Harry Oliver WHITE

WHITE, Harry Oliver

Personal Data

Party
Progressive Conservative
Constituency
Middlesex East (Ontario)
Birth Date
January 6, 1895
Deceased Date
September 4, 1987
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Oliver_White
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=ed7c9721-7803-4bd8-a892-696cdd38f5a0&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
farmer

Parliamentary Career

June 11, 1945 - April 30, 1949
PC
  Middlesex East (Ontario)
June 27, 1949 - June 13, 1953
PC
  Middlesex East (Ontario)
August 10, 1953 - April 12, 1957
PC
  Middlesex East (Ontario)
June 10, 1957 - February 1, 1958
PC
  Middlesex East (Ontario)
March 31, 1958 - April 19, 1962
PC
  Middlesex East (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 154 of 156)


May 9, 1946

Mr. WHITE (Middlesex East):

And from the Canadian farm loan board report for the year ended March 31, 1939, I find these figures:

Loans to farmers, secured by first mortgages:

Principal

$30,054,207 94Interest due and unpaid ... 612,484 89Interest accrued

479,338 18Other charges

16,545 59

It will be noticed that Canadian farmers in about the same period referred to by the Minister of Agriculture were able to reduce their indebtedness by only some $6 million. I therefore have grave doubts whether the farmer's condition is as rosy as the minister would like us to believe.

I spoke of Donald Gordon and agricultural subsidies. We hear a great deal of his alleged ability. We shall be better able to judge his ability twenty-five years hence. He should be compelled to reduce the debt of Canada by the amount of all the farm subsidies paid out unnecessarily to maintain a price ceiling that

was not maintained. The amount of these subsidies runs into many millions. In 1944 alone it was $104,552,761 on items given in a statement by the dominion bureau of statistics.

I also stated that the price ceiling was not maintained and I make that statement for two reasons. First of all, the quality of practically all farm products has been maintained and, in some lines, improved, while the quality of many things the farmers buy has depreciated considerably. I will mention only a few items: lumber, coal, supplementary farm feeds and clothing. Not only that, but according to the dominion bureau of statistics when dealing with the cost of living index taxes are not considered, and I believe that about 30 per cent of the income of the Canadian people goes in taxes, so that this becomes a considerable item.

Let me quote a few comparisons taken from advertisements of food in the London Free Press of the week of October 16, 1941, and from the same type of advertisements in the same paper from the beginning of this year, and in most cases for the same retail food store advertisements as in 1941. These are some of the prices quoted in the London Free Press of October 16, 1941: prime beef brisket, pot roast, nineteen cents; since January 1, 1946 it has been twenty-three cents; shoulder roast, prime rib roast, twenty-five cents in 1941 and to-day, thirty-nine cents; porterhouse steak, thirty-three cents in 1941 and now forty-three cents; sausages, twenty-seven cents in 1941 and to-day, thirty-five cents.

In these quotations, I would point out that while the ceiling has been pierced as far as these finished products are concerned, the price of farm products the farmer sold has gone up but little in comparison. Hams were selling at that time at twenty-seven cents; to-day they are forty-four cents; veal at that time was twenty-four cents and since January 1, 1946, thirty-five cents in retail stores. With these prices going up in that way, without any increase as far as the farmer is concerned, the farmer is placed in a serious position. I thought I would take this opportunity of bringing these facts to the attention of the minister.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Full View Permalink

May 9, 1946

Mr. WHITE (Middlesex East):

Let me refer particularly to the agricultural policy in its relation to the wartime prices and trade board and, in particular, to Mr. Donald Gordon. Agriculture subsidies are an admission on the part of this government that prices were inadequate as of October 20, 1941, when price ceilings were fixed. A simple announcement at that time to the consumer public that if the world wanted to eat they would have to pay a fair price for the food they required, would have setled the matter right ijhen and done away with all agricultural subsidies. I think the government, as is its practice in many other matters, looked around to see what would be politically expedient and then framed its subsidy policy. The present government knows very well and its advertisements and proaganda have shown that it was attempting to channel off purchasing power in consumers' hands.

At the outbreak of war, and ever since, the government has taken the attitude of not taking the public into its confidence. It would sooner wait and see what political advantage could be gained. The very time it was instituting subsidies of all kinds to maintain these so-called price ceilings was a time when people were better able to buy food than ever before because practically everyone employable was working in industry. .

Let me at this time direct attention to the speech of the Minister of Agriculture in this house of April 15, and particularly at page 898 of Hansard, wherein he told how well off the farmers apparently were, and he stated that the mortgage indebtedness of farmers to some thirty mortgage companies was reduced by $102 million. I have not gone to the trouble

Supply-A gricul ture

of verifying the minister's statement, but many farmers in my constituency will take me to task for not having done so.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Full View Permalink

May 9, 1946

Mr. WHITE (Middlesex East):

It is in Hansard. Read it over again.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Full View Permalink

December 17, 1945

1. Was any land in the east part of the city of London, or in the riding of East Middlesex -acquired, bought or leased for the construction of Canadian Pacific Railway and -Canadian National Railway sidings, for the -purpose of storing of surplus or outdated w-a-r materials?

2. If so, what parcels of land -and from whom were they purchased?

3. What price was paid for each?

4. What was the total cost -to the government for land and construction?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   RAILWAY SIDINGS FOR STORAGE OF WAR MATERIALS
Full View Permalink

December 17, 1945

1. Did the federal government make contributions towards the construction costs of provincial projects for construction of forestry roads for any of the years 1936 to 1940 inclusive?

2. If so, what were the total contributions for each year in each province?

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   FORESTRY ROADS
Full View Permalink