Mr. Speaker:

That would be made in committee. As the hon. member knows, no statement is made at this stage of the proceedings. This is merely a motion that the house resolve itself into committee of the whole. See Journals, January 26, 1954.

Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.

Mr. Adamson:

Is the minister going to make a statement now?

Mr. Prudham:

Mr. Chairman, with your permission I should like to make a statement concerning the resolution to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act which is before the house.

The intention of the government to introduce legislation to extend the application of the act to the year 1954 was announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to the press on October 7, 1953. Most hon. members are familiar with the objectives and provisions of the act from previous years, and I feel there is little additional information to be provided at this time.

The former legislation expired on December 31, 1953. The bill now before you provides for the extension of the act to 1954. This legislation proposes to continue the formula for calculating the assistance to individual mines in the same form as 1953.

As pointed out by the Prime Minister in his statement to the press, the special difficulties which have affected the gold-mining industry still continue. The proposed legislation will assist the industry and the gold mining communities to plan their operations for the coming year with a greater degree of certainty.

Some idea of the scope and importance of this emergency assistance measure can be

Gold Mining

seen from the number of mines which have applied for assistance. No less than 56 gold mines from widely separated regions of Canada have applied for assistance in respect of the calendar year 1953.

Gold mines in Canada have the choice of two main markets. First, they may sell their gold to the mint at a fixed price of the equivalent in Canadian dollars of 35 United States dollars per ounce. Secondly, they may elect to sell their products on the open market. However, a mine selling on the open market is not eligible for assistance under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. To this date only one mine has elected to sell on the free market during the year 1954, compared with five in 1953 and 13 in 1952. Mines, over the past few years, have been squeezed between rising costs of production and the fixed mint price for their products. Also, gold mines in this country were seriously affected by the appreciation of the Canadian dollar in terms of the American dollar. This meant that for the greater part of the period during which the Canadian dollar was at a premium, the mines received a steadily decreasing return for their product.

The increased assistance granted in 1953, and if continued through the present year, may therefore be regarded as a special measure designed to compensate for that factor. It is because the government is trying to preserve those modern communities dependent on gold production, Mr. Chairman, that the resolution is being placed before the house at this time.

The gold mines have made a real attempt to meet this challenge. Never before have gold mining operations in this country been more efficient. Tremendous strides have been made in mechanization and improvement of existing installations. I believe the management and workers who have striven to make the industry more efficient deserve a great deal of credit for their efforts.

Over the past year no new lode gold mines have commenced operations in Canada. Five mines in Ontario have closed down, four of them having exhausted their ore, and the fifth because its operations could no longer be carried out economically. In 1953 both volume and the value of gold production in Canada declined. The figures I am about to quote include gold produced from base metal mines which, of course, do not receive assistance. on the gold they produce. Under the act a gold mine is defined as a mine whose value of gold production for a year is 70 per cent or more of the total value of the products derived therefrom.

The total value of gold production from all the mines in Canada for 1953 was $139,826,286 compared with $153,246,016 in 1952. Production in 1953 was 4,061,205 ounces compared with 4,471,725 ounces in 1952. Of the 1953 figure 467,356 ounces were produced in base metal mines and 3,593,849 ounces in gold mines.

An appreciable amount of this decrease in 1953 may be attributed to the loss of production from mines on strike, as well as decreased base metal production during the period of the strike at Noranda mines. It is encouraging to know that these labour disputes in the industry have now been settled.

On the basis of those mines receiving assistance for the calendar year 1953, the sum of $8,257,112.78 was paid out by the government in emergency assistance as at the end of December 1953. This figure, incidentally, does not include applications for the fourth quarter of 1953, holdbacks, or applications not yet received. These are now being received by the department and payments are still being made on applications for 1953. It is anticipated that the total payment for the calendar year 1953 will approximate about $15 million.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, may I say that in presenting this resolution for an extension of assistance for the year 1954 it is the government's hope that this extension will enable the gold mines to continue their operations so that eventually they may be able to carry on without this emergency assistance. It has always been the government's intention that this assistance should be only of a temporary nature.

Mr. Nicholson:

Could the minister tell the committee the total amount expended since this legislation was first passed?

Mr. Prudham:

The amount paid since the commencement of the act up to December 31, 1953, was $61,362,672.93.

Mr. Adamson:

Mr. Chairman, this recurring bill which the minister has just introduced is, in my opinion, an unfortunate necessity. It is unfortunate because the necessity for it is based on actions which take place outside of Canada, and over which we have had very little control.

The only solution to the problem of gold production in Canada, and I speak solely of the question of gold production now, is an increase in the price of gold. This can be brought about by two methods, and by two methods only. The first method is by a unilateral increase in the price of gold by the United States treasury. The second method is an increase in the price of gold brought

about by the operations of the free market. I shall deal with these two methods very briefly.

The United States treasury and the United States authorities, rightly or wrongly, have a set policy against increasing the price of gold. Since that is their policy I feel that we cannot and should not criticize it even though it may be wrong. They have two basic fears: first, that an increase in the American price of gold would be an inflationary measure. Secondly, they feel that if the statutory $35 price at which the United States government is prepared to buy gold were increased it would assist the Soviet union, which may or may not be the second gold producing country in the world. These are, I believe, their basic reasons and it is not for anyone in this parliament, I believe, to criticize them even though we may not agree.

The second possibility of increasing the price of gold is by action brought about by the free market. One of the most interesting economic phenomena in the world today has been the drop in the price of gold on the Paris market in terms of the French franc. I think it is difficult to understand that drop in terms of a currency such as the French franc, in a country where inflation is today rampant, where for six weeks of last year the country was completely without a government of any sort and where for the first time in the history of the third republic fourteen ballots had to be taken in order to elect a president. Nevertheless, despite what to those of us who are not in France would appear to be great instability in the internal economy of that country, the price of gold in terms of the French franc fell substantially during the past year. I say that fact is incomprehensible. Here you have a paper currency continuously inflated within a country whose government is anything but secure. However, the facts are as I have recorded them.

I now want to put on the record a simple statement from the report on the administration of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. I think it is important to quote the first sentence of that report for 1953. It states:

The Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act of 1948 was primarily designed to assist the high cost or marginal gold mines to continue operations throughout the difficult post-war period.

The original idea with regard to the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act was that it was definitely a temporary measure, as the report states, to overcome the difficulties of the immediate post-war period. Unfortunately the situation did not improve.

83276-192i

Gold Mining

Whereas the original intent of the act was merely to assist the marginal or high-cost producers, today we face the tragic situation that there is only one straight gold mine in Canada not accepting assistance from the government. I think that fact shows the sort of dangers we run into, right from the beginning, when we start bonusing any industry. I do not think that any of the straight gold mines really asked to be bonused.

One other thing has happened. In 1952 the bonus on our production per ounce was $3.14. In 1953 this figure had risen to $3.93 per ounce. It is estimated that in 1954 this figure will rise to approximately $4.20 for every ounce of gold produced. At the same time the production of gold fell from $150' million; I think our maximum production was slightly over $150 million.

Mr. Prudham:

I know that my hon. friend wants to get the figures right. The figure quoted for 1952 was $3.93. That is not a complete figure. That is just-

Mr. Adamson:

Just for the mines receiving assistance?

Mr. Prudham:

No. It is not complete for the mines receiving assistance either. At the end of the year the returns are never complete. This is just a partial figure for that year.

Mr. Adamson:

Yes. The report states that the figure was $3.14 in 1952 and that it was $3.93 for 1953.

Mr. Prudham:

When the returns for 1953 are complete, that figure will be changed.

Mr. Adamson:

It will be increased?

Mr. Prudham:

Yes.

Mr. Adamson:

The point is a minor one, Mr. Chairman, but I am glad the minister brings it to my attention. The real point that I am making is that the cost of assistance has been going up. I think the estimate for this year was $4.19 or about $4.20, if I remember it correctly from a previous debate in this chamber. In any event, the cost of bonusing the gold mines on a per-ounce basis is increasing, and the production of gold is decreasing. The labour disputes certainly had a fair amount to do with that decrease; but as your over-all costs of production go up, less of the basic rock in the Pre-Cambrian shield can be classed as ore. For every ten cents of increase in the cost of production of an ounce of gold, just so much more ore is turned into waste rock. The seriousness of that situation has been brought out many times in this chamber. It shows that one of

Gold Mining

the tragic things is that we are turning a great national asset into waste rock by the present procedure.

So much for the mines themselves, for what is happening to our production, and for what is happening to costs and to the national interests of the country. Since the act was originally introduced, there have been several amendments, including changes in the regulations. I think there have been eight amendments to the act. Straight bullion is allowed to be sold on the free market without having to be adulterated down to 22 carats. That is a good thing because it saves the producers that cost of adulteration.

According to the latest figure I have had for this month, the situation is that the gold mines of Canada are receiving $33.84 an ounce at the mint compared with $38.50 in 1939. It should be remembered that the Canadian dollar was at a discount of 10 per cent in 1939 whereas today it is at a premium of approximately 2| to 3 per cent. Therefore our gold mines are not only not receiving any more for their product in 1954 than in 1939 but are actually receiving about 12J per cent less. The minister has very kindly sent me the figure of $33.79 as of the 6th of March. I was a little generous. I said $33.84. But the main point is that here we have an industry, which at one time was the greatest dollar producer of metals in Canada, exceeding even nickel, exceeding all our base metals, with a production of over $150 million a year, that is today receiving 12 h per cent less for its product than it did in 1939.

I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to think of any industry in Canada today, whether producing a basic or a manufactured commodity, that could even be in business if it were only receiving for its product not what it received in 1939 but 12J per cent less. I venture to say that not a single producer of any other product in Canada could be in business today under such circumstances. I think that shows more than anything else the way that the gold mining industry has tackled this problem and its amazing efficiency. What has been done to pare costs, what has been done to make mining more efficient, what has been done just to keep the mines alive is a great triumph and a great credit to our gold industry in all its branches. I am glad the minister brought that out in his statement because I wish to reiterate it. So much for that point.

We say to ourselves: Can we do anything that will be effective? For a number of years it has been my criticism of the administration that we have not done as much ourselves in this regard as we should have done. I wish to quote a paragraph from the speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs

last night in Washington. I think it is of considerable importance, and I shall paraphrase the first few words. Speaking to the Americans he said that it is essential that we work together-

-if the great coalition which we have formed for peace is not to be replaced by an entrenched con-tinentalism, which I can assure you makes no great appeal to your northern neighbour as the best way to prevent war or defeat aggression, and which is not likely to provide a solid basis for good United States-Canada relationships.

I say "amen" to that statement. To me that has been the great weakness of the attitude of our government toward the United States. As I have said, it is none of our business to criticize their actions, and I am not doing so now. But with respect to international matters involving exchange, convertibility, and particularly the question of gold, I feel that we could have established our own market irrespective of the attitude of the United States and that if we had taken resolute and courageous action we could have led the world.

There was a great deal of misgiving when many years ago I advocated the freeing of the Canadian dollar. The same arguments that were used against the freeing of the Canadian dollar are used against the establishment of a free gold market. It was said that we could not free the Canadian dollar because of the international financiers, the United States bankers and the terrific size of our southern neighbour. We did it, with the result that our currency has become, in terms of other currencies, the premier currency in the world. Having taken such action in the case of the Canadian dollar, I contend that we can follow the same course in the case of gold.

I do not agree with the general policy of Canada of waiting for the Americans to make up their minds about what they are going to do. We cannot be hostages to internal United States politics. We cannot stand idly by and wait for the present United States administration or the Republican party to make up their minds with respect to what they are going to do about trade. Gold of course is only useful as a monetary metal and as a medium by which convertibility can be brought about. That is its only real use. Trade is four times as important to the individual Canadian as it is to the individual American. Unless we can solve the problem of sterling convertibility, of which gold forms an essential part, then our future is, to say the least, in considerable jeopardy because our major markets are in the sterling countries.

I do not feel that we can wait to see whether or not the Republican party is going to be run by the isolationists. We cannot

wait for the Republican party to decide whether it is going to revert to political and economic isolationism or whether it is going to embark upon a policy of enlightened world co-operation as set out in documents such as the Randall report. To me, such a policy of waiting is dangerous in the extreme.

It is for that reason that, in and out of this house, I have championed the use of gold as a monetary metal, championed the basic policy of Canada's standing on her own feet where international trade is concerned. In this country we must trade; otherwise we destroy ourselves. Trade figures are encouraging; but to a greater and greater extent, our trade is with one country -a country which, I grant, is our best market, our major market. We are doing this simply because we have been unable to solve the riddle of convertibility. And in my opinion we have been unable to solve the riddle of convertibility because we refuse to lead, and particularly in the matter of gold.

This is not something we can do easily; it is not something we can do without risks. But, to my mind, the Canadian economy and the Canadian people have always been leaders in international affairs. We were world traders long before the Americans knew anything about world trade. Today in our own right we are world traders probably to a greater extent than any other nation in the world. But unless we can solve this problem of convertibility, unless we can produce some mechanism by which convertibility can be free, our international trade can be cut off very quickly and drastically, and with great and increasing danger to our whole economy.

It is for that reason I am speaking here this afternoon. This bill is to keep the mines alive, and it has my support. It also is supported by this party. But I do wish the administration-this government-would take the lead, particularly in this regard, so that we may stand on our own feet in this matter of restoring gold as the medium of convertibility in which historically it has always been, just as we did with our own national currency, the Canadian dollar. By so doing I believe we can give a lead to the world to prevent economic isolationism in North America, should that be the policy of the present administration-which I hope it will not be.

I feel we cannot stand by and watch something happen, if we can possibly take the lead ourselves to see that this great evil of economic isolationism does not occur again in our lives.

Gold Mining

Mr. Noseworlhy:

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to speak at length at this resolution stage, but shall reserve what I have to say in detail to the debate on second reading of the bill to be presented to the house.

There are just one or two comments I should like to make at this stage. The first is that, as we all know, the gold mining industry is in a very unsatisfactory condition at this time. There are great differences of opinion between those who work in the mines and the management of those mines on a number of vital questions. Delegations have appeared in Ottawa before members of the cabinet recommending that the situation in the gold mining industry requires a special commission or committee to make a complete investigation and study of existing conditions in the industry. The miners went back to work, after their long strike, on the explicit promise of the premier of Ontario that such a committee would be set up on a provincial basis, and that a study of this kind would be made. So far as I can discover, to date no move has been made in the direction of fulfilling that agreement.

In so far as the federal government is involved in the gold mining industry, by reason of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, and in so far as it is of interest to the economy of the country as a whole whether the gold mining industry continues to exist or not, many of us think that the federal government should participate in the work of any such committee or commission. There are a number of questions which should and could be clarified by such a commission. There is the whole question of the extent to which the gold mining industry is today a depressed industry, and there is the further question of the extent to which private enterprise has succeeded, so far as this industry is concerned.

Private industry and private operators have been exploiting our gold mines through the years, and have been accumulating fortunes for private individuals. But never at any time in the history of gold mining in this country have those who actually mine and mill the gold received their fair share of the wealth produced from the mines.

The question now arises: Are some of those mines expecting to continue the rate of profits they have been making in past years, or are they now receiving or earning profits equivalent to those earned by many other industries in this country? There was a day when very high profits were demanded in the gold mining industry in order to induce investment of so-called risk capital. Today a large part of the risk involved in gold mining has been shouldered by the federal

Gold Mining

government. A great deal of assistance, outside of the act now under consideration, is given to gold mining by the federal government, in various ways. Today there is nothing like the risk involved in gold mining that there was some twenty-five years ago, so far as capital is concerned. Consequently I suggest that the whole position of the gold mines should be investigated, and I would urge upon the minister at this time that the government give serious consideration to the setting up of some such committee or commission. The strike in the gold mines may be over; the trouble is not over, and unless some serious steps are taken to improve the position of workers in the gold mines we shall before very long have a repetition of the trouble which was experienced in that camp during this winter.

There is another question the minister should look into, the question I raised in the former debate, namely, the extent to which the government should assume responsibility for seeing that, so long as the federal government comes to the aid of the gold mines, the workers in the mines should receive a fair share of that assistance. To what extent does federal aid go almost exclusively to the profits of the operators rather than to improving the standard of living of the miners? That is a question which needs some study.

The third question I should like to suggest, and which I shall speak on at greater length on second reading of the bill, is whether the minister considers it fair that the mines should be able to collect this subsidy on the number of ounces that would be produced in a given year were the mines not on strike. I hold in my hand sessional paper No. 78, referring to correspondence and details pertaining to the Hollinger gold mines in 1951, during which year that mine was on strike for a considerable part of the year. I notice that in arriving at the number of ounces on which subsidies should be paid the assistance is estimated on the number of ounces the mine would have produced had mining operations not been suspended for a part of the year. Last winter the unions in the camp were very anxious to know if it would be possible for the mines to collect on their 1953 operations subsidies based on the number of ounces they would have produced had the mines not been closed. I think the act permits that, and it is one feature of the act that should be considered by the minister.

We have to make up our minds whether the gold mining industry is essential to our

economy. There are a great many communities across this country that are solely dependent upon gold mining. If the gold mines were closed, many hundreds of thousands of people would have to be transferred to other employment. Many, many millions of dollars' worth of property value would be lost and the business of many towns destroyed. It becomes a question whether or not we are to keep those mines operating at a loss, apparently, if we may believe the statements of the gold mining operators. How long can the government go on subsidizing that industry in the interests of the communities affected by the industry?

What would happen to our gold mines should the United States some day decide to buy no more gold? We have to study the entire question of the gold mining industry and its relations to our over-all economy. As conditions exist at the present time, and with no provision and no government policy for any improvement in this field, we can only go on paying subsidies to those mines year after year, regardless of the fact that there may be other industries just as vital to this country. The textile industry, for instance, is just as essential to our economy; it is running into difficulty and may need to be subsidized.

May I suggest to the minister that he give consideration, as was requested by delegations from the north, to the setting up of a committee or commission to make a special study of this industry; and secondly, that he consider whether or not the gold mines are going to be paid for gold they would have produced in 1953 had there been no strike.

Mr. Chairman, when we spoke on this same measure in 1952 the minister concluded with this statement, as recorded at page 2448 of Hansard:

The extension of the cost-aid for another two years will give the mining industry a chance to cope with their problems. We all hope, and I know that the industry hopes, that they will not have to ask for further aid. However, that can be reviewed when the time comes. As I said before, this is not intended to cure the ills, but merely as a temporary aid to assist the industry in working out their own problems.

It appears now, from what the minister has said this afternoon in his opening statement and from what I can gather from the annual report covering the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, that the special difficulties under which gold mines have had to operate for a number of years continue. I think the minister put it well this afternoon when he said that the mines find themselves in a squeeze between rising costs of production on the one hand and a fixed price on

the other. In addition, of course, the mines also suffer adversely from the premium on the Canadian dollar.

There are quite a number of arguments that could be used, good arguments, for continuance of the emergency gold mining assistance that we are considering now. And it is because we recognize there are sound arguments for a further extension of this assistance that we are prepared to support the measure.

I do not intend to speak at any length because I do not think it is necessary at this stage, but I should like to run through quickly some of the arguments which have influenced me in favour of extending the measure for another year.

In the first place, there are a good many towns and cities in far-flung places in this country which have come to be completely dependent upon gold mines for their continued existence. These towns and cities have flourished for quite a long while. I recall a very pleasant visit I made to the constituency of the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Eyre) when I went down into some of the gold mines and saw what was being done. At that time I visited the Porcupine and Timmins areas. I have in mind also a visit which I made to Val d'Or and other centres in the constituency of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas). Since those areas are being well served by the cities and towns which have grown up around the gold mining industry, I think we should do all we can to ensure their continued vitality.

My second good reason is that the hunt for gold has resulted in the discovery of other important metals, and I believe every effort should be made to continue the hunt for gold in this country. I think the country is richer and more self-sufficient as a consequence of the discovery of those metals.

It seems to me that the third good reason for supporting this measure is that the search for gold has often preceded permanent settlements in a number of areas in Canada. Long after the gold veins were depleted and exhausted those settlements have persisted. I am quite aware that there are also a good many ghost towns, but the fact remains that some settlements are still thriving on a permanent basis although the gold mining has been exhausted for some years.

Perhaps the best argument that can be advanced for a continuation of this measure is that gold is the one thing we are pretty certain the United States will always buy. It appears that they have to. This is most important to Canada, in that for some years our country has had an unfavourable trade

Gold Mining

balance with the United States which our gold production materially helps to settle. I imagine that in the foreseeable future we are going to have further gold production to help settle this unfavourable trade balance, because I see little indication that the United States will feel constrained to buy as much as we would like to have her buy here.

Our people continue year after year to spend comparatively large sums of money in the United States for things which they could buy at better prices right here at home or perhaps in other places. I have been interested in the fact that Canadian people often persist in buying across the border things which they could buy more cheaply right here at home.

For example, at this very time if anyone visits the grocery stores he will see all kinds of fresh vegetables, particularly carrots. These are very appealing to the eye and I imagine they are delicious to the taste. They are purchased largely in southern California and Texas and brought to Canada. Our people buy them in preference to the commodity produced here which is pitted and kept over the winter in good shape. I find those carrots just as delightful and I imagine they are just as healthful. Perhaps they do not have quite the eye appeal since you must wash them a little, but they are cheaper.

The interesting thing to me is that our people continue to buy the eye-appealing product from the United States and commit themselves to the extent of considerable quantities of Canadian dollars. What is the result? They push the Canadian product off the market and as a consequence our production is discouraged or it rots. That is the fact and we might just as well face it. Of course, in a free country we cannot tell our people that they must not spend their money in the United States. They do it and as long as they persist in this practice we will just have to go on having these adverse balances of trade.

Another point is that we could buy carrots, tomatoes, lettuce and various green vegetables in the British West Indies and bring them to Canada instead of buying them in the country to our south. If we did that we would be supplying the British West Indies with badly-needed Canadian dollars with which they could in turn buy from Canada. At the same time we would be encouraging intercommonwealth trade, which in my opinion is an urgent necessity. In addition we would be reducing the unfavourable trade balances between Canada and the United States. It seems to me that there is a three-pronged advantage all round.

Gold Mining

However, as long as the Canadian people do persist in spending their money as they do in the United States, it seems to me that we will have to do all we can to encourage the optimum production of gold with which to pay these bills. This is the argument which appeals to me more strongly than any of the others I have mentioned.

I think the best argument for extending to the gold mines the assistance which we now propose to extend is that it provides us with the one commodity which we can feel pretty sure the American treasury will always accept and against which they are not likely to raise embargoes, import quotas or other restrictions, as we find them doing so often in the case of other Canadian products.

Consequently we support the measure on a temporary basis. But if we thought the measure was going to be used for the purpose of eventually restoring the gold standard for our internal money system we would oppose it with all our might. However, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and the government have committed themselves to a managed currency, which in my judgment is infinitely superior to the gold standard. It fits our type of economy much better than any gold standard could. So far as I am concerned, I feel that every encouragement should be given to continuing that policy.

For just a moment I should like to take a look at the financial aspects of the measure which I suppose will be introduced today by the minister. I gathered from what he said this afternoon, and from the annual report for 1952-53, that the total assistance paid to the gold mines from 1948, since we started paying assistance, down to the end of 1952, was $51,053,061. If we added to that the expected payment for 1953, when all the applications are in, amounting to $15 million, as the minister said this afternoon, the total would be $66 million to the end of 1953. Strangely enough, that is almost exactly the amount of money that a few years ago the federal government offered to the western farmers in settlement of their wheat claim. It will be remembered that they were up against exactly the same situation; they were in a squeeze all during the war. Their production costs had been going up steadily and they have been caught in the squeeze between these increasing costs on the one hand, and the fixed price on the other.

The wheat producers of Canada during that period were asked to subsidize cheap bread for the whole Canadian economy, and they did it without complaining. But I recall the tremendous amount of opposition

which developed in this house at the time it was proposed to give the western farmers $65 million as a final payment.

Not from us.

Mr. Low:

Fortunately we did not hear it from the hon. members who represent gold mining constituencies. They have learned to be somewhat more charitable, seeing that they have to depend in some measure upon similar assistance. At any rate, I merely mention this because there is an interesting similarity in the amount of money involved.

About two years ago, when a proposal was made in this house that some arrangement be made to establish a support price covering the internal consumption of wheat in this country, a price which would reflect the cost of production plus a reasonable margin of profit for the farmer, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I recall, at that time exclaimed with, I believe, some vehemence, "Never will I support the subsidization of wheat."

Because of the expense to the taxpayer.

Mr. Low:

Yes, because of that expense.