March 27, 1946

APPOINTMENT OF GEORGE A. TOUCHE AND COMPANY AS AUDITORS


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 10, respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.


PC

Gordon Graydon

Progressive Conservative

Mr. GRAYDON:

Is this the annual bill?

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF GEORGE A. TOUCHE AND COMPANY AS AUDITORS
Permalink
LIB

Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Mr. CHEVRIER:

Yes, this is the ordinary annual bill for the appointment of auditors for the Canadian National Railways. It is the same as the bill introduced last year, with the exception that the figures "nineteen forty-six" have been inscribed instead of the figures

The Address-Mr. Quelch

"nineteen forty-five." It seeks again the appointment of George A. Touche and Company.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF GEORGE A. TOUCHE AND COMPANY AS AUDITORS
Permalink
PC

Thomas Langton Church

Progressive Conservative

Mr. CHURCH:

Bow long have they been auditors?

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time CANADIAN ARMY

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF GEORGE A. TOUCHE AND COMPANY AS AUDITORS
Permalink

PACIFIC FORCE PAY TO RADAR TECHNICIANS AND OTHER SIGNALS PERSONNEL


On the orders of the day:


PC

George Randolph Pearkes

Progressive Conservative

Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):

I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, a copy of which I have sent to him. Is the minister yet in a position to advise the house if Pacific pay has been granted to radar technicians and other personnel of the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals who served in the Pacific theatre between July, 1944, and February, 1946?

Topic:   PACIFIC FORCE PAY TO RADAR TECHNICIANS AND OTHER SIGNALS PERSONNEL
Permalink
LIB

Douglas Charles Abbott (Minister of National Defence; Minister of National Defence for Naval Services)

Liberal

Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence):

Personnel who enlisted

in the Canadian army Pacific force and who proceeded for training or as observers to the United States or to the Pacific theatre of war received special rates of pay authorized for the Canadian army Pacific force; but personnel other than those who had enlisted in the Pacific force were not entitled to and did not receive rates of pay authorized for the Canadian army Pacific force. There is no submission at present under consideration providing for the special rates of pay for personnel other than members of the Canadian army Pacific force.

Topic:   PACIFIC FORCE PAY TO RADAR TECHNICIANS AND OTHER SIGNALS PERSONNEL
Permalink

LABOUR CONDITIONS

REQUIREMENTS OF SUGAR BEET AND OTHER SPECIALIZED PRODUCTION


On the orders of the day:


PC

John George Diefenbaker

Progressive Conservative

Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):

I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. It has to do with the need for specialized labour in western Ontario for sugar beet growing and other specialized work. What is being done, other than releasing conscientious objectors, to make available the necessary labour for the purpose I have just mentioned? Where other labour is not available is it the intention of the government to utilize prisoners of war for this purpose as was done in previous years?

Topic:   LABOUR CONDITIONS
Subtopic:   REQUIREMENTS OF SUGAR BEET AND OTHER SPECIALIZED PRODUCTION
Permalink
LIB

Humphrey Mitchell (Minister of Labour)

Liberal

Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):

I take it my hon. friend is concerned mainly with the sugar beet situation.

Topic:   LABOUR CONDITIONS
Subtopic:   REQUIREMENTS OF SUGAR BEET AND OTHER SPECIALIZED PRODUCTION
Permalink
PC

John George Diefenbaker

Progressive Conservative

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:

Yes.

Topic:   LABOUR CONDITIONS
Subtopic:   REQUIREMENTS OF SUGAR BEET AND OTHER SPECIALIZED PRODUCTION
Permalink
LIB

Humphrey Mitchell (Minister of Labour)

Liberal

Mr. MITCHELL:

Questions of the type of labour for the kind of work my hon. friend

has in mind are under consideration at the moment. I do not know that I can add anything to that.

Topic:   LABOUR CONDITIONS
Subtopic:   REQUIREMENTS OF SUGAR BEET AND OTHER SPECIALIZED PRODUCTION
Permalink

GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


The house resumed from Tuesday, March 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fernand Viau for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.


SC

Victor Quelch

Social Credit

Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):

Just

before the debate was adjourned last night I was pointing out that the speech from the throne showed that the government was depending on pre-war policies to maintain prosperity. I pointed out that whilst the policy of foreign investment might help to maintain full employment, it must on the other hand result in a reduction in the standard of living of the people.

I think we must all agree that there is nothing in the speech from the throne to inspire the people to maintain a really worth-while peace effort. I believe we all agree there is a dangerous air of complacency about it, and that attitude has already been taken in this debate by at least one minister. I have in mind especially the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe). On the other hand I do not think it can be said that that air of complacency is general throughout the country. I know that because I have, spoken to many people in various walks of life and from various parts of the country. Speaking in the vernacular I find that that ain't the way they see it'. They are greatly perturbed by the shape of things to come. The government is placing altogether too great dependence upon the Bretton Woods agreement to make its policies a success. I deeply regret that the government sought fit to railroad that measure through the house the way they did at the end of the last session. The house will recall that we on this side of the house spent a fair amount of time discussing it and there were loud groans from the Liberal benches. Let me warn the members of the Liberal party that unless they get off the bed of Procrustes before the screws are turned, their backbones will refuse to act and they will no longer have the power to get off.

When Mr. Rasminsky, the government's financial expert, appeared before the banking and commerce committee, he said in reply to my questions that the success of the Bretton Woods agreement would depend to a very large extenj upon a change of heart on the part of the creditor nations. Both Mr. Rasminsky and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) told us that they thought that some of the main objections we were making with

The Address-Mr. Quelch

(id) should provide for the full application of non-discrimination in the use of such restrictions after the transitional period.

There you have the case to which I have already referred. A nation wishing to place any restriction upon the imports of any one nation is obliged to place the same restriction against all imports it may bring in from other nations even though these nations may be playing the game and balancing their exports with imports. The purpose of the Bretton Woods agreement is supposed to be to help expand trade; but I would point out that unless the creditor nations are prepared to play the game-and there is no sign of it in these proposals-the result may very well be an intensification of economic nationalism.

I want to quote from a speech by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Attlee, to sjrow that this is exactly what is already talcing place in Britain; and, remember, Britain signed the Bretton Woods agreement. I hold in my hand British Hansard for January 22, 1946, and I refer to column 25. Mr. Norman Smith, who I think is Labour member for Nottingham South-

-asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the difficulties .i.n paying for imports, he will direct scientific research to the substitution of home-produced for imported raw materials used in British factories.

Mr. Attlee replied:

The circumstances of war have .already obliged us to do our best to substitute home-produced for imported materials within the 'limitations imposed by our natural resources. The government consider that these efforts should be continued .both by the government and by industry, with the full support of scientific research, in such a way as will contribute effectively to the solution of our balance of payment difficulties.

So in spite of the fact that the Bretton Woods agreement has been passed, apparently Great Britain still finds it necessary to

The Address-Mr. Quelch

adopt a policy of economic nationalism in order to try to solve the balance of payment difficulties; and I am very much afraid we shall find that policy followed by many other European nations-as well as nations such as Australia-which have had great difficulty in balancing their payments in the past.

One may well ask what would be the consequences of the government's supine adherence to the reactionary form of laissez-faire capitalism. I should like to quote to the house the warning that has been issued by the governor of the Bank of Canada in this regard. On page 9 of the report of the bank dated February S, 1946, the governor refers to the present situation and states:

At present, government outlays are still comparatively high. Time is required for demobilization, and large payments of war service gratuities and reestablishment credits are in process of being made. Moreover, our exports, which reached unprecedented volume under mutual aid, are being maintained at a high level in part 'by government loans to assist .allied countries to rebuild their damaged economies and to secure necessary foodstuffs.

That no doubt is the reason the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply sounded so optimistic when he spoke in this house, but I should like to go on and quote the warning that Mr. Graham Towers issues:

Looking to the future, however, there is no reason for complacency. Most of our real problems of post-war adjustment are still ahead. The backlog of demand will not be large in relation to productive capacity when industry [DOT]has been fully reconverted and inventories built up to normal levels. When the time lag involved in demobilization is over, government expenditures will fall rapidly. Nor will ou.r foreign lending to finance the purchase of Canadian goods remain indefinitely iat the present level. The prevailing optimism on the North American continent is dangerous if it diverts attention from the problems which have to be faced.

I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the problems referred to there by Mr. Graham Towers are exactly the same problems that faced us between the two wars. They are the same problems that have always faced heavily industrialized nations. Those problems may be boiled down to this: the way in which we maintain an effective demand as against our production, the way in which we maintain home markets and export markets for the total production of our factories, farms and other industries. In the past, especially from 1935 to 1939, we emphasized the reason for that situation. Time and again we pointed out that owing to certain practices which are inherent in the capitalistic system, industry is not able to maintain an effective demand against its own production except in times of abnormal capital goods construction, such as you have in war time or in any newly developed country before it becomes industrialized. Therefore if your objective is to bring about the fullest possible development of your resources you are bound to be faced with one of two alternatives. Either you will have to export your surplus goods-that is, goods not surplus to the needs of the people but surplus to their ability to buy within the country-and refuse to accept imports in return; or on the other hand you will have to expand the purchasing power of the people to the point where they will be able to buy the total production of the country and the exports of other nations exchanged for your own.

It is evident that if your objective is merely full employment; if your objective is simply to put people to work, the first of these two solutions may be satisfactory.1 Undoubtedly by such means you could maintain full employment, if you could get other nations who were willing to maintain an unfavourable balance of trade and to go further and further into debt, indefinitely. What nations are willing to do that? None have shown their willingness in the past; but if that were the case then you could succeed in getting everybody in the country to work. But if the objective is not merely to put people to work but to maintain the highest possible standard of living the people desire, then I think everyone will agree that the first solution is not satisfactory, because when you export more wealth abroad than you bring back in return, you are bound to reduce the standard of living of the people to the extent of that unbalance. .

Therefore it should be the responsibility of the government to maintain the purchasing power of the people at a level sufficiently high to enable the people to consume to the limit of their desires or their power to produce, whichever comes first. If that is done I do not think we shall need to worry about a lack of effective demand; we shall not need to worry about a lack of markets. We shall have the greatest market this country has ever seen, the market provided by satisfying the needs of the people of this country. I suggest that under such a policy we could very well grant old age pensions of $50 a month at the age of sixty. Remember, when that matter was discussed1 in this house it received the support of hon. members on all sides, and the sooner the government implements a policy of the kind the sooner the people will really believe the Prime Minister means what he says when he talks about a new social order. Similar pensions should be paid to all people who are physically inca-

The Address-Mr. Quelch

pacitated and unable to seek gainful employment. To a certain extent we recognize that principle now so far as the blind are concerned, but there are many other classes of people who are incapacitated. I have especially in mind people who suffer so severely from arthritis and many other diseases.

Then we emphasize the fact that income tax exemption should be increased to at least $2,000 for married people and $1,200 for single people. After our action in this house, last session taking care of ourselves in a very gracious way, I think the very least we can do is pass on some similar benefits to the people of Canada. I believe all hon. members will agree when I say it is evident that people across this country, from one end to the other, are feeling that way to-day. They expect'that when the budget is brought down it will provide substantial reductions on income tax to be paid by people in the lower income brackets.

We believe that parity prices for primary products should be a matter of permanent government policy. When the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) spoke in this debate he placed our stand in respect to agriculture before the house. I repeat in passing, however, merely that, owing to increasing costs and the fact that to-day wheat at Chicago is selling at about $2 a bushel, the initial payment might very well be raised from $1.25 to $1.50. We are not criticizing the government for selling wheat to Great Britain at $1.55; but we do look upon that as a sacrifice which should be borne by the people of Canada as a whole. We do not believe the government has any right to ask one class of society to stand the whole sacrifice. We believe, too, that for the next four years the floor might very well be raised from $1 to $1.25.

There are many urgent projects which could be carried out. We believe the Minister of Reconstruction is making a mistake when he postpones the day when he proposes to put these projects into operation, and for that purpose keeps them on the shelf as insurance against unemployment.

There is no doubt, for instance, that as rapidly as possible irrigation projects should be proceeded with, thereby providing farms and homes for many thousands of people. This 'will help maintain a demand for goods and services of various kinds.

Then there is the question of housing. While we have many housing projects which, when materials are available, undoubtedly will help people in the higher income brackets, or even those in the medium brackets, to build houses,

I believe every hon. member will agree that these housing projects will not make it possible for the people in lower income brackets to obtain houses. After all, they are the ones in whom we should be specially interested. Therefore we favour a subsidized housing programme which would make it possible for all people in all walks of life to obtain decent housing.

It is very necessary that interest rates should be substantially lower. One thing that has been puzzling to people in Canada is that while we can make interesb-free loans to foreign countries, and can make loans at a rate as low as two per cent, yet we have to soak our own people about 4J per cent for our own housing programme.

One might criticize severely the making of loans to foreign countries at two per cent, while at the same time we are charging our own soldiers who helped win the war 3i per cent on the loans they wish to obtain. Surely they should be eligible for the same rates that we charge on loans to foreign countries.

I realize these things cannot be accomplished either under the present Conservative or Liberal financial policy, without steadily expanding debt and taxation. But let me point out that you cannot tax yourself into prosperity ; you cannot borrow yourself out of debt. Therefore, as the control of the issue of money can determine the volume and nature of production, and as it is a sovereign power, we urge the establishment of a national finance commission, responsible to parliament, through the Minister of Finance, for the issue and withdrawal of all moneys in accordance with the nation's requirements, and for the administration of the monetary system in response to the will of the Canadian people. We believe that in this way and in this way alone will it be possible to maintain and develop all the resources of the people of Canada at the highest possible level, and make the resulting wealth available to the people of this country, without at the same time dragging the nation down into the mire and morass of unpayable debt.

We have been told that one of the chief reasons for our magnificent war effort was that the people were inspired by the need for victory over the enemy. I am sure all will agree that in the speech from the throne there is nothing very much to inspire people. Certainly there is no inspiration in high taxation; there is no inspiration in expanding debt. Nor is there inspiration in a steadily lowered standard of living.

The Address-Mr. Gardiner

Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore):

That the following ibe added to the said

address:

"We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that Your Excellency's ministers ought to have advised Your Excellency that they would introduce in the present session, such changes in Canada's financial, economic, and political organization as would ensure the immediate establishment of a revitalized Christian democracy wherein the standard of living of all Canadians would be raised to conform with the greatly expanded capacity of Canada to produce and deliver goods and services."

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Permalink
LIB

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :

Mr. Speaker, when I rose to speak on the amendment to the amendment, which was disposed of last evening, because there had been some discussion prior to beginning my observations . I neglected to pay my respects to the mover (Mr. Viau) and the seconder (Mr. Winters) of the address in reply. Therefore I take this opportunity to join with other hon. members who have extended their congratulations to those hon. members upon the able manner in which they presented the motion to the house.

I had not intended at that time to say anything further about agriculture in this debate. However I am sure hon. members will agree that, in view of the statements made yesterday afternoon by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) something should be said as soon as possible.

I rise to address myself to this new motion of want of confidence which has been moved by the Social Credit section of the house. First I should like to express my appreciation to hon. members in that group for the support they have given to the main matter of contention in connection with agricultural policy in Canada. In doing so perhaps I may be permitted to call attention to the fact that probably the one group in the house more dominated than any other by farm representation is the Social Credit group. Most of them are practical farmers from that section of the country we have been discussing when we have spoken about summer-fallowing and other systems of agriculture in an area which has had great difficulty in maintaining its population at a proper standard of living. For that reason I appreciate deeply the remarks which have been made, and the support which has come from that section of the house for the summer-fallow policy.

In the discussion which has taken place up to the present time I have reason to be satisfied with the position I took very early in my political experience. It was, Mr. Speaker, that never at any time would I criticize lengthy discussions in a deliberative assembly

on any question which might come before such an assembly. As a matter of fact I have always thought it was a mistake to take away from private members, in a house of commons particularly, or in any deliberative body convened for the purpose of discussing public questions-and particularly when such body is composed of elected representatives-their right to express themselves freely before we pass upon public questions in order that we may learn the point of view of people coming from different sections of such a far-flung country.

So throughout the thirty-two years in which I have been in deliberative assemblies, conscientiously I have carried out the decision I reached not to criticize people for discussing at great length subjects which might come before a deliberative body such as the House of Commons. I was never more pleased at having reached that decision a long time ago and having maintained it than I was when I listened yesterday to the leader of the opposition.

In the first speech that he delivered in the house this session he called the attention of new members particularly to the fact that this was his second session in the House of Commons; that during his first session he had sat and listened and had taken in all the different activities of members in this house, and, basing his decision upon his experience of over twenty years in another place and his one year's experience in this place, he felt called upon to give some advice to all of us. He stated that he did not intend on his first appearance before the house and in giving that advice to be brief in the remarks he proposed to make. He then proceeded to give us an address lasting somewhat in the neighbourhood of two and a half hours:

I take no' exception to his doing that. It was his right; it was his privilege. We expected, of course, that that privilege would be utilized on one" occasion, but probably not extended to another so soon. But yesterday we had the privilege of listening again to him for an hour and a quarter. On this occasion he was attempting to answer some of the remarks I made in a speech of about an hour's duration which I delivered a week ago. In his speech he raised three different questions.

The first was as to whether or not I had deliberately misrepresented him in any of the remarks I made in my speech of a week ago. He paid me the compliment of saying that he did not think I had done it deliberately, but that likely it was because I had not given full consideration to the matter. I want to say that everything I did a week ago I did deliberately, and I did it believing I

The Address-Mr. Gardiner

had in my possession all the facts. An examination of the figures which were used both then and which I will use to-day bear out the position which I took a week ago.

When we were discussing this matter a week ago I read to this house the definition of summer-fallow which was given by the leader of the opposition when he was teaching agriculture in the agricultural college of the province of Saskatchewan, and said that I agreed with it. That definition was to the effect that land which is kept out of crop, not growing any crop, not growing anything so far as you can prevent it from growing anything in one year in order to store up moisture for the next, is what is generally known in western Canada as fallowed land.

. Back in 1915 and 1916 and periods earlier than that, fallowed land was composed almost equally of two different classifications of land. The first was land that had never grown anything but prairie grass. That land we broke up in the latter part of May or the early part of June. We were accustomed to calling it "breaking". That land was kept from growing prairie grass or anything else for the first season after it was broken up, and then in the succeeding year it was put into crop. Usually the first year after it was broken up from prairie it was seeded to wheat. Then in the second year it was what we called back-setted and was again seeded to wheat. We put it into wheat for two years, believing that new prairie would grow wheat for two succeeding years after it was broken up. Then, under our practice of farming, usually in the third year we summer-fallowed it, kept it from growing anthing for another year in order to store up moisture.

Those are the lands that I was speaking of when I was speaking a week ago; those are the lands that the leader of the opposition was speaking of yesterday. If you take into consideration the classified lands which were broken up in 1915 along with the lands which were summer-fallowed, all the lands not producing anything for one season in order that they may produce more abundantly the next, then the figure which should have been used by me a week ago if I had used any figure at all, and I did not, was 32 per cent and not 26 per cent or 30 per cent. In other words, the policy supported in 1916 involved keeping fallow' 32 per cent of the area to be cropped the following year.

Another point is raised in connection with the discussion. It is suggested that when the statement was made a week ago the leader of the opposition was dealing with a proposal which he made to reduce summer-fallowed acreage this year down to 26 per cent. That

is not the fact. The fact of the matter is that the leader of the opposition did what he suggests that I do on occasion. He suggested in his speech that on occasion I take a certain position and then try to bolster it up w'ith any information that I can find lying about. I submit to this house that is exactly what he did yesterday.

What did he do? He took certain figures which he had compiled from somewhere or other showing that we have 61,000,000 acres of cultivated land in western Canada at the present time. We have 65,000,000 acres. He first took the figure of 10,500,000 acres and then he added a figure covering breaking and summer-fallow and figured out that 3,500,000 acres was 26 per cent of that particular figure of 13,300,000 acres. He then estimated that if 19,300,000 were reduced to 15,800,000, that would provide 26 per cent of our present acreage, stated to be 61,000,000 acres. Then he started from the 15,800,000 figure and figured everything else in his speech on the basis of 26 per cent.

The mistake in that kind of reasoning is that the present acreage is not 61,000,000 acres but 65,000,000 acres. Then there is the further fact that when the leader of the opposition was speaking a week ago the figure which he used was 15,000,000 and not 15,800,000. He said that the summer-fallowed acreage of western Canada should be reduced from the 19,300,000 acres that we are proposing the farmers might have this year, down to 16,000,000 or 15,000,000. He then suggested that that would save some three or four million acres with which to produce some 30,000,000 bushels of wheat.

I submit that when the figures are righted to check the position which was taken a week ago, the figure of 65,000,000 acres, the summer-fallowed acreage of 15,000,000 acres is not 26 per cent but 23 per cent. The proposals which were made the other day were to the effect that we should reduce the summer-fallowed acreage, which now stands at between 29 and 30 per cent, down to a level of 23 per cent, and that by doing that we could produce more wheat with which to supply those whc are in need at this present time.

I submit these figures in order to indicate that I have nothing to withdraw with regard to what I said a week ago. The position I took a week ago was to the effect that back in 1915 and 1916 the present leader of the opposition, as professor of agriculture in the agricultural college of Saskatchewan, was teaching our young farmers that over a considerable part of our province we ought to have 50 per cent of our land summer-fallowed;

The Address-Mr. Gardiner

over another very considerable part of it we ought to have 33| per cent; over another much smaller part of it we ought to have 20 or 25 per cent, and that the average should be around one-third.

I know he took that position because I was in the house in Saskatchewan as a member in 1914. I was in the house in 1915 and in 1916. During some of those years the leader of the opposition was working for the government of Saskatchewan as a civil servant in the department of agriculture, and during others he was in the university in the province of Saskatchewan. I think hon. members will agree that I knew the grand old man who was Minister of Agriculture in Saskatchewan at that time

Hon. W. R. Motherwell-about as well as anyone in Canada could have known him. I know what his views were on the question; and I know that no man could have worked for him as a promoter of proper agricultural methods in Saskatchewan and not have been in agreement that we ought to have at least 331 per cent of the lands of that province summer-fallowed each year in order to make provision for a succeeding crop. So that in so far as that particular position is concerned I have no hesitation in making the statement that was the intention of the leader of the opposition when he was teaching the subject at that time, and that everyone in western Canada believed that was the position taken in his articles.

But if I had any doubt about it I do not have to go very far for an answer. Since this discussion came on I had sent to me the opinion of Mr. D. G. Mapkay, of Indian Head, Saskatchewan. One only needs to mention the name of Mackay to recall Doctor Mackay, the father of D. G. Mackay, who was the first superintendent of the experimental farm at Indian Head, and one only needs to mention that name to anyone coming from western Canada to recall the fact that Doctor Mackay was the originator of the idea of summer-fallowing, that he was the first one to advocate that policy in western Canada, that the reason he was given his position as head of the experimental farm at Indian Head when it was set up was that he had established on his own land the fact that in a dry country you can grow crops by summer-fallowing that could not be grown in years of drought unless you did summer-fallow. He started out to teach that idea to the people of western Canada, and' one of his students was the present leader of the opposition. I did not give the leader of the opposition credit for having established this particular policy in western Canada; I simply said that he was teaching the subject. Prior to the time

he began to teach it he1 had his experiences on an Ontario farm, where summer-fallowing is an entirely different matter. When he came to western Canada to work on the staff of Hon. W. R. Motherwell, who- was a bosom friend of Doctor Mackay-the two men together had preached this doctrine for years throughout the length and breadth of western Canada- it went without saying that he was employed to teach the idea which had been instilled into the minds of all good farmers by the two best advocates of the policy that we ever had. So that the present leader of the opposition was then under instructions from men who believed in this policy, and he did what a good civil servant does, he went out to teach the policy, as the figures which I have indicated bear out.

D. G. Mackay has something to say about this. He is looked' to by grain marketing authorities throughout the world for information; and this particular information which I have in my hand, and which was sent to me during these discussion, is noted as having been sent to Broomhall. It states this:

A large proportion of the 1945 wheat crop in Saskatchewan was due almost entirely to the practice of "30 per cent crop, 50 per cent fallow," by the majority of farmers on the lighter lands; and on the heavier soils, to the plan of summer-fallowing at least one-third of the cultivated acreage each year.

It goes on to say;

Despite the well recognized fact that in dry seasons wheat is a safer proposition than either of the coarse grains, anything that will tend toward a reduction of the oat and/oT barley crops-thereby necessitating a further reduction in the live stock population-or in a decrease in the acreage to foe summer-fallowed in the areas that for two years have suffered severe drought, must be regarded with very considerable misgiving.

That is the advice given to the people who are passing out information to grain markets all over the world, advice that they can rely upon. And what is the proposed policy he is referring to?

In recommending an increase of over 30 per cent in the wheat acreage for 1946, the . . . government of Saskatchewan, backed by the wheat pool, seems to have completely lost sight of the fact that one-half the province has been, and is, suffering from drought conditions, that a large proportion of the other half will commence the next crop season with reserves of moisture more or less depleted, 'and that there will be little or no carryover of feed grain.

Those who are going to buy wheat all over the world are looking to this organization for advices on what to expect from the crops this year. This man who gives them advice says that if the policy which is being proposed before this house by the leader of the opposition is followed, they can look upon their

The Address-Mr. Gardiner

desire to have more wheat with great misgivings; and everyone in western Canada who knows anything about the policies of farmers in western Canada knows that to be true. That statement was made on February 14, 1946.

In making a further report, on March 11, 1946, he says:

Deliveries of commercial feed grains in the current season to date-oats 73. barley 56.- might appear to indicate that at least 2 million each of oats and barley iacreages could be changed over to wheat without seriously affecting the live stock situation in the three provinces. This however is not a sound basis for even a partial solution of the problems of increasing the acreage for the production of feed . . .

This, then, would appear to leave lands intended for summer-fallow as the cultivation that must necessarily be changed over if a serious attempt be made to meet, even partially, the requirements of The stricken countries. Acreage changes of 3 to 10 million have been suggested, and under the latter an increase of 160 million bushels of export wheat has been mentioned as a possibility.

Under existing moisture conditions in the plains areas the production of 160 million bushels of ^ wheat from 10 million acres of second and third crop lands would seem to be merely a pipe dream, but the effect of the reduction of 3 to 10 million acres in the summer-fallow acreages for the crop of 1047 would be far from that

it would indicate the probalility of the smallest wheat crop in many years.

That, Mr. Speaker, is not the opinion of a man who is a politician, it is the opinion of a man who is still a scientific agriculturist, who has been bred in the ideas of summerfallowing in western Canada, and who I believe knows the position as well as anyone in Canada can know it. Certainly some people think he does, when an organization such as this relies for its information upon him, and he sends that information out as an indication of what we can expect from the people of this country if we follow some of the advices which are given to us from time to time.

I think that pretty well deals with the first point mentioned by the leader of the opposition. I still maintain that the proper system to follow m this country is not to have even the 23.300.000 acres which we had consented to ask farmers to seed this year, but the proper policy to follow in this country is, 21,500,000 acres in wheat, 21,500,000 acres in summer-fallow each year, and the other 21,500,000 acres in either grass or coarse grains for the feeding of live stock in order that we may keep up our supplies of other feeds as well as wheat.

That is about as plainly as, I think, I can state the position in relation to it, and I hope that the leader of the opposition, who

is not here this afternoon to receive the answer I am giving to what he said yesterday, will examine the figures again. I may tell him that I am making this speech now because it gives him an opportunity of replying to it if he desires to do so. If I had waited, as I might have done, until the main motion-because I had not spoken on the main motion-he would not have had the right to speak again. But since I am speaking on this amendment and he has not spoken on it he still has the right to speak on it. Well, all I would say to him is this. I think he has depended too much upon the group of young men whom he hired out of t,he agricultural college of Saskatchewan- very capable young fellows-and from other agricultural activities throughout Canada, and whom he placed in charge of his propaganda office and of his organization. .

These men up to that time were scientific agriculturists giving advice to the people of the country upon the basis of scientific experience; and I would suggest to him, when he takes a week of the time of officials of the department and of, the statistics branch of the Department of Tra'de and Commerce for the purpose of compiling information necessary to the making of a speech, he should get someone in one of these departments to write his speech for him, and not be reading a speech provided by men hired out of the departments who have become politicians.

In the discussions yesterday the leader of the opposition stated the second major point was this, that the minister said the establishment of a certain percentage of summerfallowing will produce better results than by summer-fallowing less. It will be noted, when that appears in Hansard to-morrow, that I have not used the figures which were used by the leader of the opposition in making the statement.

These figures, as I stated a moment ago, were based upon figures which were not properly interpreted and which were not given full expression to in the statements read to the house yesterday-and I am not 'blaming the leader of the opposition for that. I do not think he wrote the speech, and therefore I would say again that I believe with him that the rules of this house and fortunately that which states one shall not read a speech ought to be enforced. That rule is put there for a purpose, that purpose being that no one outside this house and not elected by the people may make a speech in the house through some elected member.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Permalink

March 27, 1946