Mr. Argue:

I am speaking from both, and

I doubt if the hon. member who asked that question speaks from either. As I said, the statistics I have been quoting are from an official publication put out by the Department of Agriculture, and for my part I would not question their accuracy. While there are certain variations up and down from 1942 to 1949, these figures certainly prove that the farm net income in constant dollars has been going down. On Wednesday, May 16, I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) this question:

In view of rising costs of production and an increasing world price level, has the government made any attempt to have reviewed the present ceiling price under the international wheat agreement?

The Minister of Trade and Commerce replied:

The international wheat agreement is an agreement among some forty governments. It is now in its second year of operation, and the only action Canada could take to vary its terms would be to denounce it. Canada has no intention of denouncing it, nor has it any desire to do so.

That was not an answer at all to the question I posed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I did not suggest in that question, I do not suggest now, and I never will suggest that the Canadian government should in any way denounce the international wheat agreement. All I was asking the government was whether or not they had considered the suggestion made in the presentation to the cabinet by the farmers union of Alberta, the British Columbia bloc, the Saskatchewan farmers union and the Manitoba farmers union that the government do what it could to have the international wheat agreemen* reviewed in order that the farmers might be given some compensation because of the rapidly increasing cost of production since that agreement was signed. This idea did not

originate with me. I do not know whether it originated with the farmers unions; but I do know that Mr. Danielson-

Mr. Cote (Malapedia-Maiane):

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Mr. Argue:

Surely.

Mr. Cote (Malapedia-Maiane):

The hon. member says it does not originate with himself; I should like to know from what source it comes.

Mr. Argue:

I am sorry I did not hear the

hon. member.

Mr. Cote (Malapedia-Maiane):

You said it

does not originate with yourself, and I should like to know from where it comes.

Mr. Argue:

If the hon. member for

Matapedia-Matane would contain himself, I was just about to say where that suggestion might have originated. It may have originated with Mr. Danielson, a Saskatchewan Liberal member of the legislature. Mr. Danielson's motion presented in the Saskatchewan legislature as shown in Votes and Proceedings for Thursday, April 5, reads as follows:

That this assembly requests the federal government to take action to renegotiate the international wheat agreement, with a view to having an additional term added to the said agreement providing for an annual conference between the parties thereto, such conference to have the power to increase the minimum and maximum price each year, so that such prices may be set at an amount which would give the same purchasing power as the said prices did when the agreement was signed.

I may say that a number of amendments were moved to that motion. If the house desires I can read the motion as amended, but the amended motion in no way changes the intent of the first motion moved by Mr. Danielson. When that motion asking for a revision of the international wheat agreement was put to a vote, I might point out that it received the unanimous support of the members of the Saskatchewan legislature.

I believe that Canada, one of the chief exporting countries under the international wheat agreement, and a country that has over 400 of the some 2,000 votes distributed amongst the countries signing that agreement, might very properly suggest to the other signatories that a conference should be called to discuss this matter. That was all I had suggested, that was all the farmers of the nation have suggested, and that was all Mr. Danielson, the Liberal farm critic of the Saskatchewan legislature, suggested. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) threw up his hands in holy horror, and said that the government were not going to repudiate the international wheat agreement-I thank him for saying that, but I wish he had replied to my suggestion.

Wheat

Almost all the wheat being sold today by the Canadian wheat board is being sold on the basis of $1.89 or $1.90 or $1.91, right in that neighbourhood, for No. 1 northern, basis Port Arthur-Fort William or Vancouver. The wheat outside of the international wheat agreement sold on Saturday last for $2.29J per bushel, which was 38 cents a bushel higher than the wheat being sold on that date under the international wheat agreement. This means that on that basis the wheat producers of Canada are subsidizing the Canadian consumer today to the extent of 38 cents a bushel. I am against a government policy that forces the wheat producers to subsidize the Canadian consumer. I do not want to see bread prices rise, but if bread should be subsidized then I believe the country as a whole should pay that subsidy, not the wheat farmers alone.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, there should be a final settlement in view of the increasing cost of production, and in view of the fact that the western farmer is still being forced to subsidize the Canadian consumer, for the 1950-51 wheat crop of not less than $2 per bushel. I suggest that is a very moderate request. It is a request for the dominion to guarantee a payment of only some 8J cents more than the price at which No. 1 wheat was being soldi by the wheat board to international wheat agreement countries and to Canadian millers on Saturday last. In my opinion it would amount to no more than the farmers of Canada are doing during the same year by way of subsidizing the Canadian consumer. All I am asking in this suggestion is that the farmers of western Canada be allowed to recover from all the Canadian people, through the federal treasury, an amount approximately equivalent to the subsidy that the western wheat farmers are now providing for the Canadian people.

Mr. Cote (Matapedia-Matane):

May I ask

the hon. gentleman a question?

Mr. Argue:

No; I do not think I will permit the hon. member the opportunity of asking me a question now.

Mr. Blue:

You could not answer it.

Mr. Argue:

I will answer any questions at the end of my speech. I am not afraid of the question, but I should like to conclude my remarks. Considering what I have said, Mr. Speaker, my request for the $2 a bushel is fair and reasonable. It will not in any way totally compensate the farmers for the terrific increase in farm costs brought about by the fact that this government would not take adequate measures to hold down the farmer's cost of production. The farmer is

Wheat

the only person in Canada today who has to sell his commodities at a frozen price when his costs of production are rising by leaps and bounds.

When most issues are being discussed in this house I usually hear one of the cabinet ministers refer to what is being done in the United States as an argument for Canada doing something similar. I want to tell the house what the United States government is doing for the United States farmers. The United States wheat producers are selling a larger quantity of wheat under the international wheat agreement than is the Canadian wheat producer. On the Chicago market at the present time wheat is approximately $2.35 a bushel. The United States government does not say to the wheat producer, "All you can possibly get for your wheat is the price under the international wheat agreement." Instead of that the government guarantees the farmers a certain percentage of parity. For -the 1950 crop the United States government guaranteed the farmers 90 per cent of parity, a guaranteed price of $1.99 per bushel. Then the United States government said to the wheat producer, "For every bushel of wheat you produce you can receive the highest possible price." So, while wheat has been selling for $2.35 per bushel on the Chicago market, the United States farmer is receiving the full benefit of that price. I want to read a comment in this regard taken from the Country Guide of May, 1951. It is a monthly commentary, furnished by the United Grain Growers Limited. It reads as follows:

The United States has now completed sale of its full agreement quota, and Australia's sales are practically completed. Consequently it is to Canada that buying countries now look for remaining quotas under the agreement. This country has still to sell about 35 Million bushels before completing its commitments. The United States is refusing to enlarge its quota, and any wheat bought in that country for export is at the prevailing market price, 60 cents per bushel or more above the maximum price stipulated in the agreement. The United States government has subsidized all sales this year under the agreement at a total cost which cannot be very much less than 100 million dollars. Farmers in the United States have received the full market price for their wheat, and the government there has absorbed the full burden of the agreement. The government of Canada has undertaken no such expenses, and to whatever extent the maximum price under the agreement represents a burden, that has fallen upon the Canadian wheat producer.

That is the situation in the United States.

I do not ask the government to do for the Canadian wheat farmers everything that the United States government is willing to do for their wheat producers. But I ask the government to do something for the Canadian wheat producers and that something is to guarantee them a final payment for their 1950 crop of at least $2 a bushel. The United

fMr. Argue.]

States guarantee their farmers 90 per cent of parity plus anything they can get above that. We are asking that our government take into consideration the terrific increase in the farmer's cost of production, also the fact that the farmer will get but little more for the 1950 crop than he received for each crop from 1945 to 1949, even though those crops were produced at considerably less cost. We further ask that this measure be undertaken so that the farmers of western Canada may be compensated for the subsidy which today amounts to 38 cents on every bushel of wheat consumed in Canada. Because we think that should be done, and that it is a moderate suggestion, I wish to move the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright):

That all the words after the word- "that" to the end of the question be struck out, and the following be substituted therefor:

"in the opinion of this house, in view of drastic increases in the cost of production, the government should give consideration to the advisability of making the final payment on the 1950-51 wheat crop an amount that will bring the total payment for the said crop to not less than $2 per bushel for No. 1 Northern, basis in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver."

Question.

Mr. Depuiy Speaker:

Shall the amendment carry?

Mr. Gardiner:

It is out of order.

Mr. Knowles:

Not at all.

Carried.

Mr. Depuiy Speaker:

Those in favour of the amendment will please say "yea".

Yea.

Mr. Depuiy Speaker:

Those opposed will

please say "nay".

Nay.