March 23, 1950

LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. Howe:

Up to this moment we have been able to successfully sell all our surpluses without resort to bilateral agreements.

Topic:   PROCEDURE IN ASKING QUESTIONS ON THE ORDERS OP THE DAY
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURAL PRICES SUPPORT ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR CONTINUATION IN FORCE ON AND AFTER MARCH 31, 1950
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

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

Mr. Coldwell:

Supposing I accept that statement except, as the Minister of Agriculture said recently, for a little butter, a little bit of cheese and some honey, why have we been able to do that? It is not because we are exchanging goods; it is largely because our overseas customers have been financed from ECA and Marshall plan funds.

Topic:   PROCEDURE IN ASKING QUESTIONS ON THE ORDERS OP THE DAY
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURAL PRICES SUPPORT ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR CONTINUATION IN FORCE ON AND AFTER MARCH 31, 1950
Permalink
LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. Howe:

That statement is greatly exaggerated.

Topic:   PROCEDURE IN ASKING QUESTIONS ON THE ORDERS OP THE DAY
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURAL PRICES SUPPORT ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR CONTINUATION IN FORCE ON AND AFTER MARCH 31, 1950
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

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

Mr. Coldwell:

That may be so. It may be somewhat exaggerated, but if we look at the trade relations of our country what do we find? I do not want to enter into this phase particularly, because it really does not come under the resolution I am discussing; but taking our trade relationships we find, for example, that we accepted some $400 million less in goods from the United Kingdom than we sent to them. I am speaking from memory, and it is around that figure. That has to be financed in some way. As a matter of fact it almost balances the amount representing the excess of what we bought from the United States last year over what we sold to them. When Marshall aid and ECA dollars are finished we shall be driven to consider ways and means of trading our surpluses in exchange for goods we can use. The minister shakes his head, but surely that is the way trade should be carried on even if we do not make bilateral agreements.

I do not know whether there is any truth in the statement in the evening paper, but if there is we are going to place another barrier against the sale of Canadian farm products and other commodities to our customer across the sea. There is a story in the press tonight that British cars coming into this country will be impeded by the imposition of some form of dumping duty in order to raise the prices more nearly to the level of our Canadian cars. I hope that is not true.

Topic:   PROCEDURE IN ASKING QUESTIONS ON THE ORDERS OP THE DAY
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURAL PRICES SUPPORT ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR CONTINUATION IN FORCE ON AND AFTER MARCH 31, 1950
Permalink
LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. Howe:

Who is going to do that?

Topic:   PROCEDURE IN ASKING QUESTIONS ON THE ORDERS OP THE DAY
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURAL PRICES SUPPORT ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR CONTINUATION IN FORCE ON AND AFTER MARCH 31, 1950
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

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

Mr. Coldwell:

The article said that the government was considering it.

Topic:   PROCEDURE IN ASKING QUESTIONS ON THE ORDERS OP THE DAY
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURAL PRICES SUPPORT ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR CONTINUATION IN FORCE ON AND AFTER MARCH 31, 1950
Permalink
LIB

Elie Beauregard (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I do not see how these remarks are directly related to the resolution. The house seems to be greatly interested in them and in the subject, but if I allow the hon. member to continue further I shall have to allow other hon. members to do the same. Therefore I suggest to him that he might revert to the resolution.

Topic:   PROCEDURE IN ASKING QUESTIONS ON THE ORDERS OP THE DAY
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURAL PRICES SUPPORT ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR CONTINUATION IN FORCE ON AND AFTER MARCH 31, 1950
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

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

Mr. Coldwell:

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to transgress the rules of the house. Perhaps I was more or less inspired to get a little bit outside them by one or two interruptions. We are however dealing with two resolutions, a resolution to amend the Agricultural Products Act by extending its operation for a period of one year, and a resolution to amend the Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944. What I was arguing was that if we are going to support our agricultural products and sell them in the markets of the world we must enter into trading relationships that will enable us to sell overseas. Mainly I rose to say, and I am going to repeat it, that I thoroughly support the suggestions that have been made-and may I say we have been making them for several years-that we shall not only adopt floor prices that are adequate but that we shall also set up a system of forward pricing so that our farmers will know what they are going to get not a few months ahead, indeed not inadequate support prices that are put into effect after prices have fallen, but the minimum prices they will get for their produce one, two or even three years in advance. It has worked out successfully in another country, perhaps with a different economy, but nonetheless I believe if we are to have a stable and planned agriculture then we have got to adopt a policy of this description. While we support these resolutions, and particularly the one relating to the Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944, we want to go beyond that both for our farmers and our fishermen whose industries require similar guarantees.

Topic:   PROCEDURE IN ASKING QUESTIONS ON THE ORDERS OP THE DAY
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURAL PRICES SUPPORT ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR CONTINUATION IN FORCE ON AND AFTER MARCH 31, 1950
Permalink
CCF

Herbert Wilfred Herridge

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

Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few remarks on these two resolutions because they seriously concern quite a number of my constituents.

I want to express my support of the principle of the two resolutions, a principle which has been so strongly endorsed by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and in my own province by the British Columbia fruit growers association. Before proceeding, may I say that I want to support particularly the remarks of the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) when he said he thought this type of legislation should be made permanent. I 55946-69

23, 1950

Agricultural Prices Support Act am of the opinion that neither the government nor the farmers can do any long-range planning or have any measure of security so long as this measure is in force only from year to year. It is my opinion that this legislation should be made permanent if we are going to have a sound foundation upon which to build our future agricultural marketing structure.

The fruit growers of British Columbia, as represented by the delegates at the British Columbia fruit growers association annual convention, expressed their strong support of these principles, and also passed a resolution thanking the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) for finally introducing into the house the Agricultural Products Marketing Act last year. I support the proposals made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture as to floor prices for bacon, cheese, butter, eggs and so on.

In my riding there are a considerable number of poultry producers, and their number increased greatly during the war years largely at the request of the government for more production. Now they find themselves in a most difficult position. It is my opinion that no section of agriculture is more speculative than the poultry industry or makes a less effective protest to government. Strangely enough, I think it is largely because it is not as well organized as some other branches of agriculture. Its voice is not heard as well on a national basis as some of the other sections of agriculture. The poultry producers are now in a most difficult position. I am quite sure there are many poultry producers in other constituencies who are also faced with the same problems of rising feed costs, other rising costs, and falling prices for their eggs and poultry. In discussing with consumers the situation of the poultry producers, particularly people who live in the cities, I often find there is quite a misconception on the part of consumers as to the share, shall I say, that the poultry producer is getting of the price his products bring. In that connection I want to quote an extract from a brief prepared by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture with respect to support proposals. It has this to say as to eggs:

The average Montreal wholesale price of grade A large eggs in 1949 was 56-4 cents a dozen, slightly higher than the average of 55-8 cents for 1948. In spite of the seasonal high retail price of 75 cents a dozen for August last year, the average retail price for 1949 of 62 cents a dozen was only 14 cents a dozen or 29 per cent higher than for the five years 1925 to 1929. But in 1949 wage rates in Canada were more than twice the rates of the 192529 period. In terms of the buying power of urban consumers the average retail price of eggs in 1949 was very reasonable.

10G8 HOUSE OF

Agricultural Prices Support Act

I just place that on the record, Mr. Speaker, because I find a great deal of misunderstanding of the actual position of the poultry producer on the part of many consumers in the city areas.

I should like to say a word or two in connection with price support for the products of the dairy producers. There is in my constituency a mixed farming, lumbering and mining development. There are a number of small farmers, who do a certain amount of dairying under somewhat more difficult conditions than those which prevail on the larger farms. Many of these farmers depend for their living on the cream they ship to the creameries, so the price of butter is of very serious import to them. There again, the freight costs, feed costs and other costs, particularly in the district I represent, are mounting. I am sure that those producers welcome the price support program for butter, and I urge continued support at a satisfactory level.

I rise this evening, Mr. Speaker, particularly to say a few words about the position of the tree fruit industry in British Columbia. In dealing with this question, I am not only speaking as a member of this house, but I am speaking as a grower of some 40 years' experience. While I am only a small producer, I have been a member of the British Columbia fruit growers association for all that time; 35 years as a member of various cooperatives, and at present I am vice-president of the Kootenay storage co-operative. When I speak on this subject, I represent a number of small growers, who have carved their farms out of the forest as a result of great toil and labour, and in many cases a considerable expenditure of capital. These people as a whole are hard-working and frugal in their way of life. If any people deserve some support or some assistance, they do. When I speak about them, Mr. Speaker, in my mind's eye I can see them now, pruning and spraying; making preparations for this year's crop.

I believe this government's marketing policies have seriously affected the position of the fruit growers. The general retreat of the government from the commodity board principle is one that is regretted by the fruit growers in my constituency. The failure to support the principle of marketing surpluses, advocated by the international commodity clearing house, is equally regretted by the fruit growers of the constituency I have the honour to represent. I urge upon the government, Mr. Speaker, careful consideration of the proposals that have been advanced by the C.C.F. members of this house. Throughout the country I find that these ideas are gaining the support of many people. First of all, I do ask the government to explore further the possibilities of selling some of our agricultural

[Mr. Herridge.l

surpluses for sterling, which sterling could be reinvested in undeveloped areas. I find there is considerable support in responsible quarters for that proposal. I do ask the government to investigate the possibilities in this direction.

Now, Mr. Speaker, a continuation of the present policies so far as marketing in the international sphere is concerned will result in more agricultural surpluses, and poverty and want at home and abroad. I want to bring one other suggestion in this respect to the attention of the minister. I understand that about $400 million are used annually at this time for the purchase of Canadian wheat by the government of Britain. The government made some arrangements for deferring the purchase of a certain amount of wheat, in order to make it possible for the British to buy a certain amount of cheese and bacon. I should like to suggest to the minister that, since $400 million are to be expended on wheat, and an arrangement was made for the suspension of some of that in order for the British to buy cheese and bacon, surely if the matter had been taken up with the British they would have been willing to arrange that four or five million dollars be used for the purchase of fruit. An important consideration in this matter is that you can keep wheat from year to year, but you cannot keep fruit. I think if the minister had made some arrangement such as that it would have been of great assistance to the fruit growing industry, of great assistance to the British, and to this government.

Before sitting down, I should like to deal with the loss of the British preference, because I believe the easy way in which our government gave up the British preference, upon the recommendations of its officials, indicates that the government did not examine the future possibilities as it should have done. When the British preference was given up, I stated in this house in 1948 that I was quite sure the government officials were wrong when they said there was no future in the British market for apples. On that point, I should like to quote from the record of the 1948 committee on banking and commerce. The matter was of some concern to the British Columbia members representing constituencies in which fruit is grown. I should like to quote briefly from page 234 of this committee report. The member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) is questioning Mr. MacKinnon of the Department of Trade and Commerce. It reads as follows:

Topic:   PROCEDURE IN ASKING QUESTIONS ON THE ORDERS OP THE DAY
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURAL PRICES SUPPORT ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR CONTINUATION IN FORCE ON AND AFTER MARCH 31, 1950
Permalink
PC

Edmund Davie Fulton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fulton:

This would probably be the time to ask you about the loss of the preference on apples. I have studied very carefully, Mr. MacKinnon, the statement which you made to the Senate committee on trade relations and particularly the passages at page 43 where several senators were asking you

questions on the loss of the preference and asking why our delegation gave up the preference. The tenor of your answer was that it was felt the British preference on apples was not of very substantial value and you said the British apple market was losing its attraction. I would like to read the words you yourself used when questioned as to the British apple production and you said:

At this point, the hon. member for Kamloops quoted Mr. MacKinnon.

I believe that they could produce this year all their requirements; they would not need to import a single apple. Apart altogether from Considerations of exchange and trade agreements, they would not need to import an apple for their own use this year. The extent to which the orchards in Devon, Cornwall, Somerset and Norfolk have been developed is simply amazing. We had to keep in mind the consideration that we were dealing, as Mr. Deutsch intimated yesterday, with the livelihood of our people. The fact was that the United Kingdom market was becoming not only less attractive in that sense, but probably less real as regards the benefit of the preference; that is, in view particularly of the fact, in the short term, that she had no money with which to buy apples; and, in the long term, that it seems to be her policy to become selfsufficient in apples.

Then the member for Kamloops continued:

Now I hesitate to disagree with you, Mr. MacKinnon, naturally, but I should say this. I questioned the British food commission in Canada on those statements and I have a number of figures here which they gave me as to their own apple production. and I can find nothing in what they told me to substantiate your statement that the United Kingdom is seeking to become self-sufficient in apples.

Then later on, Mr. MacKinnon says:

However, it apparently is the fact that, from now on, barring the unforeseen catastrophe in the form of blights or bad weather, Britain will be selfsufficient as regards fresh apples.

There was further questioning of Mr. MacKinnon with respect to the question of the loss of British preference for apples, and at page 238 of the committee report he was asked the following question:

Just on that point, Mr. MacKinnon, was there any pressure by the United States or any other nation as to the elimination of this particular preference?

Topic:   PROCEDURE IN ASKING QUESTIONS ON THE ORDERS OP THE DAY
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURAL PRICES SUPPORT ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR CONTINUATION IN FORCE ON AND AFTER MARCH 31, 1950
Permalink
LIB

James Angus MacKinnon (Minister Without Portfolio)

Liberal

Mr. MacKinnon:

No more pressure than was brought to bear by the United States in respect to many preferences.

Now that was the point, Mr. Speaker. At the time we were discussing this question in 1948, the two points I made were, first, that I was quite certain there were future possibilities for the sale of Canadian apples in the British market; and second, that pressure had been brought by the United States upon our delegation to relinquish these preferences, although at the same time they were trying to tell us that there was nothing worth-while being relinquished. I think any sensible person would realize that no competent United States businessman uses his pressure for the removal of a preference unless it means some advantage to him.

Agricultural Prices Support Act

I think that the government made a big mistake in overlooking the future possibilities for the sale of Canadian apples in the British market. British Columbia must find a market for between two and a half million and three million boxes a year, in the export market, if the producer is going to experience any sense of stability. What are the facts? In 1948 our officials said this market had disappeared, that it had no future. The facts are these. Approximately within the last thirty days the Australians made a deal with Great Britain to supply three and a half million boxes of apples. At the present time the shops in England are full of United States apples. Large importations are coming from Italy; hundreds of thousands of pounds of apples, not boxes, are going to Great Britain. Going to Britain are also apples from Belgium and the Netherlands. The demand is there in Great Britain for Canadian apples. The correspondence I receive from relatives and friends in England indicates that they miss Canadian apples in the British market. Our government has relinquished these preferences, has done nothing, and these countries are taking advantage of the situation.

I have here a quotation I wish to give. It is from Country Life, the August 1949 issue. Country Life is an agricultural paper published in British Columbia. The article is headed: "British Lament Miserable Quality of Import Apples: Italian Disgrace Cull Pile", and reads in part as follows:

"Everyone in (Great Britain) was lamenting the miserable quality of apples-not only domestic, but imported supplies. The greatest criticism was directed at Italian imports which were said to have arrived in shocking condition and were a disgrace to a cull pile."

These are sentences taken from the introductory paragraph of a report, prepared by Fred A Motz agricultural economist, of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, following an examination of fruit marketing conditions in the United Kingdom, as part of the "study of foreign market outlets and competition with United States fruits, conducted under the provisions of the U.S. research and marketing act."

From my knowledge of what the situation is in Great Britain at the present time and from what I read in articles such as this, of the actions of the United States government, I think they are, shall I say, much keener than our government has been in finding markets for these commodities. I think there is no question about it, Mr. Speaker, that we made a big mistake in giving up the British preference, and when we took for granted what we were told, namely, that there was no future for Canadian apples in the British market.

I ask our government to give further consideration to the matter. I realize the sterling difficulties but I think these can be overcome if $4 million or $5 million of the $400

Agricultural Prices Support Act million used for wheat were diverted for the purchase of apples. Somehow or other I find this fault not only on the part of the government but on the part of officials and trade commissioners. Our trade commissioners are bright boys when it comes to selling industrial products; but it is my opinion that our trade commissioners are not as active and are not as keen, when it comes to selling agricultural products, and they do not understand the selling of agricultural products to the same extent that they understand the selling of industrial' products. I ask the government to give consideration to the possibility of marketing Canadian apples next year by the use of some of these funds that are provided for wheat or by the acceptance of sterling, and the possibility of re-investment of that sterling in undeveloped areas.

I support the request of the British Columbia fruit growers' association for financial assistance from this government under this legislation. The resolution was read this afternoon by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Tones) and I am not going to repeat it. But without question-and I am quite sure the minister would agree with this-the fruit growers of British Columbia have been a patient group throughout the years in presenting their problems to this government. The minister knows that even during the war when we could have obtained from $1 to $3 more for cherries our organization-that is, the fruit growers' organization-voluntarily said "No, this is too high a price". There was a terrific demand. They willingly accepted a lower price on cherries and other fruits in order to keep customer good will and to serve the Canadian people at a reasonable price because they considered that the grower was getting a satisfactory price, and that is all they want. I think that the fruit industry's record in that respect is excellent. It has always taken a constructive approach. It has never pressed the government for assistance unless it was in a serious position. The fruit industry in British Columbia is in a serious condition at this time and I urge the government to give consideration to their requests and to their resolution.

I have on my desk a statement of a grower that I know in my own district, at Deer Park on the Arrow lakes. He is a small fruit grower who has made a reasonable living for the last few years. He sends me this statement which shows his returns for some of the fruit produced on his five-acre orchard this year. His return for this year shows that he is in the red on that production to the extent of $241.49. That is going to be the experience [DOT]of a good number of growers in our district, and in British Columbia generally, unless some assistance is given by this government.

Spraying costs, farm machinery costs, and box costs are going up. For instance, in 1939 we were paying 12 cents per box for apple boxes from the factory. Today we are paying 33-2 cents per box. Freight, machinery, sprays, fertilizers, boxes, all commodities, are going up while prices have dropped rather rapidly.

In conclusion, therefore, I urge the minister and the government to give consideration to this large industry which requires some support at this time in order to get through the present difficulty; and also to give consideration to plans such as those I have suggested in my few remarks, with a view to stabilizing the industry in the years to come. Immediate assistance in the present difficulty, long-term policies on the basis of commodity agreements, and the other arrangements I have mentioned, will I think do a great deal to bring a sense of security to the agriculturists and to the fruit growers now and in the days to come.

Topic:   PROCEDURE IN ASKING QUESTIONS ON THE ORDERS OP THE DAY
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURAL PRICES SUPPORT ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR CONTINUATION IN FORCE ON AND AFTER MARCH 31, 1950
Permalink
CCF

Robert Ross (Roy) Knight

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

Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):

Agricultural Prices Support Act

There is the situation. The agricultural production of Europe is increasing. One has only to go over the statistics for beef, milk and grain this year to prove that. The question that we must pose to ourselves in this house is this: Is that increase in these products to be permanent? If it is, then it will present a serious problem to the farmers of this Canada of ours, and we shall have to look elsewhere for a market for our products.

I said that the increased production is due largely to the policies of some of their governments, and largely to our own mistakes. I submit that some of it is due to our refusal to accommodate ourselves to changed marketing conditions, and our determination to stick to conservative methods of marketing. Under normal conditions Europe will not need coarse grains this year. Many countries are now, and more are becoming, self-sustaining in the matter of dairy products, and in fact they are using much more because their standards of living are rising and they are demanding more of these types of foods. Subsidies are being given to farmers in Britain, Denmark and Belgium to produce milk, butter and products of that kind. Since this has happened1, since we have lost those markets, and since there is little likelihood of our regaining them, whose fault it is need not concern us now. The point is that there are in this country-farmers who are faced with the loss of these markets, and that is my argument. That is all the more reason why there must be planning in agricultural marketing in this country, and hence my support of the Agricultural Prices Support Act.

Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.

Topic:   PROCEDURE IN ASKING QUESTIONS ON THE ORDERS OP THE DAY
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURAL PRICES SUPPORT ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR CONTINUATION IN FORCE ON AND AFTER MARCH 31, 1950
Permalink
PC

John Alpheus Charlton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Charllon:

Mr. Chairman, while I do not think hon. members of the C.C.F. have intentionally misled the house, they have left the impression that the greatly increased production in Great Britain has been due to Labour government controls and subsidies.

Topic:   PROCEDURE IN ASKING QUESTIONS ON THE ORDERS OP THE DAY
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURAL PRICES SUPPORT ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR CONTINUATION IN FORCE ON AND AFTER MARCH 31, 1950
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

No.

Topic:   PROCEDURE IN ASKING QUESTIONS ON THE ORDERS OP THE DAY
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURAL PRICES SUPPORT ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR CONTINUATION IN FORCE ON AND AFTER MARCH 31, 1950
Permalink
PC

John Alpheus Charlton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Charllon:

Be that as it may, they have left the impression that in these last few years all the increase has been as a result of the controls and subsidies.

Topic:   PROCEDURE IN ASKING QUESTIONS ON THE ORDERS OP THE DAY
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURAL PRICES SUPPORT ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR CONTINUATION IN FORCE ON AND AFTER MARCH 31, 1950
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

No, no.

Topic:   PROCEDURE IN ASKING QUESTIONS ON THE ORDERS OP THE DAY
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURAL PRICES SUPPORT ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR CONTINUATION IN FORCE ON AND AFTER MARCH 31, 1950
Permalink
PC

John Alpheus Charlton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Charllon:

The truth is that the acreage in Great Britain has been greatly increased, and much of that acreage was formerly virgin soil which had never been worked. Much of the increase can be traced to the increased volume of land in production, as well as improved methods.

I suggest the minister should give the committee some information as to the quantities of bacon, cheese and eggs contracted for in the last few years, and the quantities sent under those contracts each year, together with the prices paid. That information would be useful if it were placed on record.

Topic:   PROCEDURE IN ASKING QUESTIONS ON THE ORDERS OP THE DAY
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURAL PRICES SUPPORT ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR CONTINUATION IN FORCE ON AND AFTER MARCH 31, 1950
Permalink
LIB

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. Gardiner:

Dealing first with bacon in 1939, the first year of the contract, the minimum contracted for was 291 million pounds, and we delivered more than that. The figure for delivery is 331 million pounds. In 1940 the amount contracted for was 425-6 million pounds and we sent that amount. In 1941 the amount contracted for was 600 million pounds, and we delivered 600 million pounds.

Then, in the year 1942-43-and we were dealing at that time with what we called the hog year, running from October 1 to the following September 30-we contracted for 675 million pounds and sent 675-1 million. In the fifth year of the contract-and let me point out that in January 1, 1944, we switched over, so that when we give the figure of 700 million pounds it will be understood that it is partially due to the change which took place.

In the period of two years, from January 1,

1944, to December 31, 1945, we contracted for 900 million pounds, sending over 450 million pounds in the first year and 272-9 million in the second year. Then, in the seventh year, from January to December we had contracted for 350 million pounds, and sent over 225-9 million. In the eighth year we contracted for 225 million and sent over 176-4. In 1949 we contracted for 160 million. The figure I have here shows a delivery of 67-1 million down to a certain date, but it is not complete. My understanding however is that it did run to 100 million last year. It will be noted that the figures for the last number of years have not nearly met the amounts contracted for and which could have been shipped if we had produced it.

Then may I add there are other quantities here which are related to pork. I have in mind canned pork, hog casings, pork offals and the like, which would bring these figures up to the total amounts sometimes used when we are referring to pork products. However, the amounts are not large. I might add that lard would also be included.

Then, coming to beef: we did not have a

beef contract until 1944. We did have one from January of that year until December 31,

1945, a two-year contract. The minimum quantity contracted for was 100 million pounds, and the actual quantity shipped amounted to 348 million. In the second agreement, from January 1, 1946, to December 31,

1946, we agreed to send 60 million and sent 119-8 million. In the third year we agreed to

send 120 million and sent only 40-6 million. That was at the time when we began to arrange to send our beef to the United States instead of sending it to Great Britain. In the fourth year we had an agreement for 50 million pounds, and sent 16-9 million. We then discontinued, and sent our beef to the United States.

With respect to poultry: Our first agreement was of November 11, 1943. We agreed to send 250,000 pounds and sent 258-3 thousand. The next year we agreed to send

2.000. 000 pounds and we sent 1,973,000 pounds. The third year we agreed to send 12,500,000 pounds and we sent 13,329,000 pounds. That agreement was dropped and we have been shipping to the United States since.

In the case of eggs, the first contract in 1941 ran from April 1 to December 31. In that year we contracted for 13,800,000 dozen and we sent 15,337,000 dozen. The next year we contracted for 38,100,000 dozen and we sent 33,402,000 dozen. The next year we contracted for 57,000,000 dozen and we sent

33.643.000 dozen. The next year we contracted for 50,400,000 dozen and we sent

79.920.000 dozen. The following year, from January 1, 1945, to December 31, 1945, we contracted for 50,400,000 dozen and we sent

42.000. 000 dozen in shell form and 47,700,000 dozen dried. The sixth year we contracted for 83,000,000 dozen and we sent 54,000,000 dozen shelled and 14,000,000 dozen dried. The next year we contracted for 83,000,000 dozen and we sent 58,000,000 dozen shelled and

30.569.000 dozen dried. The eighth year we contracted for 64,000,000 dozen and we sent

36.270.000 dozen shelled and 26,976,000 dozen dried. Last year we contracted to send

46.000. 000 dozen but the final figure is not in this book. We did send something over

40.000. 000 dozen.

I imagine hon. members might be interested in cheese. The first cheese contract was in 1940 and covered from May 28 to November 30. We contracted to send 78,000,000 pounds and we sent 93,000,000 pounds. The next year we contracted to send 112,000,000 pounds and we sent 115,000,000 pounds.

Topic:   PROCEDURE IN ASKING QUESTIONS ON THE ORDERS OP THE DAY
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURAL PRICES SUPPORT ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR CONTINUATION IN FORCE ON AND AFTER MARCH 31, 1950
Permalink
PC

John Alpheus Charlton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Charllon:

Could the minister also give the prices?

Topic:   PROCEDURE IN ASKING QUESTIONS ON THE ORDERS OP THE DAY
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURAL PRICES SUPPORT ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR CONTINUATION IN FORCE ON AND AFTER MARCH 31, 1950
Permalink
LIB

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. Gardiner:

The first year, 1940, the price was 14 cents per pound. In 1941 it was 14-4 cents. In the third year, which was 1942-43, we contracted to send 125 million pounds at 20 cents and we sent over 142 million pounds. In the fourth year we contracted for 150 million pounds at 20 cents and we sent 116-2 million pounds. In the fifth year we contracted for 125 million pounds at 20 cents and we sent 123 million pounds. In the sixth year we contracted for 125 million pounds at 20 cents and

Agricultural Prices Support Act we sent 126-7 million pounds. In the seventh year we contracted for 125 million pounds at 20 cents and we sent 92 million pounds. In the eighth year, which covered from April 1, 1947, to March 31, 1948, we contracted to send 125 million pounds at 25 cents and we sent only 56 million pounds. Then in the ninth year we contracted to send 50 million pounds at 30 cents and we sent 32 million pounds. Last year we contracted to send 50 million pounds at 30 cents and we sent 50 million pounds. We had about 20 million pounds left at the end of the contract period which the British would not take. There is still what I called the other day a little surplus which amounts to some 18 million pounds. After all, that is not very much cheese to have in Canada.

I do not think the evaporated milk figures are important except to the people who are selling that product. They do not represent a great volume and it would take quite a time to give them all. I shall not do so unless hon. members request me to give the details.

Topic:   PROCEDURE IN ASKING QUESTIONS ON THE ORDERS OP THE DAY
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURAL PRICES SUPPORT ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR CONTINUATION IN FORCE ON AND AFTER MARCH 31, 1950
Permalink

March 23, 1950