might point out that, in view of the losses the farmers suffered during the period from 1930 to 1941 particularly, some system should be worked out whereby they can make up some of their losses during that period when it comes to paying income tax, especially when it is remembered that the farmers received much less for their production during the war years than they could have if another system had been in effect. I am not going to say any more at this time, but I felt that these figures should be placed on the record to head off some false impressions that might have been given by other figures placed on the record during this discussion.


Mr. BARRETT:: I understood the minister to say that certain classes of cattle were selling in the United States for twenty-two cents a pound and that comparable classes of cattle were selling in Canada for sixteen cents a pound, or a difference of six cents a pound between the two countries. During the dinner recess I looked up the market reports to verify the minister's figures. I could not find today's or yesterday's paper, but I got Wednesday's paper and I should like to quote Wednesday, and then ask the minister to explain the figures he gave this afternoon. On the Toronto stock market weighty steers
brought $17 to $18.50; butcher steers sold for $16.50 to $18.50, heifers, $17.50, and fed yearlings, $16.75 to $19. Butcher cows sold at from $11 to $16.
On the Chicago market Colorado fed steers brought $31.75; good and choice yearlings, $28 to $31; good and choice heifers, $27 to $31; beef cows, $19.50 to $24; sausage bulls, $24.50. The last figure is not very clear, and it may be $21.50. I cannot see any prices quoted to support the figure the minister gave of twenty-two cents on the United States market as compared with sixteen cents for the same class of cattle on the Canadian market-


James Garfield Gardiner: The statement which I gave this afternoon was a quotation from a report of the prices committee. They took evidence from Mr. George Ross, who is quite a large operator, with a ranch in Alberta, and who, until recently, operated a ranch in Montana. He is therefore familiar with prices on both sides of the line. He gave evidence to the effect that you cannot make a comparison between any Canadian-fed cattle and corn-fed cattle on the Chicago market, that we have not comparable cattle being delivered on this side of the line. But he said that the grass-fed cattle off the ranch in Montana were comparable with the grass fed cattle in Alberta. There can be no question about that because there is only an imaginary line between Montana and Alberta. He said that that type of cattle sold on the United States market when he was before the com-
Supply-Agriculture

mittee about two weeks ago, at twenty-two cents a pound, and that the same grade of cattle on the Canadian market brought sixteen cents. I know that if you take the newspaper reports for cattle prices in the United States and Canada, unless you are familiar with the types of cattle that go on the United States market and the market here, it is difficult to make a comparison in prices. But this man is an expert on ranch cattle, and he said that was the comparison in prices brought by Montana and Alberta cattle.


Theobald Butler Barrett: Does he call grass-fed cattle those cattle coming off the ranches now?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not going to try to tell the hon. member what he was talking about, but he was giving evidence before the committee, and I think some members of this committee were present when he was giving his evidence and will bear out that that was the evidence he gave. I am not going to discuss what he may have had in mind, or anything like that. Everyone who knows George Ross knows he understands cattle and has probably sold more cattle on the United States market than most Canadians. He has had a ranch on both sides of the line, and I would take his word in regard to prices of cattle, particularly in view of the fact that he has been one of the chief advocates of getting cattle back into the United States market ever since that market was lost.


Theobald Butler Barrett: I would say these figures market reports in the newspapers today.
.are certainly misleading, according to the


Mrs. STRUM:: Before this item carries, I wish to say something about what has happened to the farmer in the last year, and I hope the minister will see that it does not happen again. In the last couple of weeks I have tried to understand the minister's point of view and the workings of his department; and I want to take this opportunity to compliment the minister on the efficiency of his department. I do not think any other department of this government is so well organized or equipped to give such service as the Department of Agriculture. I found that I could trace through the acreage of every crop, the production figures, the income tax paid by farmers, the marketing and practically everything but the policy of the government. I have bales of stuff. It was a fascinating experience; in fact I think the minister's performance is always fascinating.
But while I understand his department a great deal better, I must confess that I still do not understand the minister. Today we have an almost unlimited demand for every-

thing we can grow; we have good prices; yet I am afraid that we have done a great deal to discourage production and to make it hard for farmers to remain in the business and produce the animal products necessary for our export market. I am going back to 1946, when a conference was held in Ottawa on December 3, 4, 5 and 6, attended by the deputy ministers of all the provinces, representatives of the federal Department of Agriculture, officials of the United Kingdom and the United States and representatives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, representing the industry all across Canada. There were the representatives of agriculture, there were the representatives of all governments in Canada; there were the representatives of our potential market, representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom.
Evidently they had an excellent conference, and I agree with all their findings. I think they said some useful and sensible things, and I believe their conclusions were valid. I only wish the minister had been permitted to carry out the decisions of that conference. I believe his next job must be to organize the government so that it will have a little understanding of the needs of agriculture, because I am sure, if the minister had been permitted to carry out the decisions of that conference, agriculture today would not be resenting the things that happened last year, and would not be wondering how to plan for the coming year, and the year after that.
For instance, this conference decided that there was a great need for animal products, and that their production depended upon feed. They recognized the relationship between the price of wheat and the price of barley, and that if that relationship were upset people would divert their land to the growing of wheat and would deprive the country of its feed supply. They saw that if the price of barley went too high the feeder in the east could not afford to buy it; and they saw also that if it went too high in the west the farmer would sell his pigs and market his barley. Therefore they said the thing to do was to stabilize the farmer's costs by giving him an acreage bonus, which would help give him the cost of production but would keep down the price of feed to the eastern farmer and maintain this flow of barley so that we could maintain our over-all production. They said, too-and I think this is extremely important -that the future of Canadian agriculture on the British market depends upon our living up to the present contracts.
That is so true. As long as I can remember anything, I can remember my father, who was

Supply-Agriculture
active in farmers' organizations, worrying about how we could get the British market away from the Danish producers. The Canadian farmer has always hoped that some day we shall have a chance to compete with Denmark in the field of bacon. Here we had a marvellous opportunity to keep what we had obtained because the world was hungry. So all those attending that conference agreed on this very good program.
Then the Canadian Federation of Agriculture met and drew up their production in line with the decisions of that conference. Their objective, too, was to bring about an increase in hog production; and it was recognized that these relationships would have to be maintained. They recommended the $5 per acre bonus, that the 15-eent barley equalization payment be discontinued, that any increase in the price of barley would be prejudicial to an increase in hog production, and so on.
We all remember that last year at about this time there were severe floods in the east. This year the floods are in the west, but last year it was the east. Hon. members will remember, as I remember so well, that the farmers of Ontario were almost going crazy at that time wondering whether or not they would get in their crops, and many of them never did. So the federation of agriculture had a meeting on June 12 to draw to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture the critical feed situation resulting from these weather conditions. Here are the things they recommended when their delegation came to see the minister at that time. They recommended that the present price structure on feed grains be continued until at least July 1, 1948; that plans be made as early as possible for the movement of the normal supply of feed grains into eastern Canada and British Columbia; that, in view of the emergency in eastern Canada, special measures be instituted to move the necessary additional supplies of feed grain from the west to the east before freeze-up; and they also warned the minister that, unless extraordinary measures such as these were taken, the Canadian consumer would suffer shortages of some farm products and face the danger of high prices in connection with other products, and further that Canada would fall down badly on her export commitments.
The minister replied to the federation of agriculture and assured the delegation that a close watch was being kept on the situation; that measures would be considered to ensure the transportation of as much feed grain as -could be obtained from the west, and that, with
respect to the price and drawback situation, the minister would discuss the matter with his colleagues in the cabinet.
In reply the delegation emphasized that livestock feeders faced not only a shortage of feed but increased costs of production on two scores; and these were the factors entering into those increased costs of production. They said that, because of the late and depleted sowing program, they would have to buy extra supplies of feed, and that cancellation of the drawbacks would substantially increase the price of coarse grains.
To come further into this disastrous year for agriculture, in the fall the packer's strike developed and, as I have said before in this house, those of us in the west who were planning to ship livestock found that we had no cars. We find that, while the packers had meat for sale all the time the strike was on, they ceased taking deliveries; so our livestock could not be shipped. Finally, when the strike was settled livestock yards were glutted; at every little shipping point stockyards were full of stock and people were waiting for cars to move the cattle out.
But this was a harvest for the packing plants of the country, because this glutted condition permitted them to get their meat for less, and they were able to fill up their empty abattoirs with comparatively cheap meat. Then the government took the ceiling off coarse grains, with the result that immediately the meat people said, "The cost of feed has gone up; so, of course, meat is up"; and the consumer immediately began to pay higher prices.
What happened then? The federation of agriculture again spoke for the farmers. In their newsletter of November 7, 1947, they quote the president, Mr. Hannam, as follows:
"Nothing that has happened in Canadian agriculture in many years has stirred the farmers throughout the dominion to such resentment."
After pointing out the heavy increase in feed costs resulting from the action of the government in cancelling ceilings and subsidies, he continued:
"Furthermore the government's action has cut the feet out from under the best livestock program we ever had in Canada, which not only achieved the greatest production of livestock, dairy and poultry products in our history, but what is more important, established some degree of stability in the whole agricultural program, offering hope for some permanency for this stability in the future.
"That program has been tossed out of the window, with the marketing of oats and barley thrown back into the field of gambling on the grain exchange, and feeders of livestock not knowing where they are at in the cost of these grains."
At that time I remember that when we came back last fall it was insinuated in the house
Supply-Agriculture

that the western farmers had withheld their deliveries of grain, expecting this action on the part of the government. However, the federation of agriculture contradicts that statement, and I am glad it did because the western farmer was not guilty of that action. This is what the federation of agriculture, which speaks for all Canada, had to say on that point:
Prior to, and following the announcement of the dominion government of the removal of the ceiling prices and subsidies on oats and barley, charges were made in certain quarters that farmers in the western provinces were deliberately holding back delivery of oats and barley in the expectation of the removal of the ceilings and consequent higher prices for these grains.
Figures for farmers' marketings of these grains since August 1 completely refute these charges. These figures show, according to the dominion government report of October 23, that:
A total of 25,922,000 bushels of oats had been delivered to market by farmers, compared with 29,771,000 bushels in the same period of last year, and a total of 31,906,000 bushels of barley had been taken to market by farmers this year compared with only 29,196,000 bushels in the same period of last year.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: I appreciate very much the applause.
It appears, therefore, that in 1947 the farmers had marketed slightly more barley- not less-than they had the year before. There was no evidence at all to suggest that western farmers were holding out on those in the east who needed grain.
Again in December the federation of agriculture spoke. I suggest that the minister should heed the voice of organized agriculture. This is what the president of the federation of agriculture suggests:
The question we have to decide in agriculture now is whether or not we are going to have a stabilization program for agriculture, or whether
we shall throw our industry upon the uncertainties of a free market.
And in closing, he said:
I have never known a time when all livestock farmers, including dairy and poultry producers were so upset, discouraged and bewildered.
What effect did this have upon our deliveries? I think we should ask this question: Were we able to live up to the contracts we signed with the United Kingdom? As I said earlier, the conference called in December pointed out that the future of Canadian agriculture depends upon our living up to our contracts. To what extent did we live up to the contracts we had agreed to honour?
On December 11 a return was tabled, showing our commitments. In bacon and hams our contract called for 350,000,000 pounds, and up

to November we had delivered 168,000,000 pounds. It was estimated that we would have an additional 81,000,000 pounds, or a total of
250.000.	000 pounds. So that in bacon and hams we were 100,000,000 pounds short.
On our beef agreement we had contracted for 120,000,000 pounds. It was estimated that we would be able to deliver about 36,000,000 pounds, or very little more than a quarter of what we had promised to deliver.
In respect of cheese we had promised
125.000.	000 pounds, and it was estimated that we would be able to deliver 57,000,000 pounds, or a little more than a third.
The only contracts we met were those of evaporated milk, dried skim milk powder, and eggs. I believe that is a pretty good appraisal of what happened to agriculture last year. That is not information we can afford to ignore, as a nation. And this afternoon when someone suggested-I believe it was the minister-that our deliveries of hogs had exceeded our anticipated deliveries, and someone else suggested that probably breeding stock was going on the market, I think they were right.
In that part of the country from which I come I know people are saying that there is no use staying in pigs. They believe this is a time to sell their breeding stock and their barley. I plead with the Minister of Agriculture to give us some stability, not only in contracts that we are to fill, but stability in the price of feed. We have already passed a bill which would have brought oats and barley under the control of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but I am afraid it is too late now to get complementary legislation in the legislatures. Saskatchewan is the only province where such legislation has been passed. We are still waiting on Alberta and Manitoba, and I doubt very much if it will come into effect next year.
How can the farmer in the east or the west plan his production? How can we meet our commitments unless we have a long-term plan and stability?
The conference which met in December of 1946 had this to say:
Individually, it was difficult for the farm industry to assemble food products in volume and provide continuity of supply of standard quality. Bulk purchase of imports by the government would continue in the United Kingdom and some other countries for some time at least, and it was felt that a central authority in Canada could best deal with the government of another country.
It suggests that it was only by an integrated agricultural program developed for the whole of Canada, and based broadly on greater production of feeding grains in the west to supply the needs of livestock producers

Supp ly-A griculture
throughout Canada, and particularly in the eastern provinces, that progress could be made.
That is the whole picture. It shows a necessity for integration, for stability and for planning; and that for more than a month or two months or a year.
I do not need to tell the minister anything about agriculture, because no one knows more about it than he, but I would remind him that you cannot sell your breeding stock and then get back into business next year. It takes years to build up a herd of cattle, and you must make an investment in buildings, equipment, plant, land and machinery. You cannot be in this year and out next year, because your cost of production goes on in the form of interest, taxes and maintaining yourself on the farm.
I plead with the minister to work on the cabinet and try to get them to have the wheat board give us a fixed price or to establish a proper relationship between feed and prices based on contracts made with governments through our government, which is the proper mechanism to use. As individual producers we are helpless, we are defeated, we are absolutely impotent. Government is the instrument that civilization has developed to serve the needs of the community, and there is no reason why we should not use it.
I commend the minister for this kind of conference, for this kind of program and for the work of his department, and I hope that he will use it as we know he can if he can get the co-operation of his party.


Robert Earle Drope: I asked the minister one or two questions, but he has not had a chance to answer them. One was in connection with dairy products and butter, particularly as to a floor price.


James Garfield Gardiner: There has been some discussion of the possibility of having a floor price under butter this year. The dairy association of Canada met me some two or three weeks ago and made certain proposals, and the advisory committee on food which meets periodically met since that time and also made certain representations. I have the matter under consideration at the moment and intend to make some representations to the government with regard to it, but up to the present I have not had an opportunity of doing so and therefore cannot give any further information at the moment.
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH: Mr. Chairman, will you be good enough to call it eleven o'clock?


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to make a suggestion which may not meet with the
approval of the hon. member. I do not know with what subject he is going to deal, but we have had a rather general discussion. I think on many occasions I could have raised a point of order, but the discussion was allowed to go on for two full sittings. That is a pretty good general discussion. Could we not have the hon. gentleman's remarks on some item later on? Could we not have one item passed tonight just to get on?
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH: There may have been a general discussion, but I have not had an opportunity of taking part in it. I should like an opportunity to do so and I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to call it eleven o'clock.


An hon. MEMBER:: Go ahead.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the hon. member has a speech of some length to make and he feels he cannot make it on any other item, perhaps we should call it eleven o'clock.
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH: I would rather not make it now. Will you call it eleven o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


Mr. McLURE:: Could the minister not
leave this over? I have been sitting here all day waiting for an opportunity to speak.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is being left over.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: On Monday we intend to take up the resolution concerning housing in the name of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. The next item will be in committee of the whole on Bill No. 211, to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. Then the second reading of Bill No. 214, to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act. Then resuming the debate on the motion for the second reading of Bill No. 209, to amend the National Parks Act. Then we shall ask to revert to government notices of motion in order to take up the resolution standing in the name of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Then we shall move to go into committee of supply to call two new items and then proceed with the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture. If we complete those, we shall take up transport.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 10, 1948