Mr. BLACKMORE:

I have computed my figures on the basis of 10 tons to the acre, but may I show the minister what is being done in my constituency. As I said, an acre can produce much more than 10 tons. The average yield in Alberta for a given 12 years has ranged from 9-96 tons per acre to 14-10 tons per acre. The average for the 12 years was 12-05 tons per acre, much greater than the 10 tons per acre which I have used. Higher yields are being obtained all the time. In 1947 there were many farmers in Alberta who raised as much as 15 tons per acre on substantial acreages.

I am taking my figures from a little booklet entitled "Silver Sunshine" prepared by the beet sugar manufacturers in Alberta. I hold in my hand the spring edition for 1948. Page 32 gives the details of what Mr. W. E. Bullock of Taber has done, and I quote:

His contract now centres around the 100-aere mark and has a four year average of 16 tons per -acre.

In the light of the figures I have given to the minister, the production from this man's activities are colossal, almost inconceivable. Sixteen tons to the acre and over 100 acres to be taken care of by one man. Then Mr. Jesse H. Wilde of Welling, in my constituency, is referred to on page 28 as follows:

Since the factory began operations in 1925, he has not only been a consistent grower but has grown an average of over 100 acres of beets a year. During this time his beets have produced 72,000, 100-pound bags of sugar or enough to supply the needs of 3,600 people for the past 23 years.

That is the production of one man in the growing of sugar beets, an industry which the minister has not yet learned to appreciate. The article states further:

In 1947 from the 110 acres of beets grown, he had an average of 14-98 tons per acre.

Then Ivan Harris of Taber is referred to on page 31 as follows:

Ivan Harris has again raised the highest tonnage for the year 1947, 22-6 tons per acre on 30-5 acres. This is not an unusual occurrence for Ivan as his seven-year average is over 29 tons per acre.

If the minister would only think about what can be done, if he would only bear in mind that the new Lethbridge southeastern water conservation -project, which the minister is providing money to build, will bring 345,000 acres of land under irrigation and be rendered capable of such astounding production of food

as I have indicated by the statements concerning these men, I am sure the beet sugar industry would have his support. If this irrigation project is to be made to contribute to the national life and welfare of Canada as it can be, the minister must adopt those national policies which will render it possible for that to be accomplished.

Just think of the food and feed produced by Ivan Harris on an acre of land! Imagine one of Ivan Harris' acres producing sugar beets at the rate of twenty tons to the acre! That would mean, with 300 pounds of sugar produced per ton of sugar beets, there would be 6,000 pounds of sugar.

Mr. IRVINE:

We would be overwhelmed in sweetness.

Mr. BLACKMORE:

cured in one of three ways: first, by piling in the field in small piles and hauling from field to field; second, by piling in field as topped, hauling and piling in a lot adjacent to the feed yard and feeding from there; third, in siloing the fresh green tops. Beet tops are greatly relished by sheep and cattle. This can be verified by reference to "Silver Sunshine" fall, 1946, page 32. Mr. W. R. Hughes, L.N.I.D., beet growers' secretary, returning from a demonstration of the Keist beet harvester at Pocatello, Idaho, said that in that part of Idaho the growers claimed that when tops were taken fresh and crisp from that harvester they were easily siloed as topped, and that tops so handled and used for feed were just as valuable as the beets sold to the factory. Not only have you the value of the beets, but you have just as great value in the tops. Tops properly siloed are worth just as much as the beets; livestock prefer beet top silage above other feeds. These facts may be found in the booklet "Silver Sunshine", spring of 1948, page 22.

We come now to the by-product, beet pulp. This valuable stock feed is used either moist in the condition it is in right after the sugar is extracted, or dried after the moisture has been processed away. Dried beet pulp is very valuable feed. There is no other product on the market which possesses its virtue. It is both an appetizer and a conditioner. It makes cattle eat more of other food, digest it better and improve themselves in condition. Milk cows fed with it produce more milk per pound of feed consumed. Feeders fed with it gain weight faster and more flesh per pound of feed. Show cattle 'take on a bloom which cannot be produced as economically in any other way. This can be verified by referring to reference 106-39 at page 51. W. M. Hermis, R. E. Miller and R. D. Jones in Sugar Beet Bulletin, volume 5 (1941), No. 3 at paragraphs 61 to 63 say:

A ton of siloed pulp replaced 139-9 pounds of ground barley, 636 pounds of alfalfa hay and 44-2 pounds of molasses.

See Alberta Sugar Beet Growers, 1941 report at page 27.

What is the value of the by-product molasses? Beet molasses consists of sucrose, 50 per cent by weight, soluble salts and water. It is rich in potash; it contains some nitrogen. Beet molasses is useful as a stock feed and as a fertilizer. It is useful for yeast making and distilling. It mixes well with dried beet pulp. This has also been discussed in reference 106-39 at page 52.

Molasses is used increasingly in chemical processes, according to Messrs. F. 0. Licht in memoranda prepared for the economic committee of the league of nations, 1929, at page 25.

It is used in connection with yeast. Molasses was declared chemicals by munitions and supply during the war, as is recorded in the 1941 report at page 12.

Let me stop and reason with the minister for just a minute or two. He sees all these tremendously valuable products which would be of outstanding importance in case of war, and yet he ignores the production of them.

A general idea of the value of beet byproducts in stock feeding may be gained from the following: experiments at agricultural college at Bozeman, Montana, found that to produce a 300 pound gain on each of twenty-one head of 650-pound yearling cattle required 67-2 tons -of wet pulp, 3-4 tons of beet molasses, 16-8 tons of cured dried tops, 8-4 tons of grain and 8-4 tons of alfalfa. That is referred to in the Alberta Co-operative Beet Growers 1938 report, page 10. Notice that every one of these ingredients used in feeding this stock, including the grain, comes directly either from the beets or from the rotation crops used in the production of beets.

The results are equally impressive in feeding dairy cattle. May I stop to comment on the dairy situation. In Canada we are in danger of being short of dairy products. There is no product in the Dominion of Canada that can produce milk to compare with beet pulp and beet tops. If we are to produce milk let us get the facilities with which our farmers can produce it. In Alberta in 1943 29,306 acres, averaging 10-20 tons an acre supported 32,000 cattle and 125,000 sheep and lambs according to C. 'O. Asplund in the 1943 Beet Growers' report at page 21. An almost incalculable amount of milk can be produced from the use of beet pulp and other by-products, alfalfa hay and sweet clover, together with a portion of grain.

May I summarize? Food and feed products from 25,000 acres: beets, 250,000 tons; sugar,

75.000. 000 pounds; dried beet tops, 50.000.000 pounds; dried beet pulp 25,000,000 pounds; molasses, 20,000,000 pounds; grain equivalent of dried beet tops, 25,000.000 pounds; alfalfa hay equivalent and grain equivalent, 37,500,000 pounds of alfalfa hay and 11,500,000 pounds of grain.

A very heavy loss to Canada in one year!

What could have motivated the Minister of Finance to inflict upon Canadians a loss as huge as this? Yet that is exactly what he did. Add to that consideration the salutary effect upon Canadian soil which would have resulted from raising these beets. Twenty-five thousand acres of sugar beets would cause a soil improvement crop rotation as follows:

25.000, multiplied by 5, or 125,000 acres of Canadian soil, according to an ordinary

Supply-Finance

minimum crop rotation, of five years; or 25,000 multiplied by 8, or 200,000 acres, according to the Lethbridge experimental station, which has a rotation of eight years consisting of two into beets, two into wheat, 3 into alfalfa, one into wheat. Thirty tons of manure would be applied once every eight years. See the 1939 Beet Growers' report, page 17.

Now suppose we produced Canadian beet sugar for 7,500,000 Canadians, which I submit to the minister is the absolute minimum that should be considered-how can we consider this nation safe, so far as sugar supplies are concerned, if we are not producing half enough for our own needs in times as dangerous as these? How is it that no kind of reasoning can get this into the minds of the men in charge of Canada's government? Canada, with her excellent adaptability for beet production, should be producing at least her own beet sugar for 7,500,000 people.

"Sugar for 750,000 Canadians can be extracted from beets from 25,000 acres of good land. Sugar for 7,500,000 Canadians could be produced upon 10 times 25,000 or 250,000 acres of good Canadian land.

What would be the food production from such an amount of beet production? An acreage of 250,000 of beets, enough to produce the sugar needs of 7,500,000 people, would produce: beets, 10 multiplied by 250,000, or

2.500.000 tons; of sugar, 10 multiplied by

75,000,000 pounds or 750 million pounds. Dried beet tops, 10 multiplied by 50,000,000 pounds, or 500 million pounds; dried beet pulp, 10 multiplied by 25,000,000 pounds, or 250 million pounds; molasses, 10 multiplied by 20,000,000 pounds, or 200 million pounds; grain equivalent through dried beet tops, 10 multiplied by 25,000,000 pounds or 250 million pounds of grain; alfalfa hay and grain equivalent of dried beet pulp, 10 multiplied by 37,500,000 pounds of hay, 10 multiplied by 11,500,000 pounds of grain, or 375 million pounds of alfalfa hay equivalent and 115 million pounds of grain equivalent.

In addition to all these good things we could thus produce, under soil improvement rotations essential to produce such beets about

250.000 times 5, or 1,250,000 acres of land, would be improved towards the increase of food production for future years.

Canada has neglected the beet sugar industry. May I say to the minister that any minister of finance who cold-shoulders this industry does his country a serious disservice; and any government that tolerates its Minister of Finance cold-shouldering the beet sugar industry is also doing a disservice to Canada for the future as well as at the present time. Let that be borne fully in mind.

Mr. MacNICOL:

They should encourage it.

Mr. BLACKMORE:

Undoubtedly. But all that the beet sugar industry gets from the present Minister of Finance, all that it has ever got from any of his predecessors since I have been a member of this house, is discouragement and apparently an endeavour to put something in the way of production, either to reduce or to discourage it.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:

Order. The hon. member's time has expired.

Mr. JAENICKE:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to the question raised by the Minister of Finance before the hon. member who has just resumed his seat spoke, and that is the question of the constitutionality of price control. I presume most hon. members who belong to the legal profession, as I do, will agree with the minister's opinion on the question of the constitutionality of price control, but with great respect to those opinions, and with great respect to the minister, I disagree.

I am not competent at the moment to compare the Australian constitution with our own British North America Act and I shall base my opinion on the British North America Act alone. It is my opinion that this parliament has jurisdiction in respect of anything which by inherent nature is of national importance. I think my learned friends in this house will agree with me that this is the trend of the latest decisions of the privy council, and it is my opinion that the question of price control is a subject which by its inherent nature is of national importance. Therefore it would be competent for this parliament to legislate upon that subject. I simply rose to put my views on record with regard to this constitutional question of price control.

(Translation):

- Mr. DIONNE (Beauce): Mr. Chairman, the suggestions made in the house in connection with the prices committee report have on the whole a constructive value which cannot be overlooked.

However, I cannot say the same of certain criticisms made against the report. I do not agree with the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) who contends that the people are starving due to the rise in prices. The people may be worried on account of the present unsettled conditions throughout the world-

Supply-Finance

Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):

Would the hon. member please speak a little louder?

Mr. DIONNE (Beauce):

-but Providence will undoubtedly help us overcome our present difficulties, as at the end of the war. Millions of persons were then working in war industries or serving in the armed forces. How many of them are unemployed today? National production has increased from 6 billions to 13 billions. When will we stop telling our people that they are on the verge of starvation and that they are unhappy, while in fact we are witnessing an era of unprecedented prosperity? Nor do I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who suggests that rigid enforcement of price and wage controls would solve our problems. No supervisory system will increase the worker's output while decreased production is the very cause of higher prices.

Mr. FOURNIER (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):

Hear, hear.

Mr. DIONNE (Beauce):

Moreover, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has just pointed out, it seems that these controls are a provincial responsibility. If so, I would suggest that the government hand this task back to the provinces.

Why did the government set up a committee on prices? In an attempt to find means of bringing down the cost of living.

Traders and manufacturers of various commodities were called before the committee so that it might find out whether any of them were exploiting the public.

Though not a member of the committee, I closely followed its proceedings, and my personal opinion is that many of its members honestly tried to do a useful piece of work in the public interest.

Unfortunately, others took advantage of their appointment to the committee to put either themselves or their political creed in the limelight.

If there was a time when the political ideologies of certain members of the house should have been kept completely in the background, it was during the sessions of the prices committee. Unfortunately, that is not what happened.

That was evidenced when the prices committee's report was brought in. Much of the criticism in the house about the report was

based on destructive conclusions concerning private enterprise.

I note that such destructive criticism has come mostly from people who would not know the first thing about industrial management.

The sole purpose of many of those speeches -or I should say ravings-was to make out industry as a parasite, a leech feeding on the blood of its people.

To the gentlemen whose philosophy aims solely at establishing a socialist regime in this country, I ask this one question: "What has allowed Canada to develop into one of the most beautiful countries in the world, if not private enterprise?"

Mr. FOURNIER (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):

Hear, hear.

Mr. DIONNE (Beauce):

Why then seek to cast odium on people whose sole ambition is to produce for the benefit of their country?

And those great reformers, who take up more than half the time of the house, why don't they go to the root of the evil?

W orking men appeared before the committee. Were they questioned about things they knew? Were they asked why building costs are so high nowadays, when obviously such eosts absorb most of the liquid assets of potential owners? Were they asked why they only lay 350 bricks a day at wages ranging from $1.20 to $1.50 an hour, as compared to

1,000 to 1,500 bricks a day at only 60 cents an hour a few years ago?

No such questions were puit to them.

It might be told that no building tradesmen appeared before the committee, but I can reply that the example I have just given with respect to bricklayers applies to every field of activity.

If the practised critics we have in the house had had the courage to put such questions, they would have made themselves unpopular, and of course that is what we seek above all to avoid in this house. Some party members in this house have no more concern for the public weal than for the first pair of shoes they ever wore in their native land, beyond the seas.

Does a member believe he is true to his mandate when he adopts such a course of action? Does he believe he is doing a service to the working class, in representing its members as wretched people who are shamefully exploited?

Supply-Finance

Is that conducive to the resoration of harmony among the Canadian people? Will it bring about the solving of the many problems we are facing in these troubled times, engendered by the most terrible war that has ever devastated the world?

We are often enough taken to task in this house for not reading the debates. I shall answer for the benefit of some among us: let us make the debates less dull if we want them to be read.

(Text):

Mr. NICHOLSON:

I cannot consent to the decrease of $2,869,000 in this vote this year without offering a word of protest. I have been among the members of the house who have had words of praise for the work of the wartime prices and trade board since it was originally set up. In reply to the comments made by the minister this morning in connection with the referendum in Australia, I might say that if the people in Australia had had as happy an experience with their wartime prices and trade board as we have had with ours, the results of the referendum might have been different,

I think it would be extremely difficult to convince the majority of the people in Canada that to continue the wartime prices and trade board and subsidies for a longer period is not in the public interest. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre yesterday referred to an item that is of interest in homes where there are infants who cannot be brought up on human milk. He mentioned two cans of beef which were sold at the beginning of June for twenty-nine cents. The price of those two cans now is forty-two cents, an increase of forty-five per cent in this one item from June 1 until the end of June. I know that beef prices have gone up, but I would be surprised if the beef used in the manufacture of this product had been bought since the increase. If you had a wartime prices and trade board functioning as that board functioned during the war, enlisting the co-operation of consumers all across Canada, you would have some protection for the consumer, and you would not have a forty-five per cent increase in this one item in the month of June without action being taken.

The members of this group have spoken about possible action of the government following the report of the prices committee, but I am afraid that few in parliament or out of it will expect any vigorous action as a result of this report. I might remind the committee that two years ago, just in the closing days of the session, on going into supply, I had

the privilege of moving an amendment in connection with the milk subsidy. The motion was:

This house desires to record its opinion that consideration should be given to the continuance of the milk subsidy so as to ensure adequate return to milk producers and make possible the consumption of milk for the nutrition of the Canadian people without any further increase in the price thereof to the consumers.

Hon. members will recall that a majority of the members who were in parliament that day supported this amendment. The government promised to give consideration to the expression of opinion of the house, and consideration was given; but nothing was done to establish subsidies or to ensure that the consumers would be able to consume as much milk as before, without an increase in cost.

It is exceedingly difficult for the average consumer or producer in Canada to understand why the government can end the year with such a large surplus and- cannot find ways and means to provide subsidies for essential commodities. During one period in the war, more than a million of our youngest and strongest people were in our war services and war industries, and we were giving large quantities of food as mutual aid. But at that time we were able to consume more milk, 'butter and eggs in our homes than we did before the war, and more than we are consuming now. With so many of our veterans home, and with no disaster in most parts of Canada, with exception of British -Columbia, to interfere with our production, why it should be necessary to cut down our consumption of many of these foodstuffs ;s surely a matter -of concern to the Minister of Finance.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I must register my word of protest, I should like the minister to give the committee some information with regard- to the provision that has been made for historical documents to report on the work of the wartime prices and trade board, I might indicate that at some time we hope to form the government in Canada; and I am sure that the experience of the wartime prices and trade board during those years will be most useful. I have been disturbed a number of times when I have tried to get information from the wartime prices and trade board, to find that more consideration has not 'been given to preparing documentary information that should be available to all members of parliament. Would the minister indicate what staff is now working on the

6158

Supply-Finance

compilation of documentary material which will be available to Canadians now and in years to come, dealing with the work of the board?

Mr. ABBOTT:

In direct answer to the last question, I think there are three people devoting full time to the work referred to by my hon. friend, and of course their work is supplemented by that of some other members of the staff. The reports of the board are public documents, but in addition a complete and I think accurate historical record of the work of the board during the war years is being compiled in accordance with privy council instruction. As will be the case with other documents, it is to be deposited in the office of the privy council to form a permanent record in case of future need.

Mr. GLADSTONE:

Has the government power to reduce, by order in council, without legislation, the tariff, the excise tax or the sales tax?

Mr. ABBOTT:

In connection with the

special excise tax put on last fall, as I said in a statement I made here some time ago, it may be removed by proclamation, directed by order in council. That is under section 5 of the act, I think, which I quoted in the house. With respect to certain tariff items I believe specific provision is made to lower the tariffs by executive order. I am not too conversant with the technical provisions of the tariff act. Then of course it is always open to remit duties under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act. The general rule with respect to the removal of taxes, of course, is that they are made the subject matter of a budgetary presentation and discussion in the house.

Mr. FULTON:

Though we do not all talk about profiteering as much as my hon. friends to the immediate left, and we do not ascribe the whole of the price increase in recent months to that cause, I think we are all as interested as they are in preventing profiteering and in prosecuting those who charge unjust and unreasonable prices. Would the minister give us some account of the working of the just and reasonable clause under the present powers of the wartime prices and trade board. As I understand it they have power to initiate action whenever in their view prices have been fixed which are unreasonable and unjust. What prosecutions have been launched under that provision in the last twelve months, and what steps have been taken to see that full use is made of that clause? I take it the procedure is to bring actions in the courts and leave it to the courts to determine whether the prices really are unjust and unreasonable.

Mr. ABBOTT:

The most recent and up to date information on that point is contained in the report of the prices committee, so hon. members have that. Speaking from memory I think about twelve prosecutions have been instituted within the comparatively recent past. There have been two or three convictions so far-

Mr. MARTIN:

Three.