Mr. CLAXTON:

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, the work is going on of preparing the record for filing. When I was asked yesterday whether or not the Prime Minister had dispatched a request to the British government for consent to table the communications, the tabling of which had been objected to, I said I believed that had been done. I have confirmed that since and found that a cable was dispatched within an hour of the request being made by the hon. member for Quebec South. One can understand the hon. member for Quebec South making a request for anything and everything that will throw light on this because, as he said, of all people in this house he is perhaps most concerned, having been the associate minister of national defence, and at the time he was acting in the place of the minister owing to the absence of Colonel Ralston. I think it will be found that, when the time comes, the hon. member for Quebec South with that frankness and capacity with which he conducted the affairs of the Department of National Defence for Air during the war, will deal with this matter effectively just as I believe that the people would have the most complete confidence in his judgment on anything he chose to do. On that account I feel reasonably certain also that if the tabling of these cables is permitted-

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):

Order. I would remind the hon. member that his time has expired.

Go ahead.

Mr. GRAYDON:

There is no objection from this side.

Mr. CLAXTON:

I thank hon. members for their courtesy. I shall take only a minute or two longer. I believe that if the tabling of these communications is permitted, it will be found that they further support the position then taken. When that is done, it may perhaps be a more appropriate time to deal with this matter, should the necessity arise. In conclusion I would draw the attention of hon. members to two further circumstances.

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:

Before the minister leaves that point, will he permit another question?

Mr. CLAXTON:

Yes, I will-later.

Mr. LENNARD:

The hon. member is speaking on borrowed time now.

Mr. CLAXTON:

Hon. members opposite have either given me some time in which to finish, or else they have not.

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:

I want to thank the minister for the generous manner in which he has always made way, just as I always endeavour to make way when I am asked a question. The question I wanted to ask him, before he passed on to another subject, was this. Was he or any other member of the cabinet made aware of the contents of the report of General Maltby prior to its release by the British war office on January 29?

Mr. CLAXTON:

I cannot speak for my colleagues, because I have not asked them, but I feel reasonably certain that none of them was; and I certainly had not been. That would not be usual. When General Crerar made his report on the operations of the first Canadian army I am quite certain that he did not consult the representatives of the governments of Czechoslovakia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Poland, the United Kingdom or the United States just because members of the forces of all those countries at one time or another served in the first Canadian army. I feel reasonably certain that the same would be true of Field Marshal Alexander and of the other reports. In this war the allies were fighting combined operations under unified commands, with the representatives of various nations associated under different commands. As far as I know the practice was not followed of consulting with the representatives of all the countries concerned when it came to the preparation of a report by the general officer commanding, although no doubt there would be exchanges at the official level to verify details.

I was just about to conclude with two short observations, Mr. Speaker. The first is this. We should remember the stage of the war at which Hong Kong took place. These troops left Canada on October 27 and arrived at Hong Kong on November 16. On December 7, 1941, without warning the Japanese forces savagely attacked the United States forces at Pearl Harbor and the British forces at Hong Kong. We all know of the tragic series of disasters that took their course around the whole area of the Pacific, all resulting from those first attacks. It is no secret that the plan envisaged in garrisoning Hong Kong was that it might be held for a number of months, at the end of which it would be relieved by the superior strength of United: States and British naval forces. But the disaster at Pearl Harbor and the loss of

The Address-Mr. Argue

the Repulse and the Prince oj Wales ended any such hope. Not long after, Singapore had to capitulate after active fighting in defence had lasted for eight days. Somewhere between 70,000 and1 100,000 British forces had to surrender there. At Hong Kong the troops went on fighting for seventeen days in most difficult country, on two sides of the narrow strip of water separating the island from the mainland, against overwhelming forces. It is a great feat in the history of our arms that our forces were able to do so well. And, Mr. Speaker, I make this observation in closing. It would be hard to find any better reflection of the war effort of Canada and on the wartime administration of this government than to appreciate the fact that now, after the war is over, and six years after Hong Kong, the members o'f the opposition revive this question as the only serious blot charged against the record of a fine country and a great people doing everything they could to play their part in defeating the enemy.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):

I should like to draw to the attention of hon. members the fact that the rule is quite clear that a member who has the floor must not be interrupted; nor must he be asked a question unless he consents to answer it. The hon. member will indicate his desire to refrain from answering a question by remaining standing. No two members should be on their feet on the floor at once. Furthermore, the rule is quite clear that a member may rise to a question of privilege at any time; but if hon. members will study the rules I think they will find that the question of privilege must be one which affects the member personally and which he wants to correct immediately. We should keep this fact in mind and observe the: rules as well as possible.

Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):

I rise only because the minister said if I would keep quiet he would answer a question when he finished. I did my best to keep quiet, and my question is very simple. As I listened to the Prime Minister read the portion of what is known as the Campbell letter in which he advised the government with respect to the tabling of the Drew letter, and as I listened to the same portion being read by the minister, the effect of the advice given was that it would be either in bad taste or perhaps not good morals to table that letter in the House of Commons. As I heard it there was not a bit of legal advice in the letter. My question is this. The tabling or non-tabling of the letter was a matter for the government itself; and since when does the government take its advice on matters of good morals or

[Mr. Claxton.J

good taste, or matters of policy, from a lawyer who advises them without one word by way of legal opinion in his letter? I want to make the distinction between Mr. Campbell's letter and the policy of the government, with which of course he had nothing whatever to do.

Mr. CLAXTON:

My hon. friend has not put a question; he has made a statement. The letter is there; the statement of the Prime Minister is there. I venture to think that if you had employed counsel to assist in the work of a commission and a question of this kind arose involving questions of fact, appreciations of procedure, consideration of the conditions under which the commission proceeded and under which the information was made available, matters which were not within the personal knowledge of the Prime Minister, the proper course to follow would be to address such a letter and, if possible, abide by the answer given. That was the course followed.

Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):

In short, Mr. Campbell directed government policy.

Mr. CLAXTON:

He advised, and the government followed the advice.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):

Order. I must remind hon. members that the house is not in committee.

Mr. H. R. ARGUE (Wood Mountain):

I rise to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker in order to call attention to what I think have been some failures in government policy, especially wdthin the last year, as they affect our agriculture industry. Farmers, in order to be secure, must have stable prices for the things produced on the farm, prices bearing a fair relationship to the cost of the things the farmer must buy; farmers are interested also in any program that provides social security to Canadians generally, because they need social security very badly, since the agriculture industry is such a hazardous occupation.

I should like to refer for a moment to the proposals made by the federal government to the provinces with respect, first, to a taxation agreement and, second, to an agreement on social security measures. The history of those conferences is now well known. The initial conferences bogged down I think largely because of the attitude of the premiers of Ontario and Quebec, but finally the federal government offered the various provinces an agreement under which the individual provinces would abandon certain taxation fields and in return receive a stipulated yearly rental. I want to congratulate the government on the fact that it offered the provinces separate taxation agreements; but I also want

The Address-Mr. Argue

to point out that in my opinion it offered those agreements because it was very much concerned that the great corporations in Canada should not be doubly taxed, by the provincial governments and the federal government. But when it came to the matter of a social security program this government did not offer separate agreements to the provinces. If it had certainly the province of Saskatchewan, and I am sure other provinces, would have signed such an agreement to obtain social security benefits. If the premiers of Ontario and Quebec had not wished to sign such agreements initially, certainly their people would have forced them to sign eventually because all Canadians want provision made for better old age pensions and a health program.

The government proposed an old age pension of $30 a month to everyone reaching the age of seventy, and also proposed to go along with the provinces on an old age pension program for people between sixty-five and seventy, with a means test. Even with the small increase in benefits to old age pensioners provided last year the government has not come close to fulfilling its own old age pension program. Moreover the offer of the federal government in regard to a health plan was this, as set out on page 31 of the proposals of the government of Canada:

The federal government's health insurance proposal is designed to put provincial governments in a financial position to develop and administer a comprehensive health insurance program worked out by progressive stages on an agreed basis.

And again, on pages 32 and 33:

A complete health insurance service fo-r all the people of Canada must obviously take a number of years to introduce. The cost to the federal and provincial governments would depend on the health benefits provided at any given time. For the full health insurance program when finally realized the total cost, for the population shown in the 1041 census and for benefits as shown in the table above-

I might explain that this includes all benefits in regard to hospitalization, medical care and so on.

-would be $250,090,000 per annum. On this basis the federal government's share would be $150,000,000 and the provincial governments' share $100,000,000.

I wonder what has happened to that part of the government's proposal to the provinces. Saskatchewan, however, has not waited until the federal government got around to implementing this health program, which might be many years in the future. Instead, Saskatchewan is providing hospitalization; and I want to point out that if the federal government would do no more than offer separate agreements to the provinces on the basis of its own social security program, as it did on the basis of its taxation program, hospitalization would cost the people of Saskatchewan not $5 per person but $2. I. think the people of Saskatchewan are looking to the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) to rise in this house and give his views on this matter.

Some days ago the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), dealing with present conditions with respect to agriculture, boasted that in 1946 agriculture had the highest net income in history. I think before he boasted about that high net income, which was $1,267,400,000, he should have told the house what that worked out to per farmer. I searched the statistics to find the number of male persons working on farms. I took the lowest figure for any year since 1941 which would give the highest average farm income and I found that on March 1, 1947, there were 930,000 adult males engaged in agriculture. That works out to an average yearly income of $1,363.

Not long ago the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll)-I see him in his seat-outlined in the house the great difficulty which an average worker in the city of Toronto experienced trying to provide the necessities of life for his family on an income of $40 per week. I suggest that it is even more difficult for a farmer to provide the necessities of life for his family when his income works out to $26.20 per week, when in that figure is included the value of vegetables, meat and dairy products produced and consumed by the farmer and his family.

What the agricultural industry is interested in at the present time is not so much what happened in 1946 as what has happened since 1946 and the trend that has developed, particularly throughout 1947. Bureau of statistics figures give the index for Canadian farm product prices, on the base 1926 equals 100, as 114-4 in January 1947. At the same time the general wholesale price index was 114-2. In other words, in January of last year the prices of farm products were just a little above the general wholesale price index. In every month of 1947 the general wholesale price index increased and increased faster than the index of Canadian farm product prices until in December, 1947, -the general wholesale price index was 143-5 as compared to the Canadian farm products price index of 130-7. At the beginning of 1947 the Canadian farm product prices index was -2 above the general wholesale price index, but at the end of 1947 the index for Canadian farm product prices was 12-8 points less than the general wholesale level. I contend that the agricultural

The Address-Mr. Argue

industry suffered during each succeeding month of 1947 directly as a result of federal government policy.

I turn now to the government's wheat program. When the debate on the British wheat agreement took place the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) placed on Hansard the position of that party. He said that we had always believed in parity prices, that that was our policy in August, 1946, and I can say that it is still our policy today. He said that if the federal government would not give the farmers parity prices then they should do something else, and I quote from page 4825 of Hansard of August 15, 1946:

I believe the government would be well advised to consider this suggestion that, in the event of the costs of production rising for the next few years, as they will do largely because of the government's failure to maintain the ceilings, any difference there may be between what the farmer receives for his wheat and the increased cost of production should be made up out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.

The parity price which was estimated at that time by the leader of the C.C.F. was $1.55 per bushel. Adjusting that price to the change in the general wholesale price index-* I am told by a man in the bureau of statistics that the result obtained is almost identical with the result obtained at Washington with their intricate analysis of parity prices- makes it necessary to have a price of $2.03 per bushel for wheat at the end of 1947. Costs have gone up even since December, 1947. Therefore I suggest that the government should make a compensatory payment to take care of increased costs of production, which resulted directly from government policy, of at least 50 cents per bushel, to be in addition to whatever increased initial price for wheat is paid.

Speaking in the debate on the British contract the Minister of Agriculture stated that the parity price of wheat was $1.41 or $1.42 per bushel previous to the increase in the prices of farm machinery in 1946. If one takes that figure of $1.42 which the Minister of Agriculture said was fair, and adjusts it to the general wholesale price index prevailing at the end of 1947, he will find that the parity price would be $1.93 per bushel. The Minister of Agriculture is reported on page 4826 of Hansard of August 15, 1946, as follows:

What I want to point out is that under the floor price measure-that is not the proper name, but it will do-we stated to the house that $2'0'0 million was being provided for the purpose of taking care of any adjustments in connection with what might be known as parity on other farm products. At the same time we stated to the house that similar arrangements would be made if necessary, through the wheat

[Mr. Argue.J

board, in connection with grain. I just want to point out that provision is made in another way.

The Minister of Agriculture stated to the house and to the country in 1946 that the federal government had already provided a basis for parity. There has not been parity in the past and there is no parity today. I suggest that even with the increased initial price, whatever it may be, the farmer will still not be receiving a parity price. We had scarcely returned home following the session last year when the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated that there was to be an increase in the initial price, but to date we have not been told what that increase is to be. Who does the government think owns the money with which they are going to provide that increase? The farmers want to know what that increase is going to be, what their participation certificates are going to be so that they can plan their production for 1948. It is just as much a secret as this Hong Kong affair. In this case it is the farmers' money that is involved, not the government's, and the farmers have a right to know how much money is to be paid on the initial price of wheat this spring.

Now I come to the government's coarse grain policy-or lack of it. Last year, during the months of August and September and for the first three weeks of October, the farmers throughout western Canada took their oats and barley to the local elevator and received the prices available at that time. On October 21, for reasons best known to the government, it decided to place oats and barley once again on the speculative market. Prices went up thirty cents a bushel on barley, perhaps even more, and many farmers lost as much as a thousand dollars. Farmers did not anticipate a loss, for on March 17 in the House of Commons the Minister of Agriculture said that if there was an increase in the price of oats and barley in the future the government would step in and take over all available stocks so that fortuitous profits would not be made by the handlers of feed grain. But having said that in March, in December last year he said he knew there was a lot of profiteering last fall by feed dealers in eastern Canada and by others, but he was not going to blame them for having done what they did.

Then the hon. member for Rosthern apparently did something about the government's coarse grain policy. He flew down to Ottawa, and the report is that he asked the government to compensate the farmers for their loss; for on November 24 the Regina Leader-Post carried this headline on the front page,

The Address-Mr. Argue

"Coarse grain loss to be made up". I will read the first paragraph of the article under that heading:

The dominion government will indemnify coarse grain producers against loss as a result of the lifting of coarse grain price ceilings October 21 and will take steps to see livestock producers are compensated for the increase in feed costs, Walter Tucker, M.P., Saskatchewan Liberal leader, and W. C. Woods, Kinistino, chairman of the caucus of Liberal provincial candidates, declared Sunday on their return from Ottawa.

This is the thirty-fifth day of the present session, and to date I have not heard the hon. member for Rosthern say in this house that he was doing anything to encourage his government to pay to the farmers complete compensation for the loss which resulted directly from government policy. Millions of dollars were lost by the farmers of western Canada just to put an equivalent number of millions of dollars in the hands of the feed grain dealers, the grain companies, the Winnipeg grain exchange and what have you. I say that the only solution now is for the government to pay complete compensation to the farmers and then obtain from the grain companies and the feed dealers as much of that loss as is possible.

After being smoked out on December 11, 1947, the Minister of Agriculture, speaking on the government's coarse grain policy at that time, informed the house and the farmers that there was still a mythical control on the price of coarse grains. At page 215 of Hansard of December 11, 1947, he said:

I iam simply pointing out that the fact remains that controls are not off feed grains. The statement has been made over and over again that price controls have been taken off feed gnains. The most effective price control on feed grains is the fact that there is an established value for wheat.

We saw how effective that price control was on oats and barley in the first part of this month, when the price of oats and barley on the Chicago board of trade dropped drastically within a few days, and the Winnipeg grain exchange followed the Chicago board of trade in that downward price path. The price of wheat had not changed but the speculators in Chicago were afraid, and the speculators in Winnipeg shared their fear, with the result that the highest price for No. 1 feed barley dropped from $1.27i during the week of February 2 to $1.07 on February 12, a drop of more than 20 cents in the price of barley within ten days. Yet the Minister of Agriculture had told the house that the most effective price control on coarse grains still remained. The truth is that there is no control. The truth is that when oats and

barley prices drop 20 cents within a few days no farmer can plan his hog production or dairy production or, for that matter, the production of oats and barley on any sound basis.

But apparently the government has had a change of heart, or at least some people might think so: for on the order paper there is a government resolution, No. 14, to amend the wheat board act. The resolution reads that it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act-

(Mr. Golding): Order. The hon. member should not refer to a resolution on the order paper.

Mr. ARGUE:

I thank you, Mr. Speaker. The report is that the government will ask the house to empower it to place oats and barley in the same position as wheat. Mind you, I say empower it, but the government does not say that it is going to take oats and barley off the Winnipeg grain exchange. I think, Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a good political gesture at this time with an election in Saskatchewan in the offing in the not far distant future. But actually, judging by what has happened within the last twelve months, I doubt that the government will have the wheat board handle oats and barley on a permanent basis; for last year the Minister of Justice told the house that that would be quite unconstitutional and therefore the government could not then accept a C.C.F. amendment proposing what the government now says it may itself see fit to do.

Profiteering has been allowed to take place in oats and barley, and the members of this group were afraid that the same kind of policy might be followed in regard to meat. Speaking in the house on December 15 last I suggested to the government that if there was to be an increase in the price of pork or beef products the government should step in and take over all available stocks in the packer's hands to prevent the packing houses from making huge profits at the expense of the farmers and as a direct result of government policy. But that was not done. Shortly after the first of the year the price of bacon in the British contract was increased and increases also took place in beef prices. The packing houses had in stock on December 1, 1947, according to an article in the press, huge quantities of meat. Mr. John Lenglet, research director, United Packinghouse Workers, writing in one of the western papers, said this:

Now with meat prices skyrocketing, the packers stand to make an exorbitant profit, and the farmers are left "holding the bag."

After removal of controls on feed grain, doubling the price of coarse grains, a price in-

The Address-Mr. Argue

crease to the farmer is certainly due. But the increased price will not be of much help to the farmer.

According to reports from the dominion bureau of statistics, 110 million pounds of meat were in storage on December 1, 1947. Estimating the average increase in meat prices .at ten cents a pound, the packers made an inventory gain of $11,090,000.

I would point out that that amount is not subject to taxation by the federal government or by anyone else.