Canadian Wheat Board Act ernment's policy with respect to coarse grains must necessarily be closely linked with its ability to fulfil its contracts. We have undertaken to deliver a large quantity of live stock products to Britain. These live stock products cannot be produced unless we have the coarse grains to produce them. The more wheat we grow, the less coarse grains we grow, and the less wheat we grow the more coarse grains we may grow. My question is, will the Minister of Trade and Commerce tell us, when he speaks later, what the government's coarse grain policy is to be? Does the government expect to increase coarse grain supplies in order to help fill the British contract for bacon and other live stock products-cheese, eggs, et cetera? If so, where does it expect the increase to take place? Does it expect western Canada to grow more hogs and produce more cheese, or does it expect the western farmers to supply coarse grains by means of various subventions so that the increased production, can take place in Ontario, Quebec and eastern Canada? The government's policies with respect- to the production of bacon have resulted in maintaining a very high production of bacon products in eastern Canada, but they have resulted in lowering it in the west. Is the policy to be to continue to encourage the production of coarse grains to be fed in the east in order to increase our supply of bacon in Britain,-or what is it to be? Then the minister or other ministers should give us some idea of what the government's long-range policy is in other fields of agriculture other than that of wheat and coarse grains, its long range policy regarding our major farm products. Prior to the war, we had in Europe a substantial market for coarse grains and we also had a considerable market for animal and dairy products. In has been suggested that the government proposes trying to take a larger part of the British bacon market and hold it against the Danish and other hog producers. If this is its policy we should like to know it. In that connection we want to know also what it will cost the taxpayers of Canada to pay for this policy of the government. This is a question which has not had much consideration, but before we get through with these measures I am sure the government will see that it has an important bearing on what the policy should be. The government should also give information with respect to its policies relating to quotas and authorized acreages. By order in council the government has been enabled to say to the farmer, "We will only take wheat from a certain acreage; if the acreage is beyond 83166-37 that we may not be able to take the whole crop." It is reserving the right not to take more than from a certain authorized acreage. By order in council the government also has the power to say, "We will not take more than fourteen bushels an acre on this authorized acreage." We want full particulars as to the government's policy in this respect, in so far as this measure carries out the plans of the past or modifies them. To the extent that quotas on reduced acreages are applied, it of course reduces the farmer's market and his income. I would also ask the minister to give us information with regard to participation certificates. When the wheat board takes this grain from the farmers it advances an initial price and gives farmers a participation certificate which entitles them to payment of any balance the government may have after it sells the crop, any balance above what it has already paid. We want to know the government's policy with respect to these participation certificates. [DOT] Under the old wheat board act, these certificates were to be paid up -when each year's crop was sold. The whole principle of the measure was to settle the one year's crop operations at or shortly after the end of that crop year. But now, by order in council under its war measures and continuing powers, the government enabled the board to say, "No, we will not pay the participation certificates at the end of each year, but will wait for five years and whatever there is left then, if any, we will pay out to the farmers." On the basis of five months' sales of this crop year-we do not know, but the minister should know-it has been estimated that the government will be holding S100 million- some say more-of the farmers' money at the end of this crop year. That is a lot of money. If it is to be the policy of the government to continue to hold this money, and I gathered from the minister's statement tonight that it was, that may be satisfactory to the government, but it is not a satisfactory policy in so far as the official opposition is concerned. We will fight that policy with all the force at our command. We want the government either to pay the farmer a parity price year after year, the parity price being now about SI.55, rather than the advanced price of SI.35 which is now paid; or, if the government declines to do that, to guarantee the initial payment, as a floor price, of not less than ninety per cent of parity, which would be about SI .40 a bushel, and then undertake to honour its participation certificates every year. In other words, the govern-

Canadian Wheat Board Act

ment should pay what is a fair price now, what is a parity price, $1.55 a bushel; or, in the alternative, if it thinks that is not a policy it can support, it should pay to the farmer $1.40 a bushel advance, and later give whatever amount of money is in the hands of the wheat board at the end of this year and every year, instead of holding the balance of the money, as it proposes to do, for five years. Another point on which the minister should give information is as to the wheat supplies, what is spoken of as the visible supplies of wheat now in existence in the country. What is the amount of our visible wheat today? It is said to be very low. One would expect that it would be relatively low in view of the huge demands and the shortages elsewhere. Complaints are made about hold-ups in shipping, and demurrage charges that have been incurred. I understand that these demurrage charges are not charged to our farmers or to this government but become a charge upon the British government. It is suggested that some offers for wheat from abroad have been accepted, while other offers from abroad have not. What is the government's policy in this respect and where has our wheat gone, other than the 160 million bushels due to Great Britain, and to what countries and at what prices? What we are concerned about, and I am sure the government is as much concerned about it as anyone else, is that whatever is done there shall not have been discrimination against any country which will result to our disadvantage later on. That is one of the difficulties arising out of a transaction such as this wheat agreement where 160 million bushels, or nearly two-thirds of the whole export crop, is put in one place at a price far below the world price, when other nations want it and are even paying from fifty to seventy-five cents a bushel more than we sell it for to Britain. And the members of the house will want to know the cost to the farmers of maintaining the government's price control policy. I think we should have from the government a comprehensive statement as to where the farmer stands with respect to the government's price ;ontrol or price ceiling policy. The farmer aas been subsidizing bread consumers. The minister's announcement yesterday was an admission of that fact and of course no one disputes it. What his decision yesterday meant was simply that, instead of the farmers subsidizing the users of bread, the government is now going to do it. The farmer has been subsidizing bread consumers, and this is true of the wheat, bacon and cheese sold to the British markets. [Mr. Bracken.1 The farmer does not object to paying his share of taxes, but in too many cases he carries too much of the burden of the government's price ceiling policy. We do not want parliament to adjourn without knowing what the government's policy is to be in this respect. We had a bit of a misunderstanding towards the end of last session. The government gave us to understand at the conclusion of the session that it would consider maintaining the milk subsidy. I do not say it undertook to maintain that milk subsidy. At any rate, it did not do so, even though a vote of the majority of the house instructed it to reconsider its policy of getting rid of that subsidy.

At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order. Wednesday, February 19, 1947