July 1, 1942

LIB

James Lorimer Ilsley (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. ILSLEY:

That is in the price of beef.

The Budget-Speaker's Ruling

Topic:   REDUCTION OF PRICE PAID BY PACKERS TO FARMERS
Permalink

THE BUDGET

DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE


The house resumed from Tuesday, June 30, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. L. Usley (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Blackmore.


LIB

Georges Parent (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

I have been considering

the amendment moved yesterday by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore). If any hon. member wishes to speak to the question I would be glad to hear him now.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of Pensions and National Health)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

I submit that the amendment is out of order under Beauchesne's marginal rule 395; and also, because it refers to the total mobilization of resources, which is a principle already disposed 6f by this house during the present session.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I have

not looked into this matter at all. There may be some ground for the last argument advanced. by the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie), but clearly on its face this amendment is in order. If in a previous debate this session part of this matter was dealt with, of course that is something else to consider. I would hope that Your Honour would not rule out this amendment on the ground that it is not a proper amendment to the motion to go into committee of ways and means.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Georges Parent (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

On the motion of the Minister of Finance that I do leave the chair for the house to resolve itself again into committee of rvays and means, Mr. Blackmore moves, seconded by Mr. Hansell, the following amendment:

That all the words after "that" in the said motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"This house views with alarm the obviously decisive drift into national or state socialism everywhere in evidence in this budget, as indicated by the shackling taxation structure it erects; the sweeping trend towards centralization, bureaucracy and oligarchic regimentation which it involves and the general deterioration of morale and incentive to productive effort which it aggravates;

Further this house regrets the government's apparent inability to see the vast improvement in Canada's effici< ncy that could be effected by a wisely scientific use of her credit and currency potentialities;

And deplores the government's persistent failure to employ Canada's credit and currency to supplement her pay-as-you-go policy, thereby to restrict the appalling growth of debt, and

to provide a means to gradually paying off Canada's indebtedness.

Therefore, this house respectfully urges the government to formulate and to introduce at the earliest possible moment such a modernized credit and currency policy as will, to the greatest degree rendered possible by our available facilities, curb inflation, control debt, mobilize Canada's resources for total war, ensure democracy and security to Canadians, in Avar, and then in peace."

Under standing order 48, and referring particularly to citation 395 of Beauchesne, at page 126, it is provided:

It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed. Every amendment proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that if agreed to by the house the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.

That is also borne out in May, at page 261. The amendment is framed in general terms and so phrased that it might be considered as a vote of no confidence. It expresses alarm at "the obviously decisive drift into national or state socialism" and suggests a wisely scientific use of Canada's credit and currency potentialities. But in the declaratory paragraph it urges the government:

. . . to formulate and to introduce at the

earliest possible moment such a modernized credit and currency policy as will, to the greatest degree rendered possible by our available facilities, curb inflation, control debt, mobilize Canada's resources for total war, ensure democracy and security to Canadians, in war, and then in peace.

If the house adopted the amendment the effect would be that the budget proposals now before the house would be postponed until the new credit and currency policy was framed. Divested of what might be called the preamble of the amendment, the conclusion expresses the negative of the motion before the house and would be determined by a vote on the motion. Beauchesne, citation No. 400, provides that an amendment that is merely an expanded negative cannot be proposed by the Chair.

There is another objection to the amendment, in that it proposes something which has been already before the house this session on two occasions, and the house has given its decision. The amendment urges in these words "mobilize Canada's resources for total war". In Votes and Proceedings of 18th February, 1942, pages 56 and 57, an amendment was moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and in that amendment occurred these words:

And this house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have not seen fit to recommend to parliament without delay additional measures

The Budget-Speaker's Ruling

designed to: (a) completely mobilize the wealth and material resources and, on a selective basis, the full man- and woman-power of the nation, to the end that the nation may wage total war in any theatre of war.

A subamendment to the amendment was moved by Mr. Coldwell, and part of that amendment was in these words:

... in the opinion of this house no total war effort adequate to meet the present needs of the war, domestic problems, and the preparation for post-war conditions is possible without total mobilization of wealth, industry and finance as well as human resources.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Miville Dechene

Liberal

Mr. J. M. DECHENE (Athabaska):

In rising to continue the remarks I was unable to conclude last night, I do so after being deeply impressed by the nobility of the sentiment expressed in the house by leaders of all parties upon the occasion of the seventy-fifth anniversary of confederation.

For a few moments I should like to speak to this matter from another angle, and pay

my tribute, not to the fathers of confederation, because that has already been well done, but to the people of Canada. I think it fitting that such a tribute should come from a man occupying my position, belonging as I do to the common peoples of Canada. I am not a professional man, nor am I a schoolteacher or preacher. I am just an ordinary fellow, belonging to that large class in the community, that numerous class of people of whom a great statesman once said, "God must have loved the common people because he made so many of them." It is to those people I pay my tribute. I pay it to the fathers and the mothers of the land. I pay it to those mothers who, since the discovery of the country, have pioneered in their settlements, and who are continuing in their pioneering spirit in my part of the dominion. I pay it to those mothers who are writing the history of Canada with a golden pen dipped in blood. I pay it to the fathers of our country who have devoted their energy, time and ability, no matter what their occupations, to the welfare of the country. I pay my tribute to the veterans of the last war, to the boys in all the arms of the services in this war. I pay it also to the women engaged in services connected with the war, and to our farmers who are carrying on under conditions more difficult than ever before because they are finding that help is growing scarcer. Still they continue to do their share to see that all the food asked for by Great Britain and our allies may be furnished. I pay my tribute to the brains, the courage and the forbearance shown by the common people of this country. I, sir, a common man, a backbencher, beg of you the privilege of humbly bowing my head in tribute to the people who have made Canada, and who will continue to make it.

Last night at the adjournment I was directing my remarks in the budget debate to the tremendous resources of Alberta, and particularly as they relate to the possibilities of development of one of the resources this or any other country must have, if it wishes to be great and prosperous. I refer to oil and its by-products.

Complimenting the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) upon the masterly budget he presented to the house, I Would refer particularly to those budget provisions cutting down tariff restrictions on machinery necessary for the separation of oil from the bituminous sands found in the areas surrounding Fort McMurray and Waterways.

Aristide Briand, recognized as one of the most able men in France during the afterwar period, also one of France's greatest ministers of foreign affairs, is credited with

The Budget-Mr. Dechene

saying that many of the conferences following the war had proven futile because of the oil question. The question as to the ownership of the oil resources of the world, whether they were in Persia or in Iraq, in the East Indies or in any other part of the world, was the main cause for the failure of many of the peace and economic conferences. He pointed out that it was recognized by the great powers that no nation could be great in war or peace unless it had oil properties, without which the operation of mechanical contrivances was impossible, whether those contrivances were for use in farm or factory, or by tradesmen in their lines of occupation. After this war it is reasonable to expect that the world will be more mechanized than ever.

It has been proved, not from my own words or from any processes of imagination, but from the reports of practical men in the business, one of whom is an engineer and an expert in the Department of Mines and Resources, that we have at Fort McMurray and at Waterways, at a point 350 miles north of Edmonton, the largest oil reserve not only in America but in the whole world.

I have before me certain pages from a report by Doctor S. C. Ells of the Department of Mines and Resources, but to save time I shall quote only the last declaration in the splendid article appearing under his name in the Canadian Geographical Journal of June, 1942. This, may I point out, is not an old publication.

It would thus appear that ownership of oil in place, controlled production, and consequent economies as regards storage, are factors which should prove favourable to commercial development of bituminous sands. The writer visualizes a time when McMurray may become one of the leading oil producing centres of the North American continent.

Justification for the development of important production from Alberta bituminous sand has been considered:-(a) as a war emergency measure, and (b) as a development to meet normal peace-time requirements.

Many preconceived ideas and plans have yielded to changing and unexpected circumstances during the past thirty months. Whether important development of Alberta bituminous sand should be regarded as a war emergency measure will depend on circumstances which may develop during coming months, but -which cannot be foreseen.

At this point may I also pay tribute to two young men who were engineers and experts in the research council in Alberta. These young gentlemen, K. A. Clark and S. M. Blair, are known to me personally. For many years they have given invaluable services both to Alberta and to Canada, in cooperation with the Department of Mines and Resources in Ottawa, by making a study of the bituminous sands, and by helping to

evolve a machine which would make possible the separation of the sand from the oil, at a price at which the oil might be sold on a competitive market.

Having established that we have there a reserve estimated by Doctor S. C. Ells at 150 billion barrels, while the whole world reserve is estimated at from 35 to 39 billion barrels; having submitted to the house that Mr. C. S. Bowey of the United States bureau of mines estimates that 250 billion barrels of oil are available in the tar sands of Fort McMurray and Waterways; having also mentioned the fact that far from being inaccessible, as was stated in a report made to the Department of Munitions and Supply, this field is only 350 miles by railway from Edmonton, which railway is jointly owned by the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway and therefore an application to reduce rates, if they are thought to be too high, could be made to the board of transport commissioners; having stated that by air it is only 245 or 247 miles from Edmonton to Fort McMurray and this is the recognized method of transportation in the north country, I submit to the house that this matter is well worth the interest of lion, members. Attention should be given to the development, not after the war but now, of the tremendous resources there are in Alberta.

Here in Ottawa, the capital city, many members of the house and many business men and other people cannot go beyond the city limits because they are limited in the amount of gasoline they can purchase. This limitation applies to all lines of activity, and yet we have this tremendous supply of gasoline, greater than anywhere else in the world. I do not think we are doing the right thing by this country if we do not take immediate measures to develop these tar sands. It may interest the house to know that I stand on firm ground in agitating this matter. I have been bringing it up for twenty years. I first brought it up in the Alberta legislature, and any one who is interested may look in the old files of the Edmonton Bulletin and the Edmonton Journal. They will see that year after year, in 1922, 1923 and 1924, I brought up the question of these oil resources, as well as those in the Turner valley.

It will be remembered that in 1914 the Discovery well was brought in, in the Turner valley. This well produced a small amount of oil, but a tremendous oil boom resulted. Then war broke out, and most of the companies went to the wall. Drilling was stopped, and it began again only after the war. Gasoline sold for thirty-seven cents a gallon in the city of Edmonton, and the farmers throughout

The Budget-Mr. Dechene

Alberta could not afford to pay that price. Prices dropped after 1921. One year I moved in the Alberta house that the Alberta government should pay a bonus of $100,000 to the company or individual that first succeeded in bringing in a well which would produce 1,000 barrels a day.

We should develop these great resources, the tar sands, the oil wells and the other resources of Alberta and the Northwest Territories. I heard the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell) say that it was absurd to mine gold in Canada, to take it out of a hole, ship it to the United States and put it into another hole there, but he forgets that the mining of gold brings a great deal of money into the country and employs a great deal of labour. He is talking all the time about giving employment to labour; yet he rises in his place in this house and talks about the mining of gold which provides considerable employment. He forgets that we are not giving this gold to the United States. When it goes across the line it brings us a good price. If we could deliver from $200 to $250 million of gold a year, it would go a long way toward equalizing the rate of exchange between the United States and Canada.

I have something a little more difficult to say. A few days ago I was reading one of the best United States magazines, a magazine considered worth-while reading. This magazine contained an article by a gentleman who is recognized as being a world authority. He is a most reputable writer and has a complete knowledge of world conditions. This man has been in Asia, Singapore, Oceania and all over the world since war broke out. He was in the far east when the treacherous attack was made on Pearl Harbour by Japan. He describes some of the islands in the Pacific now held by the Japanese, and he gives details of some of the minerals which could be obtained from these islands and of which there is a great need to-day in Canada and the United States. These minerals have never been developed because the companies owning them belonged to cartels. Other resources were worked, but not these. I imagine this was done in order to keep up the price. He names the places, and he gives the estimated amounts of the minerals available. This information was given to the companies and to him by the engineers. To-day there is no access possible to these islands. The Japanese are in possession, and they will be able to develop these minerals themselves. I am wondering if there is not a possibility that a cartel exists in this country in connection with gasoline in order to stop or retard the development of the bituminous oil sands of Fort McMurray.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. COLDWELL:

What about the

Standard Oil of New Jersey, the Imperial Oil in this country?

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Miville Dechene

Liberal

Mr. DECHENE:

I am not a communist

or a socialist; I am just a Liberal, a common man. I am one of those who has absolutely nothing bad to say about the man who makes a success. I admire such a man. I think 99 per cent of those men who amass fortunes do so because they use their brains, muscles, and everything else to the limit. They are generally thrifty and work harder than anyone else. They devote all their time to their business and make many sacrifices in order to achieve success.

Mr. COLDWELL; The Standard Oil is not a common man.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Miville Dechene

Liberal

Mr. DECHENE:

I believe the people of

this country are going to watch developments closely in view of the fact that we have this oil; they are going to see that the development of these resources in western Canada, so needful to all, is not retarded by the action of some company interested in working other fields or in buying their supplies of crude oil from the United States and South America.

Yesterday the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) made an address which I admired very much. He made a wonderful contribution to this debate, and he must have given considerable care and attention to the details of the budget resolutions. But then he ruined it all by refusing, at the request of some hon. members on this side of the house, to include in the names of those who had met in Washington the name of the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King). I am an old-timer in this country, and for a long, time my ancestors made their living here. I love Canada. The United States has grown to a population of 130,000,000 people, while we have remained at only 11,500,000. For many years we have been losing our best blood to that country. Two or three millions of Anglo-Saxons and of French origin, born in Canada, make their homes in that great republic, and it benefits by their brains and brawn.

But because of that narrowness of which we witnessed an example yesterday we have not been able in this country to forget our political differences when it comes to the point of recognizing a man's ability and his services to Canada, and in that way we fail to create in the minds of our young people a pride in what is Canadian. When you look at the picture of one of the most illustrious sons that Canada has produced you cannot help but reflect that Sir Wilfrid Laurier really died of a broken heart. The hon. member from

The Budget-Mr. Ross (Souris)

Saskatchewan has perhaps never heard of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Apparently he has not or we would not have heard his sneers. Such an attitude as his makes' it very difficult in this country to create in our young people the pride in their country that the young people of the United States have in theirs. Sir Wilfrid Laurier died broken-hearted because on two occasions he met with the same narrowness, the same opposition from an organization of men who for political purposes refused to recognize his talents and his services to this country.

On this first of July, Canada's seventyffifth anniversary, and in this budget debate I think it is only right for me to say that even if we should dispose of the whole of our wheat after the war at $1.50 a bushel or more; if the price of cattle and hogs should remain as it is now, and if, in addition, we exported all our surplus of gold and other minerals, we should still fail to attain prosperity in this country- unless we achieved the unity of all the different elements that constitute this dominion.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
NAT

James Arthur Ross

National Government

Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):

Mr. Speaker, this being July the 1st, Dominion day, and the seventy-fifth anniversary of confederation, and very appropriate sentiments having been expressed in honour of this occasion by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Hanson) and the leaders of other groups, and thousands and thousands of our citizens being congregated on the grounds of parliament hill, one is led to wonder what has become of the spirit of the fathers of confederation. The prolonged parliamentary debate on conscription and the plebiscite, lasting for almost six months, is in my opinion an insult to the founders of this great nation. If we were to observe the true spirit of Dominion day I think we should stop wrangling over the duties of citizenship at this time. We have a truly great heritage, but it imposes also a great responsibility, and if by deed and action we would manifest our sense of responsibility, then before this nation reaches the century mark Canada could easily become a world power far greater than anything of which the fathers of confederation ever dreamed.

The Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) has said that there is something wrong with this parliament, and I agree with him-after practically six months of debate, chiefly over the nonsensical plebiscite and conscription. Twenty-five years ago to-day, approximately 20 per cent of the membership of this House of Commons were overseas with Canada's expeditionary force, many of them serving in no man's land, putting in longer and more 44561-243J

uncomfortable and more arduous hours than we have ever served in this house. Yet when the hon. member for Regina (Mr. McNiven) suggested that we should speed up the work of this house he was roundly spanked by his leader, the Prime Minister. Just this morning I attended three different committee meetings. I have probably as much work to do in this house as the average member, and I feel that our procedure could be speeded up by the government of the day.

I should like to compliment the Minister of Finance upon his presentation of the budget. While agreeing with its general principles, there are some parts of the budget with which I entirely disagree. I would also congratulate the leader of the official opposition upon the splendid speech he made, in which he pointed out a number of glaring inequalities in the budget. Certainly so revolutionary a budget, brought down in the middle of the year, upsets any systematic planning by the people of this nation with respect to their livelihood, and it is distinctly unfair to the family man on a two thousand dollar income. The increase in taxation and compulsory savings for such a man is over 250 per cent, and for the family man in the three thousand dollar bracket the increase is over 300 per cent. While the compulsory saving feature is certainly a step in the right direction, the new tax will create a great many hardships for people on small or average salaries, especially with the budget being brought down so late in the calendar year.

I am opposed to the tax on candy. I think it is unjust. I have heard many stories of taking candy from a youngster, and I think it is going too far to tax candy, especially in view of the fact that, as was pointed out yesterday, it is a food, and with such other articles as sugar, chocolate and cocoa, forms part of the emergency rations of our armed forces.

In my opinion the budget should also make some allowance for old debts, say a deduction of at least 10 per cent. A farmer may have two or three crop failures, and then a good crop. How is he going to take care of his past obligations if he is compelled to pay this increased taxation? Some system should be worked out to cover the farmer's operations over a period of two or three years, because the tax is most unfair and almost unworkable under the present set-up so far as the farmers of Canada are concerned.

I should also like to make a few observations with respect to inequalities and the lack of

The Budget-Mr. Ross (Souris)

parity for agricultural products. In this connection I should like to quote what the Minister of Finance said on June 23, at page 3572 of Hansard, in presenting his budget. He said:

In the calendar year 1941, with relatively poor crops in many localities cash income from the sale of farm products was only 17 per cent below the income of 1928, the year of the biggest crops in our history. Good crops in 1942-43, with assured prices, will bring cash farm income close to the best records of Canadian agriculture. Excluding wheat, which has been in surplus supply since the beginning of the war and has required special measures, the prices of farm products on the average are now about 2 per cent above the level of 1926 and ju'ices of animal products on the average are relatively still higher. Farmers are assured of these prices on a wide range of this season's crops, and will receive, by government action, higher prices than those on last year's crops for wheat, flax, soy beans, sugar beets and apples; (4) price and income control are essential weapons in combating inflation. They must be used, however, in close coordination with direct control of supplies and productive equipment, with direction and management of manpower, with consumer rationing, where necessary, and with fiscal policy. No one of these instruments is itself powerful and persuasive enough to do the whole job of directing our resources to the end desired.

I wish also to refer hon. members to what the minister, said on June 4, at page 3081 of Hansard:

Just consider the position-and if members of this committee do not remember anything else I say, I want them to remember these simple figures. During the first twenty-six months of the last war, known as world war No. 1, price levels rose 15 per cent. During the first twenty-six months of this war, world war No. 2, price levels or the cost of living in the Dominion of Canada rose by 15 per cent. During the next seven months of the first v-ar price levels rose by 13 per cent.

Mr. McLarty: Additional.

Mr. Ilsley: Thirteen points over and above the' first fifteen points, making a 28 per cent increase in the total period of twenty-six plus seven months. But during the next seven months of this war the price level has risen less than 1 per cent. I want to say that in the last war-

Mr. Boss (Souris): At whose expense?

Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury): The expense

of the producer, of course.

An hon.1 Member: The farmer.

I think these two arguments should be compared at this particular time. Also, in his remarks on the introduction of the budget, I think the minister should have taken into consideration the increase in the population of this country. He quoted the year 1928. The last population figures prior to 1928 were 8,787,000. The figures for 1941 were 11,420,000. That is quite an increase, and should have a bearing on the amount of money available to agriculture. Considerably over one-third

of the population is dependent upon agriculture for a livelihood. Therefore that 17 per cent hardly gives a true picture of the present difficulties of agriculture in the dominion.

It has been said several times before that the base used for industry and organized labour in setting up this price ceiling scheme is the period 1926-29. Figures found in the publication of the economics branch of October 29, 1941, show that during the period 1926-29 the average prices of certain essential agricultural products were: wheat, 11-417; oats, 60-3 cents; barley 71-6 cents; rye, 97-1 cents; butchers' steers (Toronto), 9-04 cents; bacon hogs, 11-01 cents; creamery butter (Montreal), 38-2 cents; eggs (Montreal), 48-2 cents. The only article in that list which is over parity at the present time is cattle.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. GARDINER:

I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but the price of hogs, as read out there, is above parity.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
NAT

James Arthur Ross

National Government

Mr. ROSS (Souris):

No. I believe if the

minister figures it out he will find that it is slightly under parity to-day, although it is very close to parity. You have to figure out per kill on a hog-grading basis. I think it is still slightly under.

The United States government have announced that they will allow $1.14 on wheat on farms in 1942, or 16 cents above the 1941 price. That is a guaranteed price to the producer on the farm of $1.14, or approximately 40 cents above the price guaranteed to our producers at this time. While they are guaranteed 90 cents, I do not think it will amount to much over 74 cents to the producers on their farms.

Butter fat from the same cow is set, under the price ceiling, at 35 cents a pound at the creamery for butter, and 50 cents a pound at the cheese factory for cheese. In this connection I should like to refer to an article which appeared in my local paper under date September 4, 1941. It states:

For the sixteenth consecutive year, the grand championship in the Canadian butter competition at the Canadian National Exhibition, Toronto, has been w-on by butter manufactured in Manitoba, but the winning of this prize in 1941, is of particular interest to southwestern Manitoba for the reason that the top entry in the exhibition v-as that of Cy. McCallum of the Melita creamery and the high honour attained this year reflects most creditably, not only to Mr. McCallum and his fellow members of the Melita creamery staff, but to cream producers in the area served by this plant.

Iu that respect I do not think I have to point out to the Minister of Agriculture that those producers are being discriminated against, because they cannot deliver their cream or butter fat to cheese factories, which

The Budget-Mr. Ross (Souris)

are not available in that part of Canada. As has been pointed out before, it is impossible to have these factories constructed owing to the present priority system in this country.

May I now refer for a few moments to the cattle situation? A question was asked yesterday and to-day, on the orders of the day, by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Tustin) of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), and the minister apparently endeavoured to differentiate between beef and cattle. I feel sure he realized that beef comes from beef cattle. But I have been amazed, in following this cattle situation for the past month, that we have not had a statement from the Minister of Agriculture on this matter, in view of what has occurred in the past few weeks.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
NAT

George James Tustin

National Government

Mr. TUSTIN:

It was promised wreeks ago.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
NAT

James Arthur Ross

National Government

Mr. ROSS (Souris):

Yes, questions were asked weeks ago, and an answer promised which has not yet been given.

With reference to the questions asked yesterday, I would refer to the following statements in an article in a Toronto paper of June 30, under the title:

Big Cattle Run Here, but Two-thirds Unsold. Market Staggers under $1 Price Drop-Army to Pay Civilian Price-How About Supply?

I do not intend to read all this. The first paragraph will give some idea of the condition that exists to-day.

All across Canada yesterday prices of cattle declined from 60 cents to $1 per cwt. on all live-stock markets. In Toronto, where the beef shortage has been most acute, the market opened with a very large run of 4,450 cattle, but as bids declined sharply to a greater extent than previously shown in one day's operations, trading slackened and 2,700 head were unsold at the close.

On July 1 opens another quarter when Canadian cattle can be shipped to the United States at a customs duty of only 1J cents per pound, as compared with the regular 3 cents a pound. In the first two quarters of 1942, these quarterly quotas of 55,000 cattle were filled very rapidly, but now, with the existence of Wartime Food Corporation Ltd. to have first chance of buying before cattle can be shipped-

And so on. Elsewhere the article says:

Recently Ottawa reduced maximum prices of wholesale beef by 3J cents a pound, to be applied 1 cent a pound July 13, 1 cent a pound Aug. 3 and 1 cent Aug. 24 and J cent on Sept. 14. The wartime prices and trade board has desired to change the index from time to time during the year because cattle on grass during the spring, summer and fall months gain weight at less than at any other period, whereas in winter they have to be fed at considerably increased cost.

That is an account of yesterday's market. To-day. in the same paper, is another article entitled:

Cattle Prices Falling in Swiftest Drop Known. All Watching Market to See how Farmer Will React to Lower Rates-Ottawa Begins Buying.

This article says:

With receipts of 790 cattle reported by the dominion marketing service at the Toronto live stock market yesterday, a considerable trade developed in spite of a further decline in prices to points which showed levels lower by $1 to $1.50 for the week. There were about 1,200 head unsold at the close and to-day is a holiday. Wartime Food Corporation entered into buying for the first time of cattle ticketed for export when the United States quota for the third quarter of the year begins to-day. On Monday Toronto prices had been out of line with United States prices for most cattle but the further drop in price yesterday brought more of them into line. A complicating situation is that over-all ceilings are causing as much confusion in the United States as here and that Washington also pays a few cents more per pound for the armed services. That is abandoned m Canada.

Then it goes on to say:

Market Watches the Farmer.

Most of the old hands found themselves unable to gauge what will be likely on the market in the weeks and months ahead. The week's decline is the largest some of them remember for twenty-five years.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
NAT

George James Tustin

National Government

Mr. TUSTIN:

And the farmers are watching the government.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
NAT

James Arthur Ross

National Government

Mr. ROSS (Souris):

The farmers are watching the government for some lead.

Following that, we had a return brought down in this house, on April 29 last, which gave the following information:

Total number of cattle on farms in Canada:

Head

June 1, 1932 8,529,700

June 1, 1937 8,840.5^

June 1, 1941 8,797,000

The amount of beef in store in Canada:

Pounds

April 1, 1932

9,088,000April 1, 1937

15,694,000April 1, 1942

21,894.nnoExports of cattle to United States:

Head

1932 12,865

1937 306,958

1941 250,573

The total dressed weight of beefs and calves slaughtered in the slaughtering and meat-packing industries in Canada was as follows:

Pounds

1932 beefs 338,545,602

1937 beefs 457,544,311

1940 beefs 454,110,866

The Budget-Mr. Ross (Souris)

The figures for calves are as follows:

Pounds

1932 42,918,685

1937 86,532,559

1940 80,999,915

In answer to a question as to what recommendation Mr. Donald Gordon of the wartime prices and trade board had made to the government for dealing with the control of Canada's beef cattle export, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) said that the question was not in order at that time. I think the impression prevailing among the producers of the country to-day is that the packers are to some extent in control of the cattle industry and of the marketing of the farmers' produce at this particular time. It is true enough that when the Minister of Finance said that beef did not mean cattle, he meant that beef came under the price control board, whereas cattle are sold by the producer and did not come under the board.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

James Lorimer Ilsley (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. ILSLEY:

What I meant was that there is no ceiling on live cattle prices. If the hon. gentleman wants one put on-

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink

July 1, 1942