Mr. POULIOT:

He may know a few, but I can tell him that any single farmer of the back country of my constituency knows more in his little finger about agriculture than the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe knows.

Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):

The hon. member does not know enough to judge.

Mr. POULIOT:

I know a great deal about agriculture because I have learned it from the farmers of my constituency.

Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):

You mean you have farmed the farmers.

Mr. POULIOT:

Will the hon. member speak intelligently and audibly? I cannot hear him. When I listen to him I have the impression of hearing a movietone, and of course that is pretty hard on me. I am not very familiar with the English language and I expect everyone to speak his native tongue audibly.

Agriculture is a very serious matter, and is not to be treated lightly.

Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):

Hear, hear.

Mr. POULIOT:

I am glad the hon. gentleman says "hear, hear," because I have spoken lightly for two or three minutes in answer to him. But now I want to speak seriously; probably he will not see the difference, but that is of no importance because I do not try to convince him. I want to speak seriously about a grave problem in this country. Of course, when one lives in a rural district, meets the farmers and is interested in their needs, their difficulties and their progress, he can learn a great deal if he is willing to learn.

It is true that in our part of the country, in the eastern provinces, we have mixed farming. Most of the farmers there have the spirit of pioneers. And there are some of them who deserve even more credit than the ordinary farmer; they are the settlers who clear the bush in order to cultivate the land. The farmers of eastern Canada, having the spirit of pioneers, at first did not lean on any government for help. They -were making their own roads and carrying on their affairs without any subsidy or any help. But with the coming of harder times they have had to rely to a certain extent on government assistance, and their point of view now is that what

Agricultural Products-Marketing

is done for one part of the country should be done for other parts. If it is good for one section of the country it must be good for the other; that is their point of view. May I repeat something that you, Mr. Speaker, know very well; it is that the farmers of eastern Canada deserve as much help as those of the west. And the situation is not always agreeable for them. They strive hard, they have difficulty, and they expect someone to come to their assistance.

Of course under the British North America Act agriculture and immigration are, in the first place, provincial matters. The dominion and the provinces have joint jurisdiction in those two fields only. As time went on, there were many changes, and little by little the dominion has been doing more with regard to agriculture by way of experimental farms and by assisting farmers. I wonder what is the practical difference in the way the dominion and provincial departments of agriculture are operated. It must be very slight. Would it not be better to keep the experimental farms and illustration stations throughout the country under the administration of the dominion government and then give the provinces a subsidy, in proportion to their population, which subsidy would be under the control of the provincial governments? Then no one could complain that more was done for one section of the country than for another.

Further, I wonder if the creation of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan was in fact a good thing. There is no doubt that Sir Wilfrid Laurier meant very well; he wanted to see this country larger and more populous, but now that the western provinces are costing Canada so much by way of loans, grants and guarantees I wonder if in regard to the dominion these western provinces do not occupy the same position that Newfoundland occupied with regard to England, and if it would not be better to return those provinces to the territories they once were, with a commissioner in charge. That would be a simple way of managing the business of those provinces. A petition could be addressed to the imperial parliament requesting the repeal of the Westminster statutes that were passed thirty-three years ago. Then those provinces would be in the same position as Newfoundland, until their prosperity was restored. I wonder if that would not be a good thing. They would have a fine territory; they would be happy and contented and they could try their own experiments.

Mr. HAYHURST:

Would you take over their debt?

Mr. POULIOT:

I do not know, but I do know the west is pretty costly to the east. The farmers of the east want the same degree of assistance from the dominion government that the farmers of the west are given. That is the position; of course it may be pretty costly, but it should be done in order that there may be no difficulty in our part of the country. I am sure that those who take time to consider the matter will realize that this is only fair. Certainly the products of the mixed farming of the east should receive consideration equal to that given the wheat of the west.

Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):

I was going to remark that the east has as much need for consideration as the west in the marketing of its products; and I was also going to add that if western farmers took the advice of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) and forgot to any extent the wheat about which we talk so much in this house and diverted our activities to the production of dairy and other farm products, I am not sure what would happen to the dairy interests of eastern Canada. So I would say that anything that can be done to maintain the wheat industry of western Canada, and to prevent the farmers of the west from being forced into some other line of endeavour, is in the interests of eastern agriculture.

While the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe was speaking, I looked up the figures in regard to the production of one commodity in which Ontario and Quebec are interested, namely, butter. I found that in 1937 Saskatchewan produced 23,000,000 pounds of butter, with a home consumption of between

6.000. 000 and 7,000,000 pounds. Manitoba produced 24,000,000 pounds and consumed from

13.000. 000 to 14,000,000 pounds. So these two provinces had a surplus of 28,000,000 pounds of butter in that year.

Mr. HARRIS:

What did they do with that surplus?

Mr. COLDWELL:

I will answer that question in a moment. Ontario showed a .production of 81.500,000 pounds, with a consumption of 92,000,000 pounds; Quebec produced

74.000. 000 pounds and consumed 88,000,000 pounds, while the three maritime provinces had a production of 11,500,000 pounds and a consumption of 20,250,000 pounds. So in 1937 the production of eastern Canada was 33,000,000 pounds short of the consumptive requirements. In 1938 production in the prairies was increased by 6,000,000 pounds; in Ontario, by 5.500,000; in Quebec, by 4,500,000

71492-227J

Agricultural Products-Marketing

pounds, and in the maritimes, by 2,000,000 pounds. That brought up our production to some 12,000,000 pounds more than we needed in this country. If our western farmers took the advice that is so frequently tendered in this house and went into the production of dairy products, I am not sure what some of the eastern dairy interests would do.

We have discussed wheat a great deal in this house. That is because, as I said earlier, to quote the former leader of the opposition- I have not his exact words under my hand, but I know what they were-wheat is Canada's greatest source of new wealth. He went on to say that since the west had been settled, something like $10,000,000,000 in new wealth had been produced in that way. It is true that during the last eight or nine years western Canada has suffered from drought and economic disaster, but that is no reason in the world why western Canada should be considered as a sort of poor relation of eastern Canada. When I look round the east and see the fine financial institutions, with their tremendous reserve funds marked on their windows, I know perfectly well that a great deal of that new wealth originated in western Canada in days gone by and that the people who produced it have precious little to show for the productive years that are now past.

I do not know a great deal about some matters covered by this particular bill because I have not given them special study, but I know western Canada will support any legislation that may be introduced in the interests of the eastern producer. The only thing I do know about this legislation is that 1 have heard it criticized because it is not considered sufficiently comprehensive. I found myself in complete agreement with the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe in at least one particular; that was when he suggested that we ought to have a thorough economic survey made by those competent to conduct it. One thing I do regret is that such an act was on the statute books of this country and that in the first session of this parliament it was repealed by this government. So then all I wish to say is that I do not know the extent to which this bill is satisfactory to eastern agricultural interests, but I know that if it is as unsatisfactory as the wheat marketing legislation now before the house it will indeed be very unsatisfactory. The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) is quite wrong if he thinks that the wheat bills are going to help the present government back into power. They will, on the contrary prevent their getting back into power, so far as western Canada is concerned.

(Mr. Coldwell.]

Mr. WILLIAM HAYHURST (Vegreville); Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to delay the house more than to say that western Canada is certainly the treasure house of Canada. At least it is the treasure house of agricultural production, and is rich in oil wells and various other products. This bill of course deals with the marketing of products other than wheat, by cooperative methods. We know that men in western Canada and in other parts of the country have given the best of their lives to the development of cooperative industry. Upon those foundations which they properly laid we want to build. Therefore the idea of developing cooperative enterprise is very strong with us. It is a strong sentiment in western Canada.

Looking back upon my own life I know that when I first went to western Canada I was interested in the development of cooperative societies, wheat pools and so on. In our communities we had to develop various cooperative assistance, some of which fell by the wayside because of lack of confidence of the people, and some of which succeeded. 'If the people will not place their confidence in these movements they will always be a failure. In that respect we may take Great Britain as an example. They have developed various cooperative enterprises, and in many respects have been very successful. In a town in western Canada with which. I am familiar there is a cooperative enterprise which has been exceptionally successful, while in the next town the cooperative enterprise was not a success because the manager in that particular instance was not trustworthy. There must be proper management and confidence of the people.

If this bill will do anything to help agriculture, no matter whether it be in Quebec, Ontario, the maritimes, British Columbia or the prairie provinces, it will have our support. We realize that Canada must be developed as an entity, and when we speak of wheat we do so only because it is one of the great products of the dominion. The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) spent about half his time talking about something he deplored, but if he had devoted that time to telling hon. members how cooperative enterprise could have been developed in milk production or cheese production I believe his observations would have been more constructive and more to the point.

The bill before the house deals with products other than wheat. In passing, I would add that it is not worded quite accurately. When I asked a little while ago if the measure would include cheese I was asking the question quite innocently, reading the bill as it was

Agricultural Products-Marketing

printed. I think the words "other than wheat" should have been put in brackets, and in that way we would have gained the proper impression.

Mr. GARDINER:

If the comma is taken out it will be satisfactory.

Mr. HAYHURST:

Yes, or if "other than wheat" is put in brackets.

I should certainly like to see developments in cooperative enterprise instead of in the bill. We must remember that most Canadian farmers are in a very difficult situation. They need support. It does not matter whether they are in the back concessions of Quebec or in my own constituency; they are worthy of such support. People living on the farms and doing the best they can are the back-bone of the country, and if we are not prepared to help them the country will naturally go to the dogs. But we are prepared to help those people, and hon. members in this corner of the house are prepared to cooperate with this or any other government for the welfare of the people of all of Canada.

Mr. NEILL:

When I asked the minister on second reading why this measure did not include natural products as defined by the bill of 1934 he referred me to the Minister of Fisheries who, he said, was introducing a bill dealing with the matter. I would point out, however, that that bill is only in the resolution stage, and has been that way for ten days. If we are going to prorogue a week from to-morrow there is small chance of having it passed. Anyway, it deals only with salt fish and the export of salt fish. What I am referring to is the Natural Products Marketing Act assented to in 1934, which covered the products of agriculture, and of the forests, seas, lakes or rivers. I believe it is in order to ask why, if we are going into this system of cooperative marketing-and some people think it is desirable; I think it is-it should' be confined only to agriculture.

Mr. GARDINER:

The main reason, so far as fisheries are concerned, is the one I indicated when answering the hon. member previously. As the resolution indicates, a bill to deal with salt fish is being brought down. At the time the bill now before the committee was being drafted I did not have full information as to what the intention was in connection with that particular legislation. I should

think, however, that the proper place to add fish, other than salt fish, would be in that rather than in this legislation, because this has to do with farm products.

Then, so far as products of the forests are concerned, I understand there was a great deal of controversy at the time the Natural Products Marketing Act was discussed as to where the division should be made with respect to products of the forest. There was the question whether lumber of certain types, shingles and that sort of thing, should be included. We thought in drafting this bill that at this stage at least it was better to confine it to agricultural products, and to try it out experimentally for a year. If a year hence it is thought advisable to add other products I do not think there would be any serious objection, but at this time I think it would be best to try it out on agricultural products alone.

Mr. HARRIS:

What other products has

the minister in mind which might possibly be included? I was surprised to hear the minister mention lumber, because it is far removed from wheat. Many other products would come in between the categories of agricultural products and lumber.

Mr. GARDINER:

As at present drafted,

the bill is presumed to cover all agricultural products. The suggestion just made was that we should take in other products, other than those of the farm, namely that we should take in fish and products of the forests. I am just saying I do not think it is advisable in this bill, which is more or less of an experiment to try to promote cooperative marketing in connection with farm products, to include, in the present year, other natural products.

Mr. HARRIS:

Perhaps the minister would give some idea of the degree of relativity, if I may use that term, of farm products. Which of the farm products would be put in the first category, and so on, down the line, which require attention at this time.