[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 79, respecting a certain trade agreement between Canada and Hayti.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 80, respecting a certain trade agreement between Canada and Guatemala.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 81, to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, 1932.
Mr. STIRLING:: Explain.


Mr. DUNNING:: The object of this bill is to enable Canadian insurance companies to invest in equipment trust securities of Canadian railways, and also to include among the permitted investments certain securities of public authorities of the United Kingdom and of the dominions which are not now permitted under the Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NEW WESTMINSTER HARBOUR


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) moved for leave to introduce Bill No 82, to amend the New Westminster Harbour Commissioners Act.
He said: This bill provides for the inclusion in the New Westminster harbour of a small area of land situated between the present jurisdiction of the New Westminster har-
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills
[Stage Direction]
bour commissioners and the jurisdiction of the North Fraser commissioners, the land having reverted to the Department of Transport. This matter arises through a revision of the act concerning the North Fraser harbour commissioners made a few years ago. It is felt desirable that this particular area should be administered foy the New Westminster harbour commissioners.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 65, respecting Revillon Freres Trading Company, Limited, and to change its name to Rupert's Land Trading Company. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 66, respecting The Restigouche Log Driving and Boom Company.-Mr. Veniot.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Annie Elizabeth Climie Adams.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Margaret Alice Mizener.-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Frances Dorothy Scott Skinner.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Esther Rotman Resnick.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Dorothy Mac-Fie Salford Dale.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Alice Temple Jamieson Adair.-Mr. White.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Gladys Kathleen Crook O'Sullivan.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Geraldine Estelle Bamford- Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 76, for the relief of Charles Marie. -Mr. Ross (St. Paul's).
Bill No. 77, for the relief of Rosamond Cheriton Stoyle Macdonald.-Mr. Jacobs.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. M. TURNER (Springfield) moved the first reading of Bill No. 67 (from the senate) respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
Grote Stirling: Would the sponsor of this bill kindly explain?


Mr. TURNER:: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to allow the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to enter into a ten-year lease with the Winnipeg River Railway Company for the operation of its line which the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has been operating under agreement for the past three years.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	What opportunities are being offered to rural youth under the dominion-provincial youth training program?
2.	Which provinces have to date signified their intention of continuing the youth training program under the dominion-provincial arrangement of last year?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	The following courses are available to rural youth under the dominion-provincial youth training program:

Prince Edward Island-
Courses for young women in homecraft and cooking, home nursing, first aid, handicrafts.
Courses for young men in blacksmithing, carpentry, farm mechanics and general agricultural subjects, fishing (including simple accounting, curing, boning, packing and marketing of fish)-forestry (cultivation and care of woodlots), rural leadership courses at St. Francis Xavier University.
Nova Scotia-
Courses for young women in cooking, homecraft, handicrafts, home nursing, beekeeping, poultry, gardening.
Courses for young men in egg and poultry grading, farm mechanics, short agricultural courses in specialized subjects.
New Brunswick-
Courses for young women in homecraft and handicrafts.
Courses for young men in rural leadership at St. Francis Xavier University, courses in agriculture at Carleton county school and Fredericton Agricultural College, forestry training during summer of 1937.
Quebec

Courses for young women in homecraft, handicrafts and agricultural subjects in parishes.
Courses for young men in forestry training during winter-agricultural cooperatives and training for credit unions-two-week parish courses in agricultural subjects.
Ontario-
Courses for young women in catering (two-week courses) for tourists, rug weaving, dressmaking and sale of home-baked products.
Manitoba-
Courses for young women lasting six weeks to three months in agricultural subjects, home-

Questions
craft, handicrafts, dressmaking, physical education and citizenship with provision for recreation, dramatics, etc.
Courses for young men group taking six months course in agriculture at the the University of Manitoba.
Courses six weeks to three months in agricultural subjects with provision for recreation and social activities.
Saskatchewan-
Courses for young women lasting from one week to six weeks in agricultural subjects, homecraft, home nursing, handicrafts and dressmaking, recreation, etc.
Courses for young men lasting two weeks to two months in general and specialized agricultural subjects, farm mechanics and management, also attendance at short and long winter agricultural courses at the University of Saskatchewan directed by the extension department of the University of Saskatchewan.
Alberta-
Provision has been made for farmers' sons to attend the six months courses at the agricultural schools at Olds and Vermilion.
Courses for both young men and young women lasting two to four weeks with provision for separate class instruction and practical demonstrations in agricultural subjects, farm mechanics, farm management and accounting, poultry, etc. Homecraft and handicraft, citizenship and general cultural subjects. Provision for recreation, evening programs, debates, etc.
British Columbia-
One course in chick sexing.
The total number of young people participating in the courses enumerated above is approximately 10,000.
2.	The provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have signified their intention to continue the youth training program along the general lines of the present agreements. Ontario has definitely stated its intention to continue home service training, and is still giving consideration to the balance of the training items at present in operation.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-CALUMET POINT-OKA VILLAGE, REPORTED EXPROPRIATIONS
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Have Canadian National Railways expropriated certain pieces of land between Calumet point and Oka village with a view to extension in that district?
2.	If so, when were such expropriations effected ?
3.	From what point to what point, and what length?
4.	What was the cost of such expropriations?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	No.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.


SIGNAL CORPS EMPLOYEES, BARRIEFIELD, ONT.
Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: 1.	Are any or all of the following persons employees at the signal corps, Barriefield, viz.: C. Patterson, J. Tames (T. James), C. Woodruff, P. Duckett?
2.	Are they employees under the Department of National Defence or the civil service commission?
3.	If under the department, when were they appointed, and on whose recommendation?
4.	If under the civil service commission, was the position advertised?
5.	What is the monthly salary in each case?
6.	On what date were they appointed?
7.	What was their respective addresses at the time of appointment?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Under the civil service commission.
3.	See 2.
4.	Not yet advertised. Men were taken on under Section 39, Civil Service Act; commission was asked on February 25, 1938, to issue certificates.
5.	S75.
6.	February 14, 1938.
7.	C. Patterson, Sunbury, Ont.; T. James, 466 Victoria St., Kingston, Ont.; C. Woodruff, Sydenham, Ont.; P. Duckett, 164 Pine Street, Kingston, Ont.


Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: 1.	Are any or all of the following employees at the signal corps, Barriefield, under the Department of National Defence, viz.: C. A. Murphy, B. Ladouceur, James Norris, S. Hepburn ?
2.	What is the monthly salary in each case?
3.	On whose recommendation were they appointed ?
4.	What was their respective addresses at the time of appointment?
5.	On what date were the appointments made?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Yes.
2.	C. A. Murphy, B. Ladouceur, James Norris: $95; L. V. Hepburn, $85 and rations.
3.	District Officer Commanding, Military District No. 3, Kingston, Ont.
4.	C. A. Murphy, 90 Rideau St., Kingston, Ont.; B. Ladouceur, 507 Bagot St., Kingston, Ont.; James Norris, 3 Millers Lane, Kingston, Ont.; L. V. Hepburn, 88 King St., West Kingston, Ont.
5.	October, 1937.
Questions


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	Are W. Anderson, T. J. Lennon, B. Curran, W. J. Trenhaile, employees at the signal corps, Barriefield, under the Department of National Defence?
2.	If so, what are their respective monthly salaries?
3.	On whose recommendation was each appointed?
4.	What were their respective addresses at the time of appointment?
5.	On what date was each of these men appointed?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Yes.
2.	W. Anderson, $85 per month and rations; T. J. Lennon, $95 per month; B. Curran, $95 per month; W. J. Trenhaile, $95 per month.
3.	All recommended by District Officer Commanding, Military District No. 3, Kingston, Ont.
4.	W. Anderson, Transferred from Camp Borden with signals unit; T. J. Lennon, Portsmouth, Ont.; B. Curran, Cataraqui, Ont.; W. J. Trenhaile, Kingston, Ont.
5.	W. Anderson, Transferred October, 1937; T. J. Lennon, October 1, 1937; B. Curran, October 1, 1937; W. J. Trenhaile, October 1, 1937.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	Is William Burrows an employee at the signal corps, Barriefield?
2.	If so, is he an employee under the Department of National Defence or the civil service commission?
3.	If under the department, when was he appointed and on whose recommendation?
4.	If under the civil service commission, was the position advertised?
5.	What is his monthly salary?
6.	On what date was he appointed?
7.	What was his address at the time of his appointment?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Under civil service commission.
3.	See 2.
4.	Position not yet advertised. Engaged
under Section 39 Civil Service Act. Application to commission for certificate made on February 25, 1938.
5.	$75.
6.	February 14, 1938.
7.	116 Charles St., Kingston, Ont.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	Are R. Allen and Arthur Twigg employees at the signal corps, Barriefield?
2.	Are they employees under the Department of National Defence or the civil service commission ?
3.	If under the Department of National Defence, when were they appointed, and on whose recommendation ?
4.	If under the civil service, was the position advertised ?
5.	What are their respective monthly salaries?
6.	On what date were they appointed?
7.	What were their respective addresses at the time of appointment?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Civil service commission.
3.	See 2.
4.	Not yet advertised. Men engaged under Section 39, Civil Service Act, and application made to commission for certificates February 25, 1938.
5.	$75.
6.	February 14, 1938.
7.	R. Allen, 278 University St., Kingston, Ont.; A. Twigg, 192 Barrie St., Kingston, Ont.


CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND REVENUE
Mr. THOMPSON:: 1.	How many canals have been constructed by the federal government in Canada?
2.	What is the name of each of these canals?
3.	What was the cost of the construction of each of these canals?
4.	What is the cost of the annual upkeep of each of these canals?
5.	What revenue does the federal government derive from these canals?


Mr. HOWE:: Canal
Main-
Quebec canals head office Quebec dTedge vessels..
Lachine	
Lake St. Louis	
Soulanges-
Soulanges	
Beauhamois-old	
Beauharnois-new.. .. Lake St. Francis	
Construction cost to


S 13,988,600 16 298,176 11
[Stage Direction]
Cost of upkeep fiscal year 1936-37 S 33,109 45 34,744 39 329,181 36
Revenue received fiscal year 1936-37
[Stage Direction]
7,899,944 53	159,472 72	4,175 101,636,029 29	18,117 07	........	....	59,619 0775,906 71	....	....
Questions
Canal
Main-C oncluded Ontario-St. Lawrence-
Head office	
Cornwall	
Williamsburg	
Farrans Point	
Galops Canal	
Galops Channel	
Rapide Plat	
North Channel	
River Reaches	
Welland Canals	
Prior Welland Canals	
Sault Ste. Marie Canal	
Secondary-
St. Peter's	
Chambly	
St. Ours	
St. Anne's	
Carillon and Grenville	
Rideau, including Tay	
Trent	
Murray	
Miscellaneous works-
Hungry Bay Dyke	
Culbute Lock and Dam	
St. Lawrence Ship (sur. and inv.)
Chats Falls	
Canals General

Mr. BRUNELLE:: 1.	What was the total amount expended for dredging the St. Lawrence river, from its inception to date, as far west as Montreal?
2.	Of the total amount expended what proportion was for: (a) ship channel fleet, by purchase or construction:	(b) maintenance and operation; (c) repairs?
3.	What amounts of money have been expended by the government at the Sorel shipyard for the fiscal years 1933-34, 1934-35, 1935-36?
4.	What maximum number of men could be employed at the Sorel shipyard under government operation to give the greatest degree of efficiency ?
5.	What was the average number of men employed at the Sorel shipyard in the fiscal years 1933-34, 1934-35, 1935-36?
6.	In what physical condition was the ship channel fleet when it was sold?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	$71,352,903.14 (from 1851 to date).
2.	(a) 89.247.599.00 (records only cover 1900 to date).
		Revenue
Construction	Cost of upkeep	receivedcost to	fiscal year	fiscal yearMarch 31,1937	1936-37 $ 40,256 51	1936-37$7,245,803 21	127,442 02	$32,305 971,334,551 80 877,090 57 6,143,468 11 1,039,895 65 2,159.880 80 1,995,142 87	92,586 93	3,230 07483,830 20	131,943.735 22	747,820 00	208,691 2327,540,386 58	4,935,809 42	48,280 60	217 00648,547 14	10.250 63	169 29780,996 52	106,216 83	1,157 40735,964 04	9,875 88	60 001,320,215 63	14,118 42	241 004,191,756 51	111,036 70	1,566 604,703.810 22	238.323 47	10,374 8719,962.694 27	283.021 24	6,511 531,248,946 71	16,171 30	311 005,686 52	382,391 46 133,896 80	1 0034,966 69	1,329 36	3 00$243,742,437 22	$2,427,041 40	$515,727 01(b)	Ship channel fleet-$51,314,402.27 (inch cost of dredging, plant, shops, etc.); contract dredging, $20,038,500.87; total-$71,352,903.14 (since 1851).(c)	$7,039,274.38 (government fleet only, records covering from 1905 to date only).
This figure included in Ship channel fleet, Answer 2 (b).
3.	1933-34-$526,697.99; 1934-35-$575,931.46; 1935-36-$530,893.80.
4.	250.
5.	1933-34-415; 1934-35-365; 1935-36-434.
6.	The St. Lawrence ship channel dredging fleet was only twenty-five per cent efficient or serviceable, the balance being obsolete. Even the twenty-five per cent considered efficient or serviceable was reaching the limit of its usefulness in the class of work to be done.


MAPLE PRODUCTS
Mr. BLANCHETTE:: 1.	Which year has been the record year for production of maple products, and what was the amount of pounds and gallons produced?
Questions

2.	Which year has been the record year for the exportation of these products, and what was the quantity exported?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	The year 1929 has been the record year for production of maple products when 11,699,000 pounds of maple sugar and 2,174,000 gallons of maple syrup were produced.
2. The fiscal year ended March 31, 1930 was the record year for the exportation of maple sugar when 12,501,047 pounds were exported with a value of $2,395,863. The fiscal year ended March 31, 1936 was the record year for the exportation of maple syrup when 208,646 gallons were exported with a value of $219,363.


BRAMPTON, ONT., ARMOURIES
Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	What alterations, improvements and additions, if any, will be made this year with respect to the armouries at Brampton, Ontario?
2.	What is the total estimated cost of said work, and when will it commence?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1 and 2. The Department of National Defence have provided $250 to cover normal incidental repairs. An addition is under consideration.


RURAL MAIL DELIVERY
Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	When was the system of rural mail delivery inaugurated in Canada?
2.	What changes, if any, have been made in letting rural mail contracts since said inauguration?
3.	How many rural mail routes are there now in the dominion?
4.	What is the total annual contract price of said routes?
5.	What percentage of the present contracts were renewed on the last expiry date? What percentage were put up for tender?


Mr. EULER (for Mr. Elliott):: 1.	1908 (10th October).
2.	During early development of rural mail delivery the service was c.onfined to established mail stage routes, the contractors being paid 50 cents, 75 cents or $1.00 per box per annum in addition to the contract rate according to the frequency of the service.
When contracts for such services expired, new arrangements were made following the invitation of public tenders for service of all boxes erected on any rural mail route. This practice still maintains.
3.	4,540 on 31st December, 1937.
4.	$2,722,050.57 as on 31st December, 1937.
5.	(a) approximately 63.6%.
(b) approximately 36.4%.


YOUTH TRAINING-DOMINION-ONTARIO AGREEMENT
Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	Upon what date did the dominion-Ontario (youth training) agreement go into effect?
2.	How many unemployed young women have entered training for household work and specialized services under schedule "C" of said agreement since the said agreement went into effect?
3.	How many have finished their course of training?
4.	How many are still training?
5.	How many schools or training centres have been established for the above mentioned purposes, and where are they located?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	The agreement entered into with the province of Ontario with respect to youth training is effective from August 1st, 1937 to March 31st, 1938.
2.	Up to February 28th, 425 young women had entered training for household work.
3.	Up to February 28th, 144 had finished training and been placed in employment.
4.	188 were in training as at February 28th.
5.	Seven training centres have been established one at each of the following points:- Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton, Preston, St. Thomas, Windsor, Sarnia.


Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	Since the date of dominion-Ontario (youth training) agreement, how many unemployed young men have taken advantage of the courses of training in practical farming, as provided in schedule "D" of the said agreement?
2.	How many are at present with farmers under the provisions of the said agreement?
3.	How many of the said trainees have completed their course of training under the supervision of farmers in the county of Peel?
4.	How many of such trainees are still in training with Peel county farmers?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Up to February 28th, 115 young men have entered training in practical farming.
2.	93 were still with farmers in February.
3.	and 4. The reports received from the province do not give the information by counties.


FARM LOANS-MANITOBA
Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	In connection with tile Canadian Farm Loan Act in Manitoba, what is approximately: (a) the amount of the average first mortgage loan; (b) of second mortgage loans; (c) of legal fees per loan?
2.	How do legal fees per farm loan in Manitoba compare with those of other provinces?


Charles Avery Dunning: The following return is furnished by the Canadian farm loan board:
1. Based on the number and amount of loans granted down to March 31, 1937, the average amount of first mortgage loans is

Motions jor Papers
between $1,900 and $2,000 and the average amount of second mortgage loans is between $600 and $700.
Legal fees paid on each loan depend on the amount of the loan involved and also on the state of title and the difficulties involved in clearing title and perfecting the security for loan, these fees being payable in accordance with a scale of fees fixed by the board.
2. The tariff of legal fees payable in Manitoba also applies in the other prairie provinces. The tariff of legal fees payable under Torrens land titles registration systems, such as are operative in the prairie provinces, is lower than the tariff of fees payable under other systems of land registration where title searches present greater difficulties.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-FIGHTING PLANES AND ANTI-AIRCRAFT EQUIPMENT AND DEFENCES
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	What is the number of modern fighting planes equipped with the latest fighting equipment and with a cruising speed of 250 miles per hour or more in Canada?
2.	What anti-aircraft equipment of the latest type have we in Canada?
3.	What anti-aircraft equipment of the latest device is on order, if any?
4.	What steps are proposed to be taken, if any, to equip strategic points in Canada with anti-aircraft defences?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the third question asked, it is not in the public interest to answer it, but I shall be very glad to give the hon. gentleman the information privately.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	Were any new stations built by the Canadian National Railways since 1930?
2.	If so:	(a) in what localities; and (b)
what is the population of each of such localities?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. FAIR:: For a return showing-
1.	The total number of delegates to the coronation ceremony during the year 1937, whose expenses were paid by the government of Canada;
2.	The total amount of expenses paid by the government of Canada on account of the above delegation.


FARM LOANS-ALBERTA
Robert Fair: For a return showing-
1. Number of applications made to the farm loan board for loans in the province of Alberta during the years 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937;
2.	Total amount of such loans applied for during each of the above years;
3.	Total number of loans granted in Alberta during each of the above years;
4.	Total amount of such loans granted during each of the above years.


PURCHASE OF FEED AND FODDER FOR SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. PERLEY:: For a return showing, the names and addresses of persons or firms in Saskatchewan who were employed during 1937 in connection with the purchasing of feed and fodder for the province of Saskatchewan, in the province of Manitoba, or the state of Minnesota.


NATIONAL PARK IN ONTARIO
Mr. PERLEY (for Mr. Church):: For a copy of all letters, resolutions, telegrams, orders in council and other documents, dated during the years 1937 and 1938, exchanged between the government of Canada and any officer thereof, and the government of Ontario, or any officer thereof, or any other person or persons relating to the establishment of a national park in Ontario for the Muskoka, Georgian bay, lake Simcoe, and Trent canal district.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.


NEUDORF, SASK., POSTMASTERSHIP
Ernest Edward Perley: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, petitions, requests and other documents exchanged between any person or persons, organization or organizations, the Postmaster General, his deputy or any officials of his department, the district post office inspector or any officials in the inspectorate at Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, dated between the 1st of October, 1935, and the 31st of December, 1937, with respect to the dismissal of James C. Millar, postmaster at Neudorf, Saskatchewan, and the appointment of his successor.


CANADA AND GULF TERMINAL RAILWAY COMPANY
Mr. LAPOINTE (Matapedia-Matane):: For a copy of all telegrams, letters, resolutions and other documents exchanged since 1927 inclusive between the dominion government or any officer thereof and the Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway Company or any other interested person in connection with the purchase of such railway by the government.


DROUGHT AREA IN ALBERTA AND SASKATCHEWAN
Robert Fair: For a return showing-
1.	The acreage of the drought area in: (a) Alberta; (b) Saskatchewan;
2.	The population of the drought area in: (a) Alberta; (b) Saskatchewan;
3.	Number of acres under cultivation in the drought area of: (a) Alberta; (b) Saskatchewan ;
4.	The amount of the federal grant, per month since January 1, 1935, to the drought area in: (a) Alberta; (b) Saskatchewan;
5.	Total grant paid since January 1, 1935, to the drought area in: (a) Alberta; (b) Saskatchewan.
Easter Adjournment


Mr. GARDINER:: Before this motion is adopted I should just like to explain that, in so far as No. 4 is concerned, there is no "federal grant per month since January 1, 1935 to the drought area in (a) Alberta; (b) Saskatchewan." I assume what is referred to there is the grant in aid which applies to the whole province. The other information can be given.


NATURAL RESOURCES
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to confirm certain agreements between the government of the dominion and the governments of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, respectively, concerning the transfer to the said provinces of the interest of the crown, in the right of the dominion, in and to certain natural resources.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide assistance towards the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress, and for such payments out of moneys, appropriated by parliament as may be necessary for all or any of the purposes of the proposed legislation.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting political expenditures, and to make provision for the appointment and the salaries

or remuneration of certain officers and employees and the payment of certain expenses in connection with the administration of the said measure.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That when this house adjourns on Wednesday, 13th of April, it stand adjourned until Monday, 25th April, 1938 (daylight saving time).


Ernest Edward Perley: I desire to suggest to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that he change the motion to read " 8th of April " instead of " 13th of April." As a westerner, and I believe many other western members will agree, I think it would be advisable to have a few more days. The additional Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, Wednesday being the short day of the week, might facilitate the closing of business at an earlier date after Easter. I hope the Prime Minister will consider this proposed change.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (Winnipeg North):: I concur in what has been said by the previous speaker (Mr. Perley). If the house were to adjourn on the Friday previous to April 13 I do not believe it would prolong the session, and, by giving them practically an additional five days, it would give hon. members who live at a distance from Ottawa, whether east or west, an opportunity of visiting their homes or their constituents. If the present motion is adhered to and we adjourn on Wednesday, April 13, quite a number of members will be absent during those three days. Under these circumstances, and in view of the probability of the session being shorter than was at first expected, I support the change suggested by the hon, member for Qu'Appelle.


Mr. WILLIAM HAYHURST (Vegreville):: I concur in what has been said by the two previous speakers. Many western members will not be aJble to return on time if the motion is adopted in its present form, and they do not wish to miss any part of the session. If we adjourn, as has been suggested, on April 13, we shall be compelled to travel at a time when traffic will 'be very heavy, because the railroads are then at the peak of

Vancouver Relief
their passenger business. It would be much more convenient to travel immediately after the eighth.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I understand the suggestion of hon. gentlemen opposite, it is that the government so amend the motion as really to permit five extra days' absence from the capital but with a loss of only two and a half days of the time of the house.


Mr. BENNETT:: Quite, and one a short day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This would permit hon. members to have the benefit of a full fortnight's vacation. If that is the general wish of the house I shall be only too pleased to amend the motion to read:
That when this house adjourns on Friday, 8th of April, it stand adjourned until Monday, 25th April, 1938 (daylight saving time).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Before the orders of the day are proceeded with I wish to put a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) with reference to the relief situation in the city of Vancouver. Over the week-end I received a number of official letters from Vancouver drawing attention to this very serious situation, which has of course existed for a number of years and is aggravated now, I am told, by the new provincial-federal agreement which goes into effect on the first of May. I should like to have the permission of the house to read one or two short telegrams.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Angus MacInnis: From the acting mayor I received the following wire-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Walter Edward Foster: I would ask the hon. member to limit himself to putting his question.


Angus MacInnis: Your honour, it has been, I believe, a practice in this house to read telegrams even when they were not necessary to a question. I do not see why I should be denied a privilege that has been given to others. The relief problem-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has referred to the practice as he describes it, but
the rules are pretty definite on the subject of reading telegrams instead of asking direct questions. If we are getting away from the rules and adopting a practice that is unnecessarily taking up time, I believe that such a practice should be discontinued and the rules adhered to. Mr. Speaker has expressed the view that the question should be asked direct.
I hope the hon. member will follow the Speaker's ruling.


Angus MacInnis: The Prime Minister, I understand, is the custodian of the rules of this house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Angus MacInnis: He should enforce them when members of the government and hon. members on his own side of the house and prominent members of the Conservative group are concerned as well as when we in this corner are concerned.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Angus MacInnis: Will the Minister of Labour inform us what action, if any, the government is going to take in this matter?


An hon. MEMBER:: What matter?
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) was good enough to give me notice of his intention to ask this question this afternoon. I did receive a telegram from the acting mayor of Vancouver directing attention to the relief situation in that city and suggesting it was desirable that the government should come to its financial assistance. In reply to that telegram I advised the acting mayor of Vancouver that the dominion government pays a grant in aid direct to the province of British Columbia; it does not control and has never controlled the financial arrangements between the provincial government and its municipalities. I also advised the acting mayor that at the moment the dominion is carrying out to the letter its commitments, as contained in several formal agreements under the present relief legislation, entered into with the province after very careful study of the various problems confronting the province of British Columbia.
My hon. friend has asked me what we are prepared to do to meet the situation in that province. May I inform him of what we are doing at the present time in that connection. During the present fiscal year, which will end on March 31, the dominion government will have contributed to the province of British Columbia as a grant in respect to material aid, that is, for the
Unemployment Insurance

provision of the necessities of life-food, fuel, clothing and shelter-to those in need, the sum of $1,500,000. In addition to this the dominion government has, under the agreement of June 11, 1937, agreed to contribute fifty per cent of the cost of a program of provincial and municipal works to relieve unemployment, the dominion contribution amounting to approximately $522,000.
In addition, under the youth training agreement, the dominion government has agreed to contribute $100,000 to match a like sum to be expended by the province in carrying out training projects for unemployed young people, and under this plan, at the end of February, 8,580 youths were receiving assistance.
The farm improvement and employment plan in effect in the western provinces is not so well suited to the conditions in British Columbia as it is to other western provinces, and under this plan only 270 placements have been made. However, a supplementary plan of forest development and improvement works for transients has provided for a contribution from the federal government which will amount to an expenditure of approximately $500,000.
All these plans are covered by agreement between the federal government and the province, including the grant in respect to material aid; but it will be understood that the material aid agreement, while providing for a monthly payment to the province, does not and cannot provide as to the amount which the province shall transfer or allot to any particular municipality or district. This is, and must be, a matter to be decided by the provincial authorities, and it is for this reason that the mayor of Vancouver has been advised that the dominion government makes the grant directly to the province, but does not control financial arrangements between the provincial governments and the municipalities.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Abraham Albert Heaps: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government to proceed at this session with legislation dealing with the question of unemployment insurance?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend gave me an intimation of his intention to ask the

question he has just asked. I believe I can best answer it by outlining what thus far has been done in the present situation.
The proposal to the provinces that they agree to an -amendment to the British North America Act to enable parliament to enact unemployment insurance legislation, was made on November 5 last. As the house is already aware, six of the provinces, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, accepted the proposal at that time. The premiers of Alberta and New Brunswick, after some exchange of correspondence, indicated their intention to submit the proposed amendment to the provincial legislatures for their consideration. The premier of Quebec agreed as to the desirability of unemployment insurance, but suggested that it might be instituted by concurrent legislation.
On January 20, the draft of the proposed amendment was submitted to the provinces. Five of them, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, expressed approval of its terms. This communication has not been acknowledged by the premier of Ontario. Approval by the government of Ontario of the proposal to amend the British North America Act was, however, set forth in Mr. Hepburn's letter of November 25, in the following terms:
Following a cabinet council meeting of yesterday's date, I am pleased to inform you that the government of the province of Ontario is prepared to waive any constitutional objections and to give the fullest measure of cooperation and support to the proposed amendments to the British North America Act, empowering the federal government to enact unemployment insurance legislation.
The premier of Quebec has not, thus far, acknowledged the draft amendment. The premier of Alberta, in a letter dated March 15, stated that it was his intention to have the matter taken up before the Alberta legislature in the immediate future. The premier of New Brunswick has not yet acknowledged the communication of January 20, but the proposal was referred to in the speech from the throne delivered at the opening of the New Brunswick legislature on February 24, in the following terms:
Consistent with their conception of the constitution and the principles of responsible government, my ministers, without discussing the merits of the proposal, took the position that the question should be determined by the legislature and the federal government was so advised.
The speech from the throne at the opening of the present session of parliament contained the following statement:

Seed Grain
The cooperation of the provinces has been sought with a view to an amendment of the British North America Act, which would empower the parliament of Canada to enact forthwith a national scheme of unemployment insurance. My ministers hope the proposal may meet with early approval, in order that unemployment insurance legislation may be enacted during the present session of parliament.
In the circumstances, to which I have referred, the government do not feel it would be desirable to make a further statement before the remaining provinces have had an opportunity of indicating their views.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the Prime Minister would not object to a supplementary question: Does he conceive it necessary or desirable that all the provinces should agree before action is taken?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think this is the moment to answer that question. We had better wait and see what replies we get in the first instance.



SEED GRAIN


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 78, to assist the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan in financing the cost of seed and seeding operations for the crop year 1938.
Mr. E.	E. PERLEY	(Qu'Appelle):	Wehave now before us the bill in printed form, and while it deals in a general way with the dominion's guarantee and the terms of that guarantee to the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, I do not think that there is sufficient	information	in	detail	in the	billitself. I	desire now,	therefore,	to ask	for
some more information, and I propose to discuss the bill from three important angles.
In the	first place	I	should	like to	be
assured by the minister that provision will be made, either in the bill itself or in the regulations governing the distribution of seed, to see that every farmer has a reasonable amount of seed in order that he may seed a fair average number of acres under cultivation; in other words, that each farmer who has a summer fallow in a sufficiently good state of cultivation #to be seeded be provided with that seed. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) the other evening in discussing this matter, said that possibly some arrangement would be made with the banks or the mortgage companies
with a view to assisting the farmer, but I should like to have some definite provision made to make sure of that.
The second angle from which I propose to discuss the bill is the price to the farmer.
I think we should make sure that the price will not be unjust, that it will not be too high. This is necessary for the protection not only of the farmer but of the taxpayer if the guarantee ever has to be met.
In the third place, I think provision should be made to provide power to seed the crop in proper season.
With respect to the first point, judging by the regulations that have been issued to the municipalities by the Minister of Agriculture in Saskatchewan, I suggest that there will not be sufficient seed supplied to many of the farmers who have a section or two of land, and I trust that something 'will be done in that respect. I want to know how the minister arrives at the price of SI .40 to $1.45. In the regulation issued by the Department of Agriculture in Regina it is stated that the price to the farmer will be $1.45 or thereabouts. The Minister of Finance said on Friday that the price should be an average price.
While I am on my feet, I propose to ask a few questions. It is very unsatisfactory in asking questions to have other hon. members intervene before the minister has replied to them all, so that one does not get a consecutive series of questions and answers. I shall endeavour to put my questions so that the minister will know what information I am seeking.
I think we should know in what future the 6,964,000 bushels was held as at August 1, 1937, and the price of that option. We have here to-day at least three members of the cabinet who are members of an advisory committee to the wheat board representing the government. I hold in my hand a report issued by the Canadian Wheat Board, dated January 6, 1938. On page 1 of that report I find two paragraphs which I am going to read:
Our unsold wheat at 31st July, 1937, amounted to 6,964,000 bushels, represented by futures contracts, which in the ordinary course of business would have been disposed of prior to that date.
Towards the latter part of the crop season it was apparent that western Canada was again faced with a very small crop; in the province of Saskatchewan, particularly, conditions were disastrous and it was obvious that seed wheat would be required over a very large area. After consultation with the wheat committee of the cabinet it was considered expedient to retain the futures contracts referred to in order to exchange them for cash wheat suitable for seed requirements in that
Seed Grain
[Stage Direction]
province. By arrangement with the government of the province of Saskatchewan the wheat thus accumulated has been sold to them.
I might also mention that I have here order in council P.C. 3113, passed on December 15, which relates to this matter, and I desire to put it on the record. It is as follows:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report, dated 13th December, 1937, from the Minister of Trade and Commerce, stating that the Canadian wheat' board advise with regard to the question of converting wheat futures into actual wheat to be used for seed and feed relief in the province of Saskatchewan, that arrangements have been made by the Saskatchewan government for the purpose of this wheat, and that all charges in connection with the handling, such as premiums, storage, transportation and any additional charges will be paid by the Saskatchewan government.
The minister, therefore, recommends that the Canadian Wheat Board be authorized to exchange the long futures contracts that they have on hand as at July 31, 1937, namely 6,964,000 bushels, for actual wheat to be used for seed and feed purposes in the province of Saskatchewan in connection with the sowing of the 1938 crop.
The committee concur in the foregoing recommendation and submit the same for approval.
That order in council is the first authority that was issued to the board to convert the options. The spread or premium on the cash wheat between the option and the cash, from August 31 to December 15 when that order in council was passed, widened from 6 to 27 cents. I think we should know why this premium widened on wheat in the interior elevators. Possibly the grain trade had some idea of the conversion that was likely to take place in December and prepared to make another little rake-off from the board. There was no special export demand to warrant a premium at that time, as I shall show from figures I have from the bureau of statistics. And wheat in the interior elevators was not in a position to command a premium. The Minister of Finance is an expert grain man. Before he entered political life he had very wide experience in managing one of the most successful grain organizations in western Canada, and he made a success of it. He knows that wheat in the interior of the western provinces does not command a premium as it might if it were at the terminals, where it would be available for immediate shipment in case an exporter were short on a cargo. If an exporter has chartered a vessel to ship grain and is a little short of a certain grade, wheat of that grade in another elevator would be at a premium to enable him to finish the cargo. But I ask the minister to explain why wheat in the elevators in the interior commanded the premium that it did over the option.

In dealing with the price the minister said he thought the average price from July 31 until the operations were concluded, or the day the provincial government took over the wheat, should prevail. I do not agree to that. I admit that you have to have some basis on which to start figuring your price, but I cannot agree that the price should be the cash price averaged between those dates.
Charles Avery Dunning: I did not say the cash price.


Ernest Edward Perley: Well, the minister said the average price from July 31 to the time the government of Saskatchewan takes it over.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will permit, there were two questions discussed. One was the average base price, and the other the premium.


Ernest Edward Perley: Does the minister agree that there should not be a premium?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not qualified to say that. I do not know how you would get the wheat without it.


Ernest Edward Perley: I want to try to figure what I think the price of this wheat should be to the farmer. First, to the price of the option taken from the board as of December, 1935, when the new board took over, add the storage charged from the date the wheat was taken over by the province of Saskatchewan, or even by the board from the date of their conversion. That would be the storage on the grain as it was taken over following that conversion. Add to that the transportation, that is the cost of moving it from point to point within the province, and the cost of distribution. I consider that the most we could allow for storage would be say five cents. The storage rate at the terminals is one cent a month. For five months that would be five cents, which should be sufficient. While I am trying to figure out how I arrive at what the price should be, I should like to have the attention of the two ministers. I am allowing five cents for storage and ten cents for transportation from one point to another within the province. Then I am allowing three cents for the distribution costs, which I think should be ample. That is a total of eighteen cents. Then I consider that the price of the option as taken over by the new board would not be more than 90 cents, at the very most; I think it would be a little under that. That would give a figure of $1.08, or at the most $1.10, at which the wheat should be charged to the farmer.
The minister may be able to give some other explanation, but I am going to suggest to the house what I think would be the procedure in

Seed Grain
converting that wheat. The board would notify the clearing house that they were long in options, nearly 7,000,000 bushels of wheat, and that they desired to convert those options into cash wheat within the provinces. In other words they would notify the clearing house that they desired to take delivery of that wheat. Then it would be up to the clearing house to get that wheat, not necessarily within the provinces, but the clearing house certainly would have to get it at the point of delivery, which is at the terminal.


Charles Avery Dunning: Tort William.


Ernest Edward Perley: Yes, Fort William. Then the wheat board, having taken over the wheat on the option at Fort William, could sell it there and buy wheat in the interior, or they could make an exchange. The minister smiles a little; perhaps he will be able to explain this away. I know he is an expert in the grain business, but the board will have wheat at the terminals, because that is the only place where- the board can call the options. I think the minister will agree with that. Having it there the board could either sell the wheat and buy cash wheat in the interior or make exchange arrangements with the elevator people. Therefore I claim that the wheat would cost the board exactly what the option cost. Of course the extra storage and transportation charges would have to be added, but I am dealing with the original cost.
The minister may say there were switching operations, and things of that sort. I have before me the report of the wheat board dated January 6, 1938, and I want to refer to page 3 in connection with the switching operations. This is what I find:
The expenses of the board during the year, covering all administration and operating expense together with storage on wheat carried, amounted to $330,567.69. This was, however, more than offset by revenue accruing from the switching of nearby future contracts into contracts for deferred months. This revenue, together with interest earned on funds on hand, amounted to $424,487.42, thus leaving a credit balance of $93,919.73 after meeting all the board's operating expenses in Canada.
According to this statement the board made money in their switching operations, and in that connection I take it that this dates back to December of 1935. They say they earned also some interest on funds which they deposited, no doubt with the banks.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Two million dollars was deposited with the dominion government.


Ernest Edward Perley: I may point out also that they had no charge for margins; that is, no interest could be charged in connection with money on deposit with the clearing house,
since I have it on authority from the directors that the government was not asked to carry any margins on its account.
I wish to quote further from the evidence taken by the special committee, in order to show that the position of the wheat board was not affected by their switching operations, in order to indicate that the price at which we should figure this wheat is the original price of the option. I have before me the printed copy of the evidence taken before the special committee on the marketing of wheat and other grains, in 1936. At page 60 of this evidence we have a statement by Mr. Murray, in reply to questions put to him by myself, with respect to these switching operations:
By Mr. Perley:
Q. Do you not think it weakens your position when you go into the October?
That is, switching from the July to the October.
That is, the new crop month. Switches are made into July and then July into October.- A. No.
Q. They would have the new crop to deliver on those old contracts?-A. It does not weaken our position.
Further down I find this:
Q. But it is cleaning up your May and cleaning up your July, to get it into the October?-A. It does not weaken our position in any way. The only thing that would weaken our position, being placed as we are with the responsibility of selling wheat, would be to exchange one option for an option that was not so readily saleable.
So there is a statement by Mr. Murray that their position was not weakened, and I could read further from the next page, where he states what a corner he could have manipulated had he so desired, and then he would have been able to call the shorts and make them dance a nice tune. The point I desire to make is that in changing the options from one month to another right through from 1935 the position of the board has not been changed, and the price that should be attached to that wheat is whatever the option stood them when they took over in 1935, which is a little less than 90 cents.
I should like the minister to tell us who is making the difference in this spread, which widened from 6 to 27 cents between August 31 and December 15. I should like also to know the number of bushels converted each month. I think .this would be important, because then we could arrive at the storage fees that should be charged. If it was all converted during December or January it would make a considerable difference in the storage charges. Also I think we should know the position the wheat was in when the pro-
Seed Grain

vincial government took it over; that is, the position in the interior of these provinces. Then we could figure what the transportation costs might be. I think we should know also when the provincial governments assumed the whole responsibility. The wheat is going out now. If we should happen to hold up this measure for a day or two I do not think it would make any particular difference, because the wheat is going out. I have here a report in a newspaper which came to hand to-day, which says:
Seed wheat is being shipped. Movement of seed wheat and supplies is already under way to the first of 1,120 points in Saskatchewan, according to Hon. J. G. Taggart, provincial minister of agriculture. Of this number between 900 and 1,000 will receive wheat deliveries. The Canada grain board has already authorized the movement of 6,500,000 bushels of grain. All the wheat is 1937 wheat from prairie points.
So the wheat was grown in 1937 in the three prairie provinces. I say the wheat is going forward now, so if this measure is held up for a day or two it will not make very much difference, and I think the public are entitled to some of the information for which we are asking. At page 1695 of Hansard the Minister of Agriculture stated:
Yes, Mr. Chairman. As the Minister of Finance has just said, this matter has been under discussion for the last six months. In the first place it is necessary to secure sufficient quantities of the different types of grain to be used for seeding purposes. That is the first job to be done.
He said further:
But I must say that in both Saskatchewan and Alberta agreement was reached between this government and the two provincial governments as to the amount of guarantee required in each province.
That shows that it had been under consideration for a number of months. I think we should have the figures with respect to the acreage to be seeded and the amount of seed required. I should like to know how the amount of the guarantee was arrived at. How was the price per bushel arrived at? How did the government arrive at these figures without knowing the number of acres in each province to be seeded? There was a question on the order paper to-day with reference to the acreage under cultivation in the area requiring seeding. I think we should have this information, as well as the requirements for the purposes of sowing oats, wheat, barley, rye and flax.
I do not think the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Agriculture can expect the house to approve this bill in a short space of time without it having this information before

it. In connection with the amount of wheat in Saskatchewan, the minister made this statement, to be found on page 1702 of Hansard, in reply to a question by myself:
Between now and the time when the bill is down for second reading and in committee, every endeavour will be made to arrive definitely at a conclusion. The matter is a very difficult and complex one. My hon. friend in his last few sentences asks how much wheat the wheat board was holding on this account in Saskatchewan as of March 15. He knows they were able to acquire mighty little of this wheat in Saskatchewan. If they had any in that province at that time it would be because, having been acquired, this wheat in the process of physical movement had been moved that much nearer to its ultimate destination.
I have before me figures taken from the weekly reports of the grain commission in Winnipeg showing the amount of wheat on hand in the interior elevators, in the private elevators, in the mills and in the terminal elevators of the three provinces. For the week ending August 6, 1937, the total wheat In store was 7,284,211 bushels.


Charles Avery Dunning: Is that in the whole area?


Ernest Edward Perley: Yes, in the whole area. I have the reports from that date up to the present time, but I shall give figures here and there to show the gradual accumulation. On August 27 the wheat in store had increased to 13,130,424 bushels; on September 10 it had increased to 20,129,994 bushels; on September 24, 27,769,112 bushels; on October 29, 25,699,035 bushels; November 12, 25,362,606 bushels; December 31, 21,269,598 bushels and January 21, 21,947,559 bushels.' From that date up to the last for which I have the figures, March 18, the wheat in store is in the neighbourhood of 21,000,000 bushels.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is in country and interior public terminals?


Ernest Edward Perley: That is in country elevators and private interior elevators.


Charles Avery Dunning: And mill terminals.


Ernest Edward Perley: And interior government terminals. I can give this information by provinces if the minister so desires. Not quite half of that is in Saskatchewan; most of it is in Alberta, and a little in Manitoba.


Charles Avery Dunning: Have you the grades?


Ernest Edward Perley: No, I have not. I have the amount of durum and the remainder is just northern wheats. There is a considerable amount of durum. It is interesting to note that since August 1 there has been a considerable amount of grain in store in these provinces, that is wheat grown in 1937. The minister asked if I had the grades, but I

Seed Grain
think he will agree with me when I say that a dry season such as we had last year, when there was no frost in the fall, tends to create high grades of wheat, generally speaking. If you follow these reports you will see that in the months of September, October and November there was considerable wheat shipped out of Saskatchewan, but then the elevators seem to have got up again to the previous average.
The Minister of Finance knows from his own experience that as soon as the heaviest runs of wheat are delivered to the interior elevators the elevator companies try to fill their elevators to carry the wheat over for the winter months. They like to store the wheat up to about May in order to get the carrying charges. This practice may account for some wheat being in that position. There is plenty of wheat in Saskatchewan to satisfy the requirements. I am concerned in the government seeing to it that the government of Saskatchewan guarantees or assists the municipalities in the providing of power to get the crops in at the proper time. The Minister of Agriculture is reported on page 1696 of Hansard as follows:
The other question raised, with regard to provision for live stock or for power in order to put in the crop, is not an immediate concern of this government.
That statement should not have been forthcoming from the minister. I think it should be the immediate concern of this government to see that there is sufficient power with which to put in a crop. A further statement by the minister, to be found on the same page of Hansard, is as follows:
The question whether or not horses have come back in poor shape is not one with which I can deal, other than to say that in all the cheeks I have been able to make-and I have been over quite a part of the area during the last few weeks-I have not found that great numbers of horses have died; I have not found that they are any poorer than they usually are after going through a year of this kind, in any part of the dominion. It is perfectly true that if you put a number of horses, cattle, or any other live stock into a boxcar and carry them three or four hundred miles probably you will have to take one of them home on a stone-boat, as the result of what they do to one another during the journey. You may even have to take one out that is not worth hauling home, but these stories are very much enlarged upon, and the checks we have been able to make indicate that the death rate among live stock this year is not materially greater than in any average year in western Canada.
I take exception to that statement, because I think the mortality among the horses has been considerably greater. While the minister may have had experts checking it, as he states, I think the authorities which I have
are just as reliable as some of his checkers.
I have received numerous letters from councillors of different municipalities and from reeves and reliable farmers. I know my own district pretty thoroughly; within a radius of forty or fifty miles of my own district we have lost at least thirty per cent of the horses this winter, and I think that is the average for the southern part of the province. Certainly fifty per cent of the horses that were there last fall are not ready to go to work. In any paper you pick up you will find some report to that effect. Here, for instance, is a snapshot of some horses that are described as typical examples of horses returning to Saskatchewan farms from the winter pasturage at Carberry. The minister can see the paper in the reading room. These horses are part of a carload that was brought back, and certainly they are in no condition to work within the next six weeks or two months. It would take a good many bushels of oats to put them to work, and the story in this paper is not very complimentary to the government.
I also read in to-day's papers coming forward from Saskatchewan that the Royal Humane Society in Moose Jaw and Regina are both of the opinion that some action should be taken to enforce the act with respect to cruelty to animals. Here is one dispatch:
Regina members of the Royal Humane Society and the Saskatchewan society for the prevention of cruelty to animals will approach the government to determine the exact condition of horses returned to southern Saskatchewan from government-sponsored pasturage.
It goes on to say that the Moose Jaw branch of the society is taking similar action.


James Garfield Gardiner: I wonder if the hon. member would mind telling me who shipped those horses, to what point they were shipped, and where they came from?


Ernest Edward Perley: I happen to know of four carloads that were shipped from Wolseley, under government instructions. The farmers were told by the inspectors that they could not keep them at home because feed would be supplied for only so many horses and four cows to each farmer, and the farmers not having the feed the inspectors told them they could ship them to the feeding ground. Two carloads have returned, and I have a letter here from my neighbour, the reeve of the municipality, stating that some of the horses had to be lifted out of the car and were taken to a nearby barn and had to remain there several days before they could be taken home. I know the facts in the matter. These men shipped out their horses last fall because they could not feed them. The inspector,
Seed Grain

Mr. Biden, told them they had to get rid of their horses and ship them, under the regulations, to the pasturage.


James Garfield Gardiner: Were these particular horses at the Carberry pasturage or at some other pasturage?


Ernest Edward Perley: Yes, they were at the Car-berry pasturage.


James Garfield Gardiner: All of them?


Ernest Edward Perley: It distinctly says in the report that they were at the Carberry pasturage. I could cite other cases, but what I want to say is this, that the minister should be concerned about this matter and should see to it that the municipalities and the provincial government have sufficient assistance provided so that farmers will have power of some kind to put in the crop. I was concerned about this even before I left home, and I brought the matter to the attention of both the provincial and the federal governments. Speaking here in the debate on the address I made it very plain that the situation was serious. During that debate the minister replied that he was not so much concerned about having the feed in the province during the early winter months of December and January as he was about having it there in March at the proper time before seeding operations began. But I think he will agree that if the horses are arriving home from Manitoba from the pasturage in the condition this article indicates, it will certainly need more than government regulations as now provided to get these horses into condition for seeding operations.
As I stated a while ago, the distribution of the grain is going on, and it is done with the approval of the cabinet and of the inspector. I think that a little too much power is given to the inspector; the municipality is the one body that in my opinion should be given more say than the government inspector with respect to the amount of seed that the farmers will require. Who is a better judge of the calibre of the farmer and of the condition of his farm than the reeve and the councillors of the municipality? I think they should have a greater say in the matter than they have at present. I know cases where the inspector has refused applications that have been approved by the municipality.
This bill is brought down at a late date, and while I appreciate that we should not hold it up too long, it is important that we should have the information we require. As I have said, the wheat is being distributed, and I am anxious with respect to the supply,

and the price and the power. The farmers have suffered a very severe loss due to the condition in which their horses are returning from the pasturage, and I say they have a right to be compensated in some way or other. It is the duty of this government to see that the provincial authorities who insisted last fall on the horses being shipped out under the regulations, should give some compensation to the farmers whose horses have been returned in such poor condition. Certainly the farmers should have tractor power to put their crop in, if it is at all possible. I trust that the minister will answer my questions and give us this information, which is due not only to the house but to the public generally.


Mr. G. T. PURDY (Colchester-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, it is a rather long way from Nova Scotia to the west, but I should like to say a few words on this bill.
This bill is for the direct benefit of a portion only of this great country, and while on general principles I am opposed to federal legislation that is not applicable to Canada as a whole, I agree that in view of the situation facing us in the west some such legislation as this is necessary. On general principles I am also opposed to federal guarantees, on the ground that if a condition is of sufficient importance or seriousness to warrant financial assistance, the government should advance the money at once instead of adopting the more expensive method now proposed to the house. It is only too well known that for some reason securities carrying a government guarantee are usually quoted at a lower rate than similar direct obligations of the government, thus making the money more expensive. In the present instance, however, realizing that- the chartered banks have the necessary machinery for handling the business which is lacking by the government, I wish to congratulate the government on this provision of the bill, particularly when it seems to be almost a foregone conclusion that when the federal government makes an advance in the district with which we are now dealing the money is lost to the federal treasury.
I do, however, question the rate of interest and would suggest to the government that they consider increasing it to something nearer the rate which private business has to pay, say 5 to 51 per cent, with the provision lhat on any advance which the federal treasury has to make good the rate will be reduced to 21 or 3 per cent. This would be a greater incentive to the banks to collect and would lighten the drain on the treasury.
Having discussed a few features of the bill from the federal standpoint, may I be per-

Seed Grain
mitted to discuss it for a few moments from a maritime province view? In this connection I cannot too strongly urge on the government favourable consideration of the very reasonable request of the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean), made in this house on Friday last, with regard to seed grain for maritime farmers. I do not propose to approach this subject from the angle of the beam trawlers, nor yet from the angle of the dumping duty on sugar, but I do propose to discuss it from the viewpoint of 25,000 to 30.000 people in my constituency, who are, in whole or part, dependent on agriculture for their livelihood, and from the viewpoint of the half million people of the maritime provinces who are in the same category. A hardworking and industrious body of people, loyal to the British Empire, loyal to Canada and loyal to the little provinces down by the sea, they believe in thrift and do not make a practice of parading their ills before successive governments at Ottawa. To my mind they are the backbone not only of the maritime provinces but also of the dominion. I do not need to point out to this house the number of leaders in all walks of life in Canada and in the United States whose background is a farm in one of the maritime provinces.
These people are generous to a fault; a very large proportion of the contributions to the west last fall, already referred to by the hon. member for Prince, came from them. They are proud of being a part of Canada; for this reason they approach problems from a national standpoint, with, I think, the result that they have not in the past received the same consideration as their more vocal and, in my opinion, less deserving cousins in other parts of Canada. They do claim, however, that legislation should apply equally to them as to other parts of Canada, and for that reason they fail to see the justice of such imposts as the duty on corn, of which they buy a considerable quantity in their mixed farming operations. This duty is apparently only for the benefit of a small section of our country, already highly subsidized by tariffs on manufactured goods. The result of this duty has a direct bearing on the price of all feed, thus causing our maritime people to pay a further toll to the grain producers of the west, already heavily assisted by the government. I trust that the government will see to it that this and similar duties are removed or else duties imposed on such items as vegetable oils; because it is most unfair that they should be required to pay heavy duties on goods that enter into their production and be subject to open competition on the goods they produce. Here I should like to say it is to the undying credit of the 51952-111
present government that their trade policies have been quite beneficial to the farmers of the maritime provinces.
The west is not the only part of Canada where droughts occur. In 1934 the hay crop in Nova Scotia was almost a complete failure. There was no suggestion that the federal government pay for the hay and feed. That year hay cost our farmers 811 to $12 a ton in Quebec and Ontario, f.o.b. cars. The local government made arrangements for the farmers to obtain a reduction of two-t'hirds of the freight, leaving a net cost to our people of $14 to $15 per ton. If, however, our farmers did not have the money or could not get credit to buy the hay, they had to shoot their stock or dispose of it in some other way at a very low price. The result was disastrous to many of our people. Again, in 1937, our farmers in many sections had a complete failure in grain and root crops. We did hav'' however, an abundant hay crop and this, added to a heavy carry-over from the previous year, gave us a large surplus for which there is no market. In fact there was a good deal of hay not harvested last year, and if we get a reasonable crop this year much of it will be left standing. We therefore now have this situation: in the maritimes a surplus of hay and a lack of seed grain and other mill feeds; in the west a lack of hay with seed grain and other mill feeds available for the maritimes if they pay for them. The government were aware of this situation last summer and also aware of the fact that the maritimes purchase large quantities of feed from the west at all times, and they should have, in the interests of the farmers of the maritime provinces, arranged for a sufficient reduction in the freight rates to enable the governments of the western provinces to purchase at least a portion of their hay requirements from the maritime provinces.
Since we are not allowed to load coal in grain cars, most of these must go back empty, and I submit that the railways, or at least the Canadian National, could have reduced rates on hay by two-thirds and still have done better financially than hauling back empty cars. Further, from the viewpoint and in the interest of the Canadian taxpayer it would have been far better business to handle the hay situation in this way and make work for Canadian railways, mines and farmers than to buy in Minnesota and send the Canadian taxpayers' money to the United States. I feel that in the interests of a united Canada this should have been done even at the cost of an increased outlay on the part of the government.

Seed Grain

I suppose that the hay requirements for the year are nearly filled, but I would strongly urge on the government the advisability of helping the maritime situation as far as possible, if only to the extent of having seed and feed grain cars for the next month loaded with hay for the return trip. I trust that it is not too late for some adjustment, but prompt action will be necessary, for it is now towards the end of March.
The sap is flowing from the maple trees on the Nova Scotia hills, and whether they obtain assistance or not, the maritime provinces will still carry on. If our farmers have not been able to obtain work during the winter to pay for their feed and seed grain they will sell some of their stock and the feed and seed from the west will continue to be paid for in hard cash. However, we are proud that the credit of our provinces continues to stand high and that a dollar is still a dollar and something that must be worked for and not obtained for the asking; that a debt is something to be paid.
Heading further west: when it is spring time in the Rockies and the cattle are on the ranges, as the federal treasury is standing the strain, all will be well on the western plain.


Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Before the bill goes to the committee I wish to make one or two remarks. The other day, when this bill was in the resolution stage, I asked both the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) some questions. I should like to see the answers to those questions a little more fully developed as we go into committee on the bill. I asked first of all if the government considered that the amount of $14,500,000 was sufficient to guarantee seed to the farmers in the drought area. The Minister of Agriculture answered to the effect that we had had the same discussion last year; that everybody seemed satisfied with the amount that had been voted, and that there had been no complaints. I think that is true, but it is also true that there was no crop, and that by the third week of June it was quite apparent we were not going to have any crop.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Oh, no.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: At least in my part of the country it was apparent, and for that reason there were no complaints. Had there been a crop, and had farmers seen wheat going to the elevators for a good price at a time when they were not able to harvest very much, there would have been a great many complaints. Merely to say that there were no complaints last year hardly answers the question whether we are providing enough

money to supply sufficient seed to enable these people to sow at least an average crop this year.
As I said the other day, the basis on which we are distributing the seed is not fair to the man who is farming on a large scale. Last year the provincial government had what I regard as an excellent arrangement, and I wish that at this late date the government would consider following something of that sort rather than the plan outlined by the minister the other day. According to the forms sent out by the provincial government on January 28, 1937, if a man had a total of 160 acres ready for cultivation he received seed for three-quarters, or 120 acres; from 160 to 300 acres it was two-thirds, or 200 acres; from 300 to 400 it was three-fifths, or 240 acres; and over 400 acres there was a maximum of 300 acres. On seeding rates the basis was as follows: wheat, one to one and a quarter bushels per acre; oats, one and three-quarter bushels; barley, one and a half bushels; flax, half a bushel. The estimated amount of fuel was to be one and a half gallons of distillate per acre; six gallons of gasoline per hundred gallons of distillate; lubricating oil, four gallons per hundred gallons of distillate, and so on.
That was a much fairer basis on which to work out the distribution. According to the plan now proposed, the man who anticipates putting in 200 or 250 acres will get seed for 100 per cent of the land he has prepared, and the man with a large farm, let us say 1,000 acres, and there are many such, will get 250.


An hon. MEMBER:: One of the big shots.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They are not such big shots; some of them have come down in the depression. We have never asked for discrimination against any class, big or small, but under the plan now proposed the man who has prepared 1,000 acres will get only enough for twenty-five per cent of his land.


Charles Avery Dunning: From this source.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: From this
source, yes. And the man in the drought areas has no other source. But I would point out that even out of this amount, it is possible, if the reports from Saskatchewan be true, that fuel repairs and probably feed to put in the crop will have to be taken. All this may be deducted from the 250 acre allotment, and if that is true that will reduce the amount by fifty acres more. Last year, on the basis worked out by the provincial government and submitted to the municipalities, fuel, repairs and feed were provided for over and above the seed grain that was to be allotted. I suggest that we should have a more satis-

Seed Grain
factory statement as to what the government considers would ensure a sufficiently large amount to meet the situation, and as to whether they consider the proposed plan the best basis of distribution. Here you have farmers who have gone on year after year facing what is little better than bankruptcy, and now in certain areas they have the first chance in many years to enjoy the unusual-combination of a good crop and a good price; yet no steps are being taken to profit by that situation and enable the farmers to recoup their past losses.
I have heard some hon. gentlemen opposite speak with great vehemence against compulsory reduction of crop acreage. Well, if we insist upon a maximum of 250 acres, irrespective of the extent of land prepared for seed, we shall have compulsory crop reduction and no mistake about it.
I submit that we ought to have some more information with reference to price. I was surprised the other day when the Minister of Finance said that the price would be between $1.40 and $1.45 a bushel. In my opinion, that is exorbitant to say the least. Much of that wheat was shipped out of the very districts into which it is going to be shipped this spring. I saw grain being shipped late in June and early in July last year from Creelman, Fillmore and other centres, and into these same districts wheat will have to be brought back for seed and the farmer will be asked to pay the freight both ways. It is a very unsatisfactory arrangement in view of the fact that we have known for a long time that seed would be required. Seeing that we have a wheat board it seems to me not inconceivable that we might have entered into an arrangement whereby the government would have been willing to work on a bushel for bushel basis, so that the farmer would sign, not for any specific amount of money but for the delivery of a number of bushels. He would have been able to deliver a bushel back for every bushel he had received and if there were handling charges in addition they could have been paid in cash. That would be a fairer basis, in my opinion. As it is, the farmer sold his wheat at a low price and now he gets it at a high price; and when he is ready to sell again the price will probably be low once more. I do not think it would be unfair to put the distribution on a bushel for bushel basis.


Mr. GOLDING:: Have these farmers sold wheat without keeping any seed?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am referring to the farming community as a whole and not to individuals. Wheat will be coming back, not 51952-11 li
necessarily to the same farmer who sold it, though the wheat that is now being brought back to farmers in the district is wheat that was sold by other farmers there.


Malcolm McLean: Was it the Creel-man farmers who shipped wheat in June last year?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They did not ship in June last. The wheat was ordered to be held at the elevator.


Malcolm McLean: It must have been bought from the farmers there.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, two years ago. Most of that wheat was bought there in 1935-36.


Mr. EVANS:: Did those farmers get seed in 1937 when they grew a crop in 1936?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Quite a bit of that wheat was sold in 1935 and some of it was rusted..
With reference to distribution -there are still some unsatisfactory aspects that should be looked into. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), describing the method of distribution, made this statement on Friday last as reported at page 1704 of Hansard:
. . .	(a) the committee of the cabinet and
the inspector for the district determine the amount of seed grain and supplies that a municipality may advance; that is, the cabinet in Regina decides the amount that each municipality can advance within the municipality.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the total.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, the total amount that will be distributed; but what each farmer will get will depend upon the total. That seems to me a lot of power to put into the hands of an inspector and the committee of the cabinet. We might as well be realistic; within the next three months we are going to face a provincial election in Saskatchewan. We are now giving to such a cabinet the dispensing of $14,500,000 worth of seed with a federal guarantee behind it. I for one have no wish to see the distribution of that seed become a political football in Saskatchewan.


James Garfield Gardiner: Is the hon. member suggesting that the Liberal party, which happens to form the government of Saskatchewan at the present time, would give too little seed, or too much seed? Which is he suggesting?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Too little to some; too much to others.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am suggesting that in view of an election being near at hand the distribution ought to be on a uniform and equal basis.
Seed Grain


Charles Avery Dunning: But the distribution, is done by the councils.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is also done to municipalities by the cabinet.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, you said the total. Don't switch it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not switching, if the minister will wait a moment. He has been in the cabinet so long that he keeps looking for things that are not there. The cabinet and the inspector will have the power to decide what the lump sum shall be to each municipality. There are bound to be municipalities which are persona grata to a government and others that are not. There are districts which are favourably inclined politically and districts which are unfavourably inclined politically. I am not suggesting-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -knowing the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) as I do, that they are going to refuse to a certain municipality enough seed or give another too much. But I point out that we as a federal parliament, divorced as of course we are from these party considerations-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm McLean: Which party? I wonder if the same thing would be true about some municipal councils?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I leave it to the hon. member to figure out the municipal councils. As a federal parliament, guaranteeing a large sum of money, there ought to be reasonable assurance that in the distribution of this seed and of feed and supplies there will be no discrimination. And giving the distribution to a committee in company with an inspector, with no clearly defined statement of how much money is to be spent in any one place, provides no such assurance. We have the statement of the minister himself (Mr. Gardiner) on Friday last, as reported on page 1704 of Hansard:
On farms of 320 acres or less of cultivated land not more than sixty per cent.
On farms over 320 acres of cultivated land, fifty per cent thereof may be sown up to a maximum of 250 acres.
There is no statement of how much per acre, no statement of how much repairs on the basis of acreage, no statement of the amount of fuel on the basis of acreage, or of feed. You give to a small group of men the distribution of $14,500,000 worth of seed without sufficient safeguard that such distribution shall not be influenced by partisan considerations.


Charles Avery Dunning: What safeguard does my hon. friend suggest? Let us have something practical.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I gave it. A short time ago I outlined a sliding scale of percentages of a man's cultivated land.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Regardless of the condition it is in?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I said cultivated land, land ready to crop.


John Gordon Ross: That is not cultivated land as spoken of here.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I read just now the schedule suggested by the Saskatchewan government itself last year, which was not finally accepted, indicating the percentage of a man's land, ready for crop, that should be seeded, the amount he should get per acre.


John Gordon Ross: But that is not cultivated land.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The amount of oil he should get, the amount of money he should get for repairs, setting it down very clearly. All the municipality would have to do in that case would be to know how much land a man has ready for crop. On that basis they could figure out how much seed he had a right to, how much wheat, oats, barley, flax,, how much repairs, and how much fuel and feed.


Charles Avery Dunning: I point out that it is not the intention of this legislation to supply seed or assistance to everyone merely because he wants it or has the acreage. We do not intend that this shall be supplied to people who have other means of getting it. My hon. friend's suggestion as to safeguards assumes an automatic distribution to everyone.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I want to make sure that someone is not going to get it because he happens to be politically favourable to an inspector.


Charles Avery Dunning: Or to the council.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Or to the council, or to the provincial government.


Charles Avery Dunning: Can my hon. friend
suggest a way to overcome the difficulty I have just mentioned, by his automatic scheme?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I point out that you are safe in assuming at the present time that in the drought area ninety-eight per cent of the population will require seed.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is not safe to assume anything of the sort. Twenty-two per cent of them did not go on relief last year.

Seed Grain


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Of the farm population in the drought area?


Charles Avery Dunning: In the worst part of it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That does not meet the situation at all. The minister says they did not require relief, but that does not mean that they do not require seed. The only way a man would have seed would be to have had a crop last year.


John Gordon Ross: How did they keep off relief if they did not have something?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They may have had some cattle or a dairy farm. The fact that a man has been able to keep off relief does not mean that he has sufficient seed to put in his crop. In fact the very opposite is true; many men who have been able to keep going have done so by virtue of having stock, and they are the very men who have no seed.


Charles Avery Dunning: I know men who have hung on to their one or two bushels per acre for seed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Very few of them.


Charles Avery Dunning: Lots of them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I want to impress upon the house very seriously that we as a parliament are being asked to guarantee a sum of money and that the disbursement of the seed which that money will buy is being handed over to a few individuals without sufficient safeguards to assure its being distributed in an unbiased way.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member wants more ? That is not enough, in his opinion?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not think it is enough-at least I think a different scale of distribution ought to be followed.


William Henry Golding: You still want more?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not think it is sufficient. Last year the Saskatchewan government, which is a Liberal government and would not be expected to be asking for more than it had a right to, on January 21, 1937, sent out a statement in which it said that the province would require about $8,700,000. That was subsequently cut to $6,600,000 in this parliament. That was with 25,000 farmers making application. This year 81,000 farmers have applied, more than three times as many. But we have not trebled the $8,700,000 that the government of Saskatchewan thought necessary, last year. We have not even doubled it.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is almost exactly three times. It is $20,000,000.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Three times $8,700,000 is a great deal more than eighteen or twenty millions.


James Garfield Gardiner: Three times $6,600,000 is about $20,000,000, and that is what is provided this year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The amount guaranteed by this parliament last year was $6,600,000, but that was not the amount the Saskatchewan government thought necessary to meet the situation. The amount they thought necessary was $8,700,000 to supply 25,000 farmers. Here we are suggesting that. $14,500,000 will meet the needs of 81,000 farmers.


James Garfield Gardiner: Allow me to correct the hon. member. The statement made by the Minister of Finance the other day was that under this legislation we have been able to make provision, in concurrence with the loan companies and the banks, to supply approximately $20,000,000 to the farmers of Saskatchewan for seed and seeding operations this year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In addition to this?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, $20,000,000 all told this year. Last year provision was made for only $6,600,000.


Ernest Edward Perley: How much through the
banks and loan companies last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall deal with that
in a moment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That still does not meet the question, Mr. Speaker. I am quite well aware of what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) said the other day, that between $18,000,000 and $20,000,000 is the total amount that will be available for seed. But of that $18,000,000 or $20,000,000 only $14,500,000 is guaranteed by this government, and it is doubtful if that is enough, when you compare it with the amount of $8,700,000 asked for in order to provide for one-third the number of farmers who will require to be looked after this year.
There is one further point I should like to mention. It is of little or no value to give farmers seed unless some provision is to be made to give them sufficient fuel or sufficient horse power to put in that crop. I cannot speak for other parts of Saskatchewan, but the part which I represent has been sorely depleted in horse power during the past year. This morning I received a local paper from my constituency which mentioned one farmer who had lost sixteen out of twenty-two horses this winter. That is an exception, of course; I am not suggesting that this condition is general, but I do know numbers of
Seed Grain

farmers who started the winter with twelve horses and now find themselves with four. It will mean that these farmers will have to get either machine power and fuel or horse power somewhere or other, and if either the feed or the fuel is to come out of this provision that is going to be allowed for seed for 250 acres, of course it will be hopeless.


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course it would not
come out of that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am glad to hear that. The intimation in Saskatchewan was that it was to be taken out of the seed allotment. If the feed, fuel, repairs and so on are to be over and above the allotment-


James Garfield Gardiner: It is to cover everything for the seeding of the 250 acres; everything necessary is supplied for that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the basis of a bushel and a quarter per acre.


James Garfield Gardiner: The same basis as last
year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Last year it was only one bushel per acre?


James Garfield Gardiner: One to one and a
quarter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister definitely said it was going to be a bushel, if I remember the debate last year.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was not stated
last year. It was said that on some land it shouid be a bushel and on other land it should be more.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I merely point out what actually was said. At page 2769 of Hansard for last year the minister said:
For 1936-37 the figures are:	seed wheat,
2,739,000 bushels, 2,739,000 acres; the acreage is exactly the same, it being estimated that a bushel to the acre will be seeded-


James Garfield Gardiner: That was the estimate, but in putting it out they put one bushel on some land and a bushel and a quarter on other lands. On some it was really less than one bushel.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does that depend upon the type of land and the condition of the land?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, the type and condition of the land.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Because that is going to give rise to considerable dissatisfaction. We are going to have some farmers quite determined that their land will require a bushel and a quarter. Very few will agree that one

bushel per acre is sufficient for their land. They will be quite willing to agree that it is sufficient for some other fellow's land.


John Gordon Ross: No, no.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) says "no, no." The farmer will figure that if he can get a bushel and a quarter and put in only one bushel, he will be able to seed twenty-five per cent more of his land than he anticipated.


John Gordon Ross: The farmer is not dishonest.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not suggesting that the farmer is dishonest, but I suggest that we are working out a very excellent system to make him dishonest. If we are to leave it to some person unknown, some Mr. X, to decide whether he will get one bushel or a bushel and a quarter; to decide how much feed, how much of this and how much of something else the farmer is going to get, we will make it very difficult to satisfy our people. That is why I have asked all along that we should stipulate clearly in the regulations issued by the provincial government and approved by the federal government just how much the farmer will get; how much fuel, how much he will be allowed for repairs, and so on, in order that there may be no controversy or dissatisfaction, and above all no feeling on the part of our people that partisan considerations have entered into the distribution of this seed.


James Garfield Gardiner: I wish to deal with one or two of the questions raised by previous speakers, and first I should like to deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Colehester-Hants (Mr. Purdy), who spoke a few moments ago, because he brought up a matter which I think is very pertinent to the discussion that has been taking place.
As has been pointed out, the financing of seed grain in western Canada is assisted under arrangements made by legislation passed by this house. There have been requests from other parts of Canada for similar assistance. We have had very insistent requests from those representing the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, and some representations have been received from the province of Ontario with regard to the necessity for assistance in furnishing seed supplies. The government has taken the same position with regard to all these applications, and it is the position that was outlined the other evening when we were discussing this matter. The government has taken the position that where a municipality

Seed Grain
is able, because of its financial circumstances, to provide for the needs of those living in the municipality, then it is a local responsibility. Where the requirements are too great to be taken care of by the municipal organization the matter is referred to the provincial government; and where the provincial government intimates to the federal government that the problem is so great that it cannot be taken care of due to the financial condition of the province, then the federal government has always been prepared to examine into the conditions existing and arrive at a conclusion as to whether those representations were based upon the actual facts and whether under the circumstances we should take any part in assisting in providing seed.
I speak now only of ordinary seed requirements. In all the provinces of Canada we do give help in securing and providing registered seed to people who are using such seed in different parts of the country. We also give assistance to the governments of the various provinces in selecting seed in other parts of Canada, in order that it may be shipped to the provinces requiring it. But with regard to actual assistance in financing the purchase of seed itself, and other seeding activities within the province, we have never undertaken that as a federal government in any province, from anything I can find in the records, unless conditions were as I have outlined. That is, the municipality first declares itself unable to take care of the situation; the province then declares its inability to meet the need, so that the problem becomes a national one. Under these circumstances we have entered into the task of trying to assist in providing seed and seeding necessities. With that in mind we have always felt that so far as the federal government is concerned we could not undertake within any province, where drought had become so acute that the problem became a national one, to do anything that would necessitate our undertaking similar responsibilities in other provinces. We do not feel that it is the federal duty to undertake to assist in providing seed for those who are in a position to provide it for themselves.
Some of the suggestions .made this afternoon, if we were to accept them, might involve the government going so far as to assume responsibilities-both within the provinces where the drought is, and outside those provinces-that never have been anticipated in anything that has been done by this house, either under the present or under any previous government. As to whether or ntft the guarantee is sufficient, I can only repeat
what was stated the other evening. The present decision has been based upon the experiences of the past few years and we believe that the amount provided will be sufficient for what is assumed to be the federal government's responsibility in this matter, that is to assist the provincial government in providing the necessary financial assistance to put seed into the ground where it could not otherwise be obtained. Having decided that, we asked the governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta to provide us with information upon which to base our decision as to what the amount should be. As was indicated a moment ago by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), the amount provided last year in Saskatchewan was $6,600,000. My memory is that the financial organizations did not undertake to go any further than the amount guaranteed by this government. They may have gone further, but in so far as this or the provincial governments were concerned, they did not undertake to go any further than the amount of the guarantee.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does the minister mean the lending institutions or the mortgage companies?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am referring to all lending institutions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Did not the mortgage companies advance a million dollars to their tenants? The minister does not refer to them,


James Garfield Gardiner: No, to the banking institutions. The mortgage companies advanced money to their .tenants or to those who were on lands for which they took responsibility.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Foreclosed lands.


James Garfield Gardiner: Lands in connection with which the mortgage companies had a financial interest and for which they considered they were responsible. They are doing the same thing this year quite outside of what we are referring to.
The legislation last year provided for a guarantee of $6,600,000. Some time in the month of July the government of Saskatchewan started to make representations with regard to seed grain. The first correspondence that we have on the files I believe is dated August 5. This correspondence had to do with the necessity for making an arrangement to have grain available for seeding when seeding was commenced in the following spring. As a result of these representations and of other discussions that had taken place
Seed Grain

before they were made, arrangements were entered into with the wheat board to secure whatever wheat was available.
In reply to the questions asked by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) having to do with this particular matter, I can only say that the figure used in arriving at an estimate of the amount that would have to be guaranteed has been $1.45 per bushel. To have reduced that figure at this stage would have meant that the total amount of the guarantee would have been reduced. There have been discussions as to what price ought to be finally charged and the discussions this afternoon might prove helpful in arriving at a final conclusion. The figure of $1.45 per bushel has appeared in all the estimates as the outside figure that would probably have to be charged to a farmer for seed wheat. The prices for other grains have been based on that price for wheat. I am sure that neither of the hon. members from Saskatchewan who have been speaking in regard to this matter would suggest that we should take a smaller figure than that maximum figure.


Ernest Edward Perley: If the $1.45 per bushel was arrived at on the basis of $14,500,000 and it was then found that the price was too high and it was reduced, what difference would it make in the amount of the guarantee? You would be supplying a farmer with seed for the same number of acres.


James Garfield Gardiner: The provincial government used the figure of $1.45. That figure was submitted to us as the outside cost and it was used in making our estimates of what the guarantee should be. The total amount is approximately $20,000,000. After negotiations with the banks and the loan companies it was decided that if the federal government gave a guarantee of $14,500,000, the banks would agree to supply the difference between that and $18,000,000 and the loan companies would supply the amount that they are satisfied they will have to supply. The total will be approaching $20,000,000 on the basis of $1.45 per bushel for wheat and corresponding prices for other grains with an allowance for petroleum products.


Ernest Edward Perley: How many acres will that seed?


James Garfield Gardiner: We are not responsible for that because it is a provincial matter. However, it is based upon a bushelage similar to what was used last year. The seeding rates are a bushel to a bushel and a quarter per acre for wheat, depending on the kind of soil. For oats it is a bushel and a half to a bushel and three-quarters, depending on the kind of soil and for barley, a bushel and a quarter to 
a bushel and a half. Then there is a five per cent allowance for clean-out. Minimum rates of seeding will apply except on heavy clay soils and in park belt area outside P.F.R.A. territory. While I have not the acreages before me, I have the amounts that were contained in the estimates which would give a fairly close indication of the acreages requiring to be seeded. I would say that the total acreage in Saskatchewan for which some form of assistance will have to be given will be in the neighbourhood of 12,000,000 acres. This is acreage to be seeded in all kinds of grain.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When a farmer signs a promissory note, which I understand will be necessary under the guarantee seed loan bill of Saskatchewan, will he have to sign on the basis of $1.45 per bushel, or will that be left blank?


James Garfield Gardiner: I assume that by the time the grain is delivered and the arrangements made, the definite amount will be known. My understanding is that it is the intention of the provincial government to charge the same rate for seed grain throughout the whole province. In previous years the tendency has been to charge different rates depending on the freight rates. The rate this year will be the same for the whole province, depending on the actual cost.
With regard to the size of the farms I can only say this: That is closely related to the matter I discussed first, namely, just how far a government should be expected to go in financing considerable acreage. That matter has been fully discussed by provincial governments, municipal bodies, individuals concerned, and representatives of the federal government for a great many years, and the conclusion arrived at is nearly always identical, or almost so, with the conclusion arrived at this year. The acreage provided for this year is not materially different from the acreage provided for last year. The statement read when the resolution was under discussion will show that the acreage to be sown on farms of 320 acres or less of cultivated land was not more than a maximum of 60 per cent of the total acreage, and I think the hon. member for Weyburn will agree that that is very close to the suggestion he made himself. On all farms of not more than 320 acres, it is advisable, under conditions existing, and with the supplies being obtained from someone else, to sow not more than 60 per cent of the acreage.
Then on farms of over 320 acres of cultivated land they sow 50 per cent up to a maximum of 250 acres. The only difference

Seed Grain
that might be taken to exist between these conditions and those of a year ago is that a year ago I think the figure was set at 300 acres. As I recall it, a little larger initial acreage was provided for at that time in agreeing to the 300 acres. But in view of the statement which the hon. member for Weyburn has read to the house indicating that the whole estimate of seed last year was based upon one bushel to the acre for the total acreage to be sown to wheat, and the fact that this year they are estimating it at from one to one and a quarter bushels to the acre, the individual who decides of his own choice that one bushel is sufficient to seed per acre, can seed even more than 250 acres if he has one and a quarter bushels an acre with which to seed his land.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The circular I read provided for one to one and a quarter bushels. It did not specify one bushel.


James Garfield Gardiner: The statement the hon. member finally read and placed before the house when the estimates were going through was that the estimate of 2,739,000 bushels was based on 2.739,000 acres, or one bushel to the acre. This year the government started out by saying that on a considerable part of this acreage it might be necessary to sow one and one quarter bushels, and in arriving at their decision they are providing more wheat in some cases. Much of that large acreage spoken of is in the heavy soil area, and if a farmer has provided to him one and a quarter bushels an acre for 250 acres, and he himself decides to seed only one bushel to the acre instead of one and a quarter, he will come very close again to the 300 acres provided for last year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Except that he is not guaranteed that he will get one and a quarter bushels.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have nothing to do with that. That is dealt with by the provincial government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But the minister based an argument on his supposition.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just as my hon. friend did. I am basing my argument on a supposition, and my supposition at present is the supposition my hon. friend created.
Having said that with regard to acreage, let me refer to the one further matter that has been called to the attention of the house, namely, the matter of distribution. The other evening, when this matter was mentioned on two occasions, I purposely refrained from making any reference to it because, after all, as every hon. member now knows, the distribution of seed grain in western Canada, ever since seed grain was first distributed in the west, or at least ever since we have had municipalities in western Canada, has been handled largely through the municipal bodies. I am certain that that is true in Saskatchewan. No matter what government we have had in Saskatchewan, seed grain has been distributed through the municipal bodies.


William Hayhurst: That applies in Alberta too.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, and I am quite sure that members from western Canada will agree that there is no more non-partisan way in which seed grain could be distributed than through the municipal bodies, because, after all, in spite of what has been said in this house by members from time to time, every member from western Canada knows that our municipal elections out there, whether they be city, town or municipal, are seldom contested on any partisan political basis. Someone behind me says never, and I think that is probably a true statement of conditions existing there. Partisan politics do not enter into the election of councils in western Canada, and I say that on behalf of all parties so far as Saskatchewan is concerned. It is not the practice to allow either provincial or federal partisan considerations to enter into the election of councils.
I could bring into this house many communications that I have had, since this question became a matter of discussion, from municipal officials, some of whom have been strong supporters of members sitting on the opposite side of the house, indicating that at no time has the administration of relief or the distribution of feed and fodder or seed been made a matter of political consideration in Saskatchewan or in Alberta. I state that only to indicate that all of the political discussions I have ever heard with respect to this matter have taken place either in this house or in the legislatures of the provinces concerned. Political discussions in relation to the problem confronting us are taking place both in this house and in the legislatures of the provinces, and it is probably only natural that should be the case because there is no doubt whatever that elections, federal and provincial, do take place on a political basis. In so far as we on this side of the house, more particularly the ministers who are intimately concerned with the administration of matters of this kind, are concerned, we do not object in any way to any political discussions in the house with regard to this question or to any political accusations in regard to it, but we would like our friends who make political accusations to give us just a little more detail
Seed Grain

with regard to them in order that we might be able to answer them. With one exception I have yet to receive from a single municipality anywhere in Saskatchewan a statement to the effect that political considerations have been brought into the decisions in connection with these matters. That one municipality was in one of those districts which have been mentioned in some of the discussion to-day. When the matter was looked into, it was clearly shown that even in that case there had been no political considerations.
Dealing with the question of horses being brought back not in the best of condition, I can only say this: Again, it is not a matter of immediate federal consideration. But we have placed at the disposal of the provincial government of Saskatchewan the Carberry pasturage, which was referred to a few moments ago, composed of 130,000 acres of land which we fenced in last year in order to assist in handling the cattle that were being brought out of the drought area. We have also agreed with the Alberta government to make it possible for them to send horses to a ranch in the southern part of Alberta, and to pay the costs for the horses for both the pasturage in Alberta and the Carberry pasturage on a somewhat similar basis to what we would have paid had the horses been left at home.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Which ranch is that?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a ranch in the
vicinity of Manyberries. The lease was being dropped this year by one of the ranchers who had been on it, and the pasturage has been used by the government to take care of some of these horses.
I am informed that the age of the horses in western Canada, more particularly in the drought area, is very much higher than it was when the drought period had its beginning, and that is only natural. People had been getting along with their old horses at a time when they had no funds with which to resupply themselves with younger horses, and according to our check, there were among the horses which went down to the Carberry pasture, at a time when some 1,500 had reached the pasture, about fifty that I would agree should never have been sent there. The check was not sufficiently careful to prevent old horses from being sent which could only die when they got there. It is just possible, too, that among those which were shipped back, some were too old to be able to rustle on the grass lands of that particular pasture and come through to the spring period in a proper condition to be placed upon the land in order to put in the crop. But what I wish to impress on the house is that that

is a matter which is being taken care of by the provincial governments. They have estimated all these things in coming to a conclusion as to how much money would be required, and I feel quite satisfied that, with the financial arrangement which is being made in both Saskatchewan and Alberta, the governments will be able to take care of the essential needs of those who require, first, seed, and, second, some form of assistance in connection with obtaining power to put the seed in the ground, and even to provide extra feed and fodder with which to put the work stock in shape to take care of seeding operations when they come.
It is now about a month away from the usual time of seeding a very considerable part of that area. The work stock is being returned to the area; the work stock in the area will be fed during the next two weeks or, in some instances, three weeks, out of feed and fodder that was provided through the winter months down to the end of March, and provision is made, under the legislation which is now going through, whereby that feed can be replenished out of the supplies of money that are being provided under this legislation to carry the stock through from the time when the winter supplies run out, to the end of the seeding period. Hon. members can rest assured that every consideration possible is being given to these matters, and also, I believe, that the municipalities in both provinces will take the same care this year as they have in past years to see that political motives do not enter into the consideration of this question. So far as I am concerned I have not heard that that was the case, either since this government has been in power or during the time the previous government was in office. There have been criticisms both when the previous government was in power and during the present government's term of office that too much consideration was given to political friends in the engaging of those who were employed from time to time to assist. But I believe that everyone, no matter to what political party he belongs, agrees that individuals once employed to take care of the situation existing in western Canada, whether they were municipal authorities or were directly engaged by governments, have not allowed party considerations to enter into the making of their decisions as to whether the man should, in the first place, have assistance, and in the second, how much he should get, and I am quite sure that that will not happen this year any more than it has happened in other years.

Seed Grain


Ernest Edward Perley: With respect to the minister's statement that the cabinet and the inspector have the say as to the amount which shall be granted to a municipality, does he mean that the inspector will not examine each individual application which is made to the municipality and then report to the cabinet whether he approves it or not? Or does the inspector just take the question of the maximum amount granted to a municipality, and review that?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; the provincial government does not do anything at all about the matter until the municipality makes application for seed assistance. If the municipality does not make application, the provincial government will not deal with the matter. When the municipal authorities make application, they include particulars of the acreage for which they desire assistance, the amount of seed they think should be provided for that acreage, the repairs they require, the amount of assistance for providing power; everything of that nature must be in the application. All that the government says is: "When we receive that application, we will not place it before one minister; we will appoint a committee of the council so that it will receive full consideration, and that committee will sit along with the inspector who has inspected the municipality and arrive at a conclusion as to whether their representations are justified by the actual facts." If they consider they are, that will be the amount allowed; jf they think it should be cut down, they will go back and discuss the matter with the municipality. That is the practice which has always been followed, and that practice, I am sure, will be followed this year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not propose at the _ moment to trespass upon the time of the house at any great length, but I should like to suggest that we treat this as an ordinary business transaction. We are asked on behalf of the Dominion of Canada to give our guarantee to the banks of this country to ensure them against loss for advances made to municipalities, which, in tu.rn, have been guaranteed by two of the western provinces. Ordinarily, if that were a business transaction submitted to any one of us, we should impose certain conditions upon the granting of our guarantee; if those conditions were absent, it would be regarded as bad business; if those conditions were present, it would be regarded as good business.
One of the matters which we have to consider is the price which the farmer has to pay
for what he gets. This perhaps is the most important of all the conditions with which we have to deal. By the use of some authority about which I shall speak when the house is in committee, this government utilized the wheat board for certain purposes. The statute says that the wheat board shall buy only from producers. The time when the wheat board extended its option to October is a matter of exact date. It had on hand a certain quantity of wheat. It was known that wheat would be required for seed in this country. Notwithstanding that fact the October option was extended. Then we proceeded to buy back that option.
That raises a question of first-rate importance in this country. It is one of the most important questions that will engage the attention of the house, because it is a large issue of principle which will have to be settled. The farmer is now called upon to pay on the basis of that option having been bought back and converted into cash wheat, and the price is mentioned as $1.45. Had the cash wheat been held before the option was extended to October, that difficulty would not have arisen. If any of us, dealing with this matter purely as a business transaction, had dealt with it in that way, we certainly should have had some difficulty with our shareholders. This is a matter in regard to which we require a good deal of explanation.
According to the papers which have been tabled, the wheat board remitted to the federal government eight million dollars, and deposited with this government two million dollars more, making a total of ten million dollars. That eight million dollars has gone into the revenues of the country. It represented profits which accrued in the manner indicated in the auditors' reports. The other two million dollars have been paid back to the wheat board for the purpose of enabling it to acquire the wheat on conversion of those options into cash wheat. In fact, the last report indicates that, in addition, the wheat board borrowed substantial sums from the banks of the country. Substantial loans have been made from banks. Under what authority? I can remember when authority was the all-important question on this side of the house, and when hours and days were taken up in discussing that question. But where is the authority to use the wheat board in the manner in which it has been used? An order in council has been read by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley); but the wheat board act provides only one thing, namely, that wheat shall be bought from the
Seed Grain

producer and no one else; and the price to be paid for it was 87| cents, and that only when the price of wheat reached 90 cents.
There are the facts; and yet the government has utilized the machinery of this statute without permitting the farmer to exercise his right to sell to the board, depriving him by the terms of an order in council which is illegal, without any question, because no condition which nullifies the operation of a statute can be imposed by order in council. That does not require argument even in this parliament; even the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell) will not question that. No condition can be imposed upon a grant when it nullifies the statute under which it is granted. That is so simple that I should not even state it here. Those are the facts, and I submit that we must have adequate information with respect to that matter because it is the fundamental consideration in connection with this transaction.
In the second place, there is a good deal of force in the arguments that have been advanced this afternoon with respect to the acreage which is to be placed under crop. Not for a moment do I fail to recognize the difficulty of this government or of any government similarly situated. It has a right to impose conditions, because it is on our credit that this seed is being obtained. The conditions that it proposes to accept and not to impose are those found in an act of the Saskatchewan legislature. They have seen fit to provide that every person, rich or poor, high or low, who is so situated as to require assistance-not that they once did not require it, but they are now so situated as to stand in need of it-shall receive assistance only to the extent of 250 acres for seeding purposes. Well, I have lived in the west for forty years, and I have seen a quarter section, 160 acres, develop and expand and grow, until I have known a great many farms of a section, where it would not be unusual to expect 400 acres to be available, ready for seeding. I think I am stating the case fairly to those who know more about the matter than I do. There have been farms of a section and a half, of two sections, and of several sections. These people were once very well-to-do; all you have to do is to look at their places and see their houses, outbuildings, fences, and machinery. But by reason of the drought that we have now had upon us for more years than the evil days which fell upon Egypt, these people are practically penniless. It is a terrible thing to say, but I know men on relief in the west who were once very rich-well, not very 
rich, but more than comfortably off, quite well-to-do.


Charles Avery Dunning: And who still own quite a bit of land.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, men who still own land in the condition I have mentioned, land that has not produced any crop now for, in some instances, eight long years. One gentleman told me the other day that last year was the eighth year in which his crop had been destroyed by drought.
Are we doing right in limiting these people to 250 acres? I am not speaking in any partisan sense; I am merely stating my own observations and my own experience in dealing with these problems, and, mark you, I am not forgetting for a moment the fierce tirade of abuse levelled at us after the last world wheat congress when it was suggested that there might be a limitation in production. That suggestion was met with very fierce denunciation; yet that limitation is now to take place, and it is to be brought about when, if we may judge from the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) -and he has experience as a western farmer

 the moisture situation is favourable. The day before yesterday I was talking to a gentleman from the west and he went as far as to say this:	"I have been over the western
country these last few weeks, and I would regard the significant signs as being favourable to a crop in 1938." Of course, I am not unmindful of the fact that so many hon. gentlemen opposite, when parliament prorogued last year, were quite hopeful and, in fact, almost convinced that there would be a crop; yet we all know what the result has been.
Well, are we quite fair in giving this guaran- ' tee and accepting the limitation to 250 acres?
I fully appreciate the argument of the Minister of Agriculture a moment ago that there are corporations and mortgage and loan companies which will make loans. I say to the minister, however, that last year they did not make loans for seed grain. They advanced money and had the farmer buy seed, because he was working for them on a crop payment plan, so that if he got anything they got something, and if he got nothing they got nothing.
In the drought area a great many farmers got nothing, with the result that the advance had to be written off against profit and loss. What the minister says is quite clear. Some of these organizations will advance money to those who now occupy the position of tenant with them by reason of (a) foreclosure, under which they continue as tenants, or (b) pending final order of foreclosure, where they undertake to stay on, the understanding being that

Seed Grain
if they get a crop they will have something which will enable them to make the place their home again.


Charles Avery Dunning: It has a much wider application than that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am coming to the third class, wider than the other two together, namely, those who are holding on to their homes, taking advantage of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, having projected their obligations into the future. They have been given a chance by the board of review to continue, and, in words that I have already used, try to work out their own salvation.


James Garfield Gardiner: It includes another class.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Which class?


James Garfield Gardiner: The class on whose land the loan company has a lien, but has not taken action.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the biggest class.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; but that is the ordinary case of mortgaged property, in which no proceedings have been taken because neither the insurance companies, nor the loan companies, nor individuals desire to have the property on their hands under existing conditions.


James Garfield Gardiner: It covers a much larger class.


Charles Avery Dunning: In relation to this problem it is a much larger class.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had thought that class
was now merged with the class which had taken advantage to a considerable extent of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. My own observation, in those communities with which I have made myself familiar leads me to say with great frankness that the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act has been used by a very large number of those who found themselves with a mortgage bearing such a relation to present value that it was idle to think of being able to pay the mortgage off. But that is a matter of detail which need not enter into a discussion of the broad principle which I assert should be considered. I should like the government to consider whether it is not desirable to state as we have a right to do, as one of our conditions in giving this guarantee, that it might be made available for the acquisition of seed for a larger area than 250 acres. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) asked the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Dougles) a very pertinent question. He asked him, "What would you suggest?" He suggested a sliding scale. The minister then said, "Yes, but there are cases in which they will get assistance from other sources; how would that be dealt
with?" It could easily be said, "In necessitous eases," and we could define that in such manner as to make clear the class to which it refers. It seems to me a sliding scale might be most desirable. For instance, I hesitate to say that we should place a limitation of 250 acres in the case of a man who has 1,000 acres of land which looks extremely favourable for the production of a crop, and where it would not be unreasonable to say that 500 acres would be ready for crop. I think it is not unusual that half the land is available for crop.


James Garfield Gardiner: Might I interrupt to
point out that I said in addition, in reply to the hon. member for Weyburn, that there is at present a sliding scale in the provincial estimate. It says that on farms with 320 acres or less of cultivated land not more than sixty per cent of such acreage is to be sown, and on farms of over 320 acres of cultivated land fifty per cent may be sown up to a maximum of 250 acres. Then it goes on to state in the estimate that the nature of the land and all that shall be taken into consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there can never be
more than 250 acres. I followed the minister in that regard the other day with great care. There is a sliding scale until the quantity reaches 250 acres, but there is no scale beyond that.


Charles Avery Dunning: Except in bushels, the
variation in bushels per acre.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The determination of
that issue depends upon whether the land may be inferior or superior.


John Gordon Ross: It depends upon the amount the farmer himself would want to sow.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And it depends upon the quality of the land.


Mr. DONNELLY:: In the drought area
it is estimated at less.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I used the term "quality of the land" to cover all these factors. The other day the minister read from the statute and I asked, "Is that by statute?" He replied, "Yes; it is a statute of Saskatchewan and the regulations made under it." But it will be noted that there is no expansion of the 250 acres except such as might automatically arise from the sowing of a bushel and a quarter instead of a bushel to the acre.


Charles Avery Dunning: The Alberta act has the same provision, with the difference that it stops at 300 acres.
Seed Grain


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite. One appreciates the attitude of the provinces. I think there is much in what has been said by both ministers, that the provinces should be better able than we are to determine the extent to which they will permit their people to incur obligations. On the other hand, the creation of new wealth is a matter of vital importance to Canada. It does not concern Saskatchewan and Alberta alone; it touches Ontario and British Columbia and every other part of this country. My only doubt has been as to whether we are shutting our eyes to the fact that there are very large farms in the west. I doubt not that the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) is cultivating now close to 1,000 acres of land.


John Gordon Ross: More.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is in the fortunate position of not requiring assistance to obtain seed. But let us suppose his neighbour has also 1,000 acres of land, is not so fortunate and has to depend entirely upon the government for seed. Are we acting rightly when we say that this poor unfortunate, who for causes over which he had no control finds himself unable to provide seed for himself, shall not have seed for more than 250 acres of land, whereas his more fortunate neighbour is able to get seed for 500 acres? That is a matter which gives me some concern. I mention it because I am not a practical farmer, which, I fancy, is quite apparent to those who are listening.


Charles Avery Dunning: The right hon. member is doing very well, better than I should do as a lawyer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for Moose Jaw was finding a little fault because one hon. member used the word " cultivated." That is the language of the statute of Saskatchewan. When it was read, I was amazed at its being put in just those terms by that legislature which contains so many farmers; for I raised the same objection in my mind as the hon. member, which shows I must have some slight knowledge of farming. At one time w'e had a distinguished member of this house who was a member of the legal profession; and his lawyer friends said that he was an excellent farmer, and his farmer friends said that he was a fair lawyer. But that does not arise in this case. I think if the Minister of Agriculture had been framing the legislation, he would probably have extended it to make it clear that it has a larger meaning than the mere word "cultivated."' The hon.

member for Moose Jaw pointed out that what he had in his mind was that the land was fitted to receive seed.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I may be permitted to interrupt again, I think it will be found that is taken care of in the matter of acreage. That is the very reason they said it should not be more than sixty per cent. In the system of farming prevailing in that region, that is a proper limitation. Where dry farming and summer fallowing are the custom, they summer fallow at least one-third.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the reason why I used the figures I did, of 500 acres out of 1,000 being available for seeding.
Then you come to the problem of distribution. The Minister of Agriculture is not wholly right in what he said as to distribution of seed grain in western Canada, because it will be remembered that the distribution of seed grain in western Canada commenced in the time when the present provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta were territories. It was then felt to be an obligation of the federal government, for they were administered under dominion control, and no question such as that raised this afternoon was raised.


Charles Avery Dunning: There was a different question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course it was. In one case it was a territory and, in the other, a province.


Charles Avery Dunning: No; a different question as to the status of individuals.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But I am pointing out the circumstances under which the first distributions took place. It was in the territories. I can recall how strange it seemed to me, coming from the east, to hear them talking about Ottawa distributing seed grain to the farmers of the country. Then I learned that the dominion government had taken the attitude that the people there were wards, using the word in a broad sense, provincial institutions not having been created. Notwithstanding the setting up of the provinces, it still became essential to advance money for seed grain, but this was done by the provinces making application to the dominion for assistance. Ever since the provinces were created in 1905, the method of distribution has not always been uniform. There have been times when one method was followed and other times when other methods were followed. But broadly and generally in Saskatchewan the matter has been left to the councils. Alberta was slower in developing

Seed Grain
municipal government, except through what were called large improvement districts, and in those cases distribution was sometimes made through someone connected with the Department of Agriculture, who was permanently on the ground, or by a combination of several methods.
I suppose every hon. member knows what our unfortunate history about seed grain has been. In every ease we took a lien. It was a lien that attached by reason of a statute passed here. And from the day I first came into this house until I was endeavouring to administer the affairs of the country, the question was: How are you going to write off the seed liens?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is on homesteads.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some of them were not on homesteads.


Charles Avery Dunning: The dominion liens?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; there were dominion liens in the territories before any provincial institutions were set up, and in many instances those liens were, I am sorry to say, not paid.


Charles Avery Dunning: On other than homesteads?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I think on other
than homesteads.


Charles Avery Dunning: For years the dominion government contended with me that they were responsible only for homesteads. [DOT]


Richard Bedford Bennett: A former Minister of the Interior, Hon. Charles Stewart, was responsible, I think, for the last legislation in that regard. We had a sort of tribunal set up that dealt with these matters, and we used to pass orders in council on representations from this board, wiping out liabilities, or accepting smaller sums for larger, and thus getting rid of the liens. The hon. member for Colchester-Hants (Mr. Purdy) suggested that the dominion was going to lose this money. I do not share that view. If we get a crop, the province will be paid and we shall be paid. If we do not get a crop, we are just going to be out that much money, and we might as well make up our minds as to that right now. What we are doing, therefore, is underwriting providence to the extent of this much money.


Charles Avery Dunning: And in various ways we have been doing so for seven years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In some instances we are now entering upon that for the eighth year. That is why the matter strikes me as being so tremendously serious, and I fully share a
sense of the responsibility that both ministers have put to the house regarding the attitude taken by both Alberta and Saskatchewan in the limitation of acreage. Yet I feel that there is something to be said about the desirability of a scale which goes beyond 250 acres, having regard to the large farms.
I have trespassed longer upon the time of the house than I had intended when I rose in my place. I desired only to direct attention to those three matters, because as underwriters, without whom the money cannot be secured, we have the right to impose conditions in the statute notwithstanding any legislation that may have been passed by any of the provinces. That is clear and obvious. Then they take it or leave it as to them may seem desirable. The legislation contemplates recognition of, shall I say, the superior knowledge of the local authorities on the one hand, and the right to receive the money without further conditions on the other; whereas I suggest that it may be desirable to consider the legislation from the other standpoint as well, namely, whether or not we are doing exactly what is fair when we have that limitation.
In connection with the operations of the wheat board it does not seem that any opportunity will arise for receiving an explanation as to how the seed grain was acquired and the conditions under which that was done, unless a judicial commission is set up to inquire into the whole matter. There were very heavy sales of wheat, for instance on one occasion in July, which have called for a great deal of criticism. I do not think the whole matter should be canvassed at the present moment; rather we should limit ourselves to the discussion and consideration of the operations that have taken place since the government first gave instructions- which I assume will be placed before us in writing-to the board to take the action that was taken, and an adequate explanation will no doubt be offered as to why wheat which might have been available was carried forward into an October option and why, so soon after, the option was brought back. The net result has been that a premium was created. We cannot get away from this, whether we like it or not. That brought about the premium, and I am afraid it was not unknown. It will be remembered that Paul once said, " I am convinced this thing was not done in a comer." Those are not the exact words; they will be remembered by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie). It was known to everybody within, shall I say, a week or ten days. It was bound to be
Seed Grain

known, because the conversion of an October option into cash wheat involved operations which, in the very nature of things, means disclosing what was being done.


Charles Avery Dunning: It could not be only October.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; I was mentioning just the larger one. That involved the premium to which I referred.


John Gordon Ross: Not only that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not only that; many things brought about the premium, but that was one of the great factors. It was a fluctuating premium, which is now being reflected in added cost to the farmer, and, I think I can say with some safety, with some measure of profit to somebody.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


William Hayhurst: When the house rose at six o'clock we were discussing the seed and grain relief question. The members from the maritime provinces, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia who have spoken on this subject should consider themselves fortunate in not having a condition such as this to face in their home districts. We are certainly sorry that we must ask for a government guarantee in Alberta for seed relief purposes. I have had it said to me on different occasions that the western members inadvertently give the western provinces a bad name by advertising them in the wrong way. The people in the east and other parts of Canada think that western Canada is impoverished and in a bad condition financially, socially and otherwise. I should like to disabuse the minds of hon. members of that notion by quoting the production figures for last year. Alberta produced 74,000,000 bushels of wheat, almost half the total production of Canada and more than half the total production of the western provinces. We produced 77,000,000 bushels of oats, and we produced practically half of the total barley produced in western Canada.
These figures show that all of Alberta has not been dried out. It is estimated that the 1938 wheat acreage in Alberta will be approximately 8,000,000 acres, while the acreage in Saskatchewan will be 13,000,000 acres. The wheat acreage in Saskatchewan is practically

all in the dried-out belt, while a large portion of the Alberta acreage is in a more humid region. At least 5,000,000 acres of the finest wheat land in Canada are in Alberta in sections that have sufficient moisture and rainfall almost to guarantee a crop. Any effort made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to diversify farming in Alberta and other parts of Canada will be appreciated by all of us. We would be more than happy to be able to produce large quantities of wheat even though we know that when that wheat is placed on the markets of the world, prices will naturally fall.
If we are to have a strong dominion, no part or province of that dominion must be discriminated against unduly. If business is to be good in one province, it must be good in all. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) said, I think last year, it is no use to take from some of us to give to all of us. I want the people of eastern Canada to understand that this is merely a loan to the municipalities so that this part of Canada may be able to produce wealth more abundantly This is the first opportunity I have had of tendering my personal thanks to the people in the east for the vegetables, fruit and other materials sent to the impoverished farmers in my province.
Last year the government purchased a certain number of wheat options, and it would seem that they should have made some money on the transaction. On July 31, 1937, unsold wheat amounted to 6,964,000 bushels represented by futures contracts which, in the ordinary course of business, would have been disposed of prior to that date. I take these figures from the report of the Canadian wheat board. If any criticism is to come from me, it is that we should deplore this buying of options by the government. The farmers of western Canada have suffered greatly in the past because of attempts they have made to go into this business of buying options. Thousands of farmers have lost their all on the grain exchange at Winnipeg through buying and selling options. The options bought and sold on that exchange represent millions of bushels more than the actual crop raised.
I should like to illustrate my point by detailing what happened last summer on the grain exchange. The farmers of western Canada sold rye options for July delivery all the way from $1 to $1.40 a bushel. On July 31, 1937, rye was taken off the board at around $1.63 a bushel, while at the same time July wheat was $1.43. Many farmers thought it would prove profitable to sell rye and buy wheat, but in doing this they were playing

Seed Grain
into the hands of those who deal in this type of transaction. The result was that they were trimmed and certainly needed the apples which were sent out from the east.
Many of these men sold rye in the belief that if wheat went down, rye would also go down. But, lo and behold, when wheat went down rye went up! When the rye option was finally taken off the Winnipeg board, it was $1.63; wheat was $1.45 while cash rye was around 93 cents. The cash price was 70 cents a bushel below the paper price which was just a pen-and-ink quotation which could be wiped off the books at a single stroke. This is what was done, and thousands of farmers who had sold rye were deprived of their margin. I went into one office and asked them if they would take rye for these options. They told me that cash rye was 95 cents at that time. That meant that if we threshed our rye we would get only 90 cents a bushel, while the paper price was $1.63. I asked them what would happen if we imported rye from the United States. There was plenty of rye available in that country at 78 cents a bushel, but they told me that the United States rye was not as good as the Canadian. They always have some way of getting out of a thing like this. They wanted to take that rye off the books so that they could tell the men who held options that they had lost their money when July 31 came around. It was upon this subject that I had intended to say a few words before six o'clock.
In travelling through western Canada I find many farmers who have been stung at some time or another by the grain exchange. We are anxiously waiting for the report of the Turgeon commission and would like to know why it has not been brought down. We realize that something must be done to prevent manipulation in grain futures on the Winnipeg grain exchange and we deplore the government's participation in transactions of this kind. We believe that the government should have made money as a brokerage at one-thirty-second of a cent should be enough. If they were buying wheat in 1935 at around 89 cents a bushel, they should be making plenty of money when they sell it to the farmer at $1.45 a bushel. As a matter of fact, we feel that the farmer is entitled to wheat at a lower price than $1.45 a bushel for his seed in the drought areas. I know that cuts both ways, because in my own constituency there is a considerable amount of seed wheat for sale and we naturally want to see a good price for those who have it for sale. At the same time I would bring to
the attention of hon. members the disintegrating force that is exerted by such transactions as I have mentioned on the Winnipeg grain exchange, and which are dividing Canada instead of unifying it. Some hon. members wonder why the people of the west return men who are opposed to the present financial set-up, but it is really because we are being impoverished, more or less, by market manipulators not only in the west but also in the east.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Dominion guarantee of bank loans in respect to Alberta.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I suggest that it would be well to set out the Alberta statute as a schedule to this act. I think that would be useful and helpful in the future, having regard to the fact that the bill does not contemplate payments being made for three years. It must be remembered that the banks must agree to lend this money for a period of three years, which is an unusual transaction in connection with capital expenditure; indeed, it is unusual for such loans to run beyond a year. The municipalities are guaranteeing the money to the bank; the province then gives its guarantee, and we do not become responsible as joint guarantors but responsible only to pay any ultimate liability not discharged by the province or the municipalities at the end of three years.


Charles Avery Dunning: My right hon. friend is not quite right. The municipality is the borrower. It is not a guarantor.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should not have used the word guarantor. I knew, of course, they were the borrowers, and it is their responsibility to pay. That is the proper way to put it. They are the primary debtors; then the next debtor by way of guarantee is the province, and we are not going to be called upon to pay, as the legislation distinctly states, until it has been made clearly apparent that three years have passed and after an order in council has been passed by our own government itself defining the circumstances under which the province shall be conclusively deemed unable to fulfil its guarantee. I am only putting this suggestion to the committee; but it strikes me that it would serve a useful purpose if we attached the statute of the province as a schedule to the bill, because it recites what we are guaranteeing and makes clear what we are doing. It might properly, therefore, be a part of the

Seed Grain

bill, and the same with respect to Saskatchewan in view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture has just intimated to me that he is going to make a statement presently that he has found that what he thought was a statute was in part a regulation.


James Garfield Gardiner: In connection with the Saskatchewan act, Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out that in the discussion this afternoon we inadvertently-


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was the other day.


James Garfield Gardiner: And this afternoon. I stated that all of these provisions were in the Saskatchewan act; but I find on a close check of the act itself that the memorandum does not make entirely plain the fact that only the first provision in the act, with respect to the $200 maximum per quarter section, is provided for in the act. The Saskatchewan act provides:
The municipality shall not advance in any one year seed grain and supplies of any greater value than $200 in respect of any one quarter section.
The next provision is not in the act:
On farms of 320 acres or less of cultivated land no more than sixty per cent of such acreage is to be sown.
Nor is the following provision in the act:
(d) on farms of over 320 acres of cultivated land fifty per cent thereof may be sown up to a maximum of 250 acres.
That is not in the act. It is a matter of regulation, submitted in connection with the estimates.


Charles Avery Dunning: In regard to the point made by the right hon. leader of the opposition, the only objection I can think of at the moment to printing the existing act as a schedule to the bill is the fact that provision is made in section 2 itself with respect to amendments to that act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the very reason I suggest it should be printed as a schedule.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am afraid we cannot go ahead with the bill, then.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes. The point I was trying to make was that the conditions under which we are putting our name on the back of this paper are disclosed by an act, and it was because I saw those words in the section regarding amendments that I thought it desirable that we have in the statute as a schedule the conditions under which this parliament gives its approval to that guarantee. If we were drawing it up as a matter of business, we should have the conditions attached to the agreement.


Charles Avery Dunning: There will have to be an agreement in addition to the statute.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is an additional reason why I think the statute should be attached as a schedule to the bill, in that the statute would then always be available to members of the house hereafter to enable them to know the exact terms under which we incurred this liability. The amount asked for is $1,900,000. There can be no complaint that we did not give them all they asked for; that is obvious. But the conditions under which we are providing the seed are set forth in that statute.


Charles Avery Dunning: The conditions under
which they are providing it, subject to our guarantee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We really are doing it
by giving our guarantee, and the reason we become responsible for the payment of $1,900,000 is that we have presented to us a statute upon which we have relied. If someone desires to see what that statute is, he will look in vain in this bill to find it. It is usual in cases of this kind to attach the statute as a schedule to the bill, just as in the case of an agreement indicating certain conclusions arrived at by the parties. There are in the older statutes innumerable cases of attaching as a schedule to the statute the conditions which enable one to understand at a glance just what we have done, and why. I think that is desirable.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am in a little difficulty in regard to that from the standpoint of time because the Alberta act has not yet been amended. I believe, to bring it up to this year. It is necessary for these legislatures to amend their own acts to make the necessary provision for an additional year. In the legislation which we enacted previously, in the last two sessions, we did not adopt the policy of attaching the provincial act as a schedule, and I am afraid that if we were going to do so now, we would have to wait until we received from the province their completed statute for this session.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the minister mean
to say it is not passed yet?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is not passed yet.
I have no objection in principle to presenting a provincial act as a schedule to the bill; but might I suggest that possibly the same object would be served if we attached the provincial statute to the agreement pertaining to this legislation and then tabled the whole thing in the house?

Seed Grain


Richard Bedford Bennett: That serves, in part,
the purpose. I do not want the minister to conclude that I had any particular view about the matter.


Charles Avery Dunning: No; I understand that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But I should like to say this. I suppose it is because one has been trained as he has, that when I pick up a statute of the Dominion of Canada and look at it, if it refers to something else I like to have that "something else" on the record so that I shall have no difficulty in understanding it; and a layman should be in exactly the same position. That is purely a question of convenience. But where it involves what this does, it is more than a question of convenience. However, as the statute is not passed, we need not waste time talking about it; it cannot be printed.


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course there would
be involved the printing as a schedule of all the preceding acts referring to the same act which are dealt with here. There could not be a complete understanding of this act without the printing as a schedule of each of the annual amendments of the provincial statute.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, no; you just print
the statute as it was passed this year.


Mr. STEWART:: Applicable to this guarantee.


Charles Avery Dunning: Their statute of this year will bring up to date the previous ones. That, I think, is correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that all it is going to do?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is all we know of. There are three acts in the case of Saskatchewan, one in the case of Alberta.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; I see that.


Ernest Edward Perley: Hon. J. G. Taggart, Minister of Agriculture of Saskatchewan, has made the statement that 6,500,000 bushels of wheat have moved into districts where it is required; that the board has authorized that movement. Could the minister tell us what proportion of that 6,500,000 bushels was acquired in Saskatchewan and where the balance was acquired?


James Garfield Gardiner: I can hardly understand the figures that have just been given by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. It is just possible that they cover the amounts of both feed and seed which are being shipped into the area to take care of both requirements. There would not be that much wheat shipped in to date under the undertaking in which this government is interested. There may be that
51952-112J
much wheat required in order to take care of purchases which are going to be made by individuals, loan companies, and companies that are going to seed their own land. The government of Saskatchewan has assumed responsibility for attempting to ship into the area all the grain that will be required by individuals generally; grain that is supplied to loan companies and to corporations having land and to individuals who can pay for their seed will be sold outright and will not be affected by this guarantee. So I do not think we can show any real relationship between any figure for grain shipped up to the present and grain covered by this guarantee.


Ernest Edward Perley: This report distinctly states that the grain board has authorized the distribution of that much wheat. I should like to know what wheat has been acquired anywhere in Saskatchewan.


Charles Avery Dunning: In it, or for it?


Ernest Edward Perley: Acquired within the province for the province?


Charles Avery Dunning: We cannot answer that. I cannot tell precisely where the wheat was acquired-how much was acquired in Saskatchewan, how much in Manitoba, and. how much in Alberta. I simply have not that information. With respect to the movement of wheat I am advised-this advice is now a day or two old-that there should be at this date about three and a half to four million bushels either now in Saskatchewan or on wheels to destination points in Saskatchewan. That is the latest information I have with respect to the movement. But, as the Minister of Agriculture has explained, there is much more involved in that movement than is involved in what we are guaranteeing, because the province is undertaking to see that wheat is there for all purchasers, and not merely purchasers through the municipalities covered by this guarantee.


Ernest Edward Perley: Can the minister inform us of the price? They surely must have arrived at a price if they are distributing the wheat, because the farmer must give a note in settlement.


Charles Avery Dunning: No; the price is not definitely settled.


Ernest Edward Perley: Then what kind of settlement are they taking from the farmers?


Charles Avery Dunning: They cannot take any
settlement from the farmers until this legislation is passed and until the necessary agreement consequent upon it is made. In the meantime the varying freights from points of origin to points of destination have all
Seed Grain

to be pooled because, as I understand the situation, the intention of the province is to charge one price over all the province. Therefore, all the charges have to be actually arrived at. They have had to make special arrangements with the railways regarding demurrage on cars in order to give the farmers an opportunity of unloading at eleven hundred points in Saskatchewan. All these charges must be arrived at before the last half-cent of price can possibly be determined. I cannot give any other answer than that to my hon. friend. I said the other day that, in the judgment of those handling the seed, it would be somewhere between $1.40 and $1.45 in total cost covering everything to the farmer. I am sorry I cannot come closer than that in a transaction of this complexity and magnitude; to say something definite would be merely to put oneself in the position of making a mistake, or being likely to do so.


Ernest Edward Perley: Can the minister inform
us whether they have made any arrangement with the railway company with respect to freight or will the usual domestic rates be charged within the province?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is a special rate, but
the province has arranged that. I cannot answer as to just what it is. In each case the province is the purchaser of the wheat, and the provinces are handling these arrangements themselves. The only question which arises in that connection is the amount which must be added to the individual transaction to cover the averaging of all transactions and of all movements, as I say, to 1,100 points in Saskatchewan.


Ernest Edward Perley: Does the minister think
the price he mentions, namely, from $1.40 to SI.45, would be a fair one?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not going to
answer that question. I have said what, from the information supplied to me, it likely will be.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That raises the real
question we have to face sooner or later; we may as well face it now. On December 15 last the governor in council dealt with and passed an order in council. The effective part of it is as follows:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report, dated 13th December, 1937, from the Minister of Trade and Commerce, stating that the Canadian Wheat Board advise with regard to the question of converting wheat futures into actual wheat to be used for seed and feed relief in the province of Saskatchewan, that arrangements have been made by the Saskatchewan government for the
JMr. Dunning.]
purchase of this wheat, and that all expenses in connection with the handling, such as premiums, storage, transportation and auy additional charges will be paid by the Saskatchewan government.
Obviously this committee should have before it these papers to enable us intelligently to discuss this matter. How did this government come into it? They came into it, clearly, from this document, by the Saskatchewan government having dealt with the wheat board; the Minister of Trade and Commerce made a report, and that report indicated that they were considering the question of converting wheat futures into actual wheat to be used for seed and feed relief in Saskatchewan. Those facts, I think,
we should have presented to us in some form or another, because they are involved in the report made by the minister upon which this order in council was passed.
The minister, therefore, recommends that the Canadian Wheat Board be authorized to exchange the long futures contracts that they have on hand as at July 31st, 1937, namely 6,964,000 bushels, for actual wheat to be used for seed and feed purposes in the province of Saskatchewan in connection with the sowing nf rlio 1C138 cron.
I have under my hand the relative documents dealing with that transaction. Every week the auditors sent in their report, always in the same form, so far as form is concerned. Week after week they followed a stereotyped form after this transaction was put in the shape in which it was. I quote:
Exhibit A.-Statement of transactions in regard to wheat holdings acquired from Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited. Exhibit B.-Statement of transactions in regard to seed and feed account.
All the wheat that Murray bought while he was chairman of that board in connection with the operations of the board after McFarland was dismissed has been disposed of and ended and the loss indicated by these documents. All the wheat that was left was part of the McFarland wheat, and in July it was 6,964,000 bushels. That was McFarland wheat, and on July 31, Murray converted that into options. These were options to acquire real wheat later in the year. The Minister of Finance said that perhaps they were not all October. They may have been October, November and December, later in the year, and possibly some may have gone into the next year. Now comes the Saskatchewan government, not without the approval of this government, but with the approval and the knowledge of this government, and says, "AVe will convert these options into cash"; and to do that the price of wheat

Seed Grain
has been raised how many cents? That is the question. What is the premium? The intelligent action to take would have been in July, when it was known what the crop was, not to have had it converted into options.


Charles Avery Dunning: It was not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It says so here.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, let me read from the auditors' report:
On August 19th, 1937, the board commenced the policy of converting long options held on Number 2 account into purchase contracts for certain grades of wheat so as to ensure the retention of rust-resistant and other varieties for seed purposes in 1938. The transactions on this account to March 19th, 1938, are reflected in Exhibit B attached hereto.


Charles Avery Dunning: But that is not what my right hon. friend said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that in July they converted their then holdings into options.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But they did.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, that is directly the opposite.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There were outstanding options for the whole six million bushels in August.


Charles Avery Dunning: They did not convert them into options.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They started to convert them into cash.


Charles Avery Dunning: Into cash, not options.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I have been saying right along. W'hat I say is that the options which expired were renewed and this wheat has been carried since the day they took it over at 89f cents.


Charles Avery Dunning: The futures.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Murray took it over
at 89J.


Charles Avery Dunning: The futures.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the futures were renewed from time to time, so that on July 31, 1937, there were outstanding options, that is futures wheat, for 6,964,000 bushels.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then the Saskatchewan government apparently saw the wheat board; that information is communicated to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and he makes a report to council which is recorded in December, mark you, long after this work was
started. That is the reason why I asked as to the authority for that. I asked how it came about, by whose authority it had been done. I cannot go beyond the auditors' report, for I have not access to the papers; but the auditors say that it was on August 19, 1937, that they were on this job of converting options into cash. Let me read the words of their report:
On August 19th, 1937, the board commenced the policy of converting long options held on Number 2 account into purchase contracts for certain grades of wheat so as to ensure the retention of rust-resistant and other varieties for seed purposes in 1938. The transactions on this account to March 19th, 1938, are reflected in Exhibit B attached hereto.
Here is Exhibit B:
Bushels
Wheat purchased and stored in interior terminals and in country elevators (screenings 147,000 lbs.) 4,684,946-40 Wheat commitments-open purchase contracts (net)	 2,287,903-55
Wheat exported for milling test
purposes	 48,008-00
Total purchases and open purchase contracts	 7,020,858-35
Deduct: Options exchanged against export shipments.. .. 48,000-00 Sales of off-grade seed
and feed wheat. .. 44,612-50 Fire loss adjustment. 1,825-05

 94,437-55
Net stocks-seed and feed account. 6,926,420-40


Charles Avery Dunning: On what date?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was March 19 of this year, nine days ago. It goes on:
Cash position
Liability on wheat delivered but
not paid for	$1,159,035	93Estimated liability on open purchase contracts	
2,904,349	64Due to No. 2 account	
5,255,701	31
Total liability on seed and 

feed account	$9,319,086	88
Where did the board get this power? Under what authority are they acting? The Wheat Board Act gave them no such power, and I have known the house to be kept for days while hon. gentlemen opposite on former occasions thundered anathemas on the question of authority and power. Well, what is their power here? Their power is to convert options into cash but unless somebody is going to take a loss-


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my right hon. friend acknowledge that they have power to turn options into cash?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no doubt that if it was for the purpose-


Charles Avery Dunning: Thanks
Seed Grain


Richard Bedford Bennett: The act says distinctly that if they were dealing with their own transactions, they had the power, but the documents show that it had passed out of their hands.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is not out of their hands now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Excuse me. I do not know what ministers were present, but the government on December 19 passed an order in council from which it appears that they knew these very things.


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course we knew them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, how did you act between August and December? What was the authority?


Mr. EULER:: I am speaking from memory now, and possibly there may be criticism in connection with this; but the Saskatchewan government, so far as I recollect, made the suggestion to the wheat board that the options should be converted into cash wheat for the purposes of seed. The committee of the cabinet, four members, decided that it was quite a proper thing to do and, after discussing it, gave verbal authority. It may have been by wire or letter-I do not have it before me- but authority was given to the chairman of the wheat board so to act, to convert the options into cash wheat and so supply the Saskatchewan government at a certain price fixed according to the price over an average period. It was not thought necessary-and this is why I say that possibly there may be some criticism, though we had legal opinion- to have an order in council passed with respect to the matter; but later it was deemed better [DOT]-and I believe it was on the suggestion of the chairman of the wheat board himself- that an order in council should be passed, and the order was then passed, according to what my right hon. friend says, some time in December. That is the explanation as far as I remember.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That puts the matter in an even worse light. The government knew the order in council was necessary and did not pass it.
Mr. EULER; No; we did not think so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And now in December th'v come along and do it.


William Daum Euler: Exactly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, surely this committee is entitled to something fuller than that in the way of information.


William Daum Euler: That is all we have.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, we have not seen that yet. The minister is speaking of his recollection of these matters; I think we should see the documents.


William Daum Euler: My right hon. friend is perfectly welcome to have any documents that are in existence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would seem to me strange that the consent was given on December 15, 1937, and the auditor's report says this business commenced in August, 1937.
Then I should go a step further, and point out that on the financial side we have a still stranger situation. I take exhibit A, of August 21, 1937-I am using August because that, is the month in which conversion commenced.
Cash position:
Funds on deposit with banks.. $ 2,946,114 85 Funds transferred to dominion
government	
8,000,000	00Funds on deposit with dominion government	
2,000,000	00Due from Winnipeg Grain and Produce Exchange Clearing Association Limited	
42,586	25

Due from No. 1 account.. ..	11,858,104 18
That is the loss made by Murray after he took possession of the wheat.
Due from No. 3 account	 $49,574 88
Then you have due on Saskatchewan government account 850,570, which was discussed before the royal commission as though Mr. Justice Turgeon were a court. That matter will come up for discussion later. The cash surplus on No. 2 account was $24,845,810.16. That is the auditor's report, not my words.
I turn now to the account which is nine days' old, and this is the story:
Cash position:
Liability on wheat delivered but
not paid for	$1,159,035	93
Estimated liability on open purchase contracts		2,904,349 64
Due to No. 2 account	 5,255,701	31
Total liability on seed and 

feed account	$9,319,086	88
Eight million dollars could not be parted with; that got into the consolidated fund; the Minister of Finance saw to that. The S2,000,000 deposited he had .to hand back; that is gone. And all the cash they had, $5,000,000, has been spent in buying wheat, that is, in converting options into cash, paying for wheat. According to the auditor's report of nine days ago, you have a debt of $9,319,086.88 against -the surplus cash on No. 2 account on August 21 last of $24,845,810.16.

Seed Grain
These are not my figures; I am just reading them as they are. I think we are entitled to some explanation of that. By what authority was it done? How could it be done? Surely we have some right to know that, because the price of this wheat to the farmers of the west is of vital importance. If it were not for that, I admit that another place would be the place to discuss the matter. But there is the story, and I should like an explanation.


William Daum Euler: Is my right hon. friend's
point as to the price that is to be paid by Saskatchewan for the seed wheat?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister was not in the chamber this afternoon. The Minister of Finance has said that he cannot indicate the price clearly because the transactions of conversion are not all completed; the wheat is in process of delivery to some 1,100 points in Saskatchewan and he cannot say now what the price is going to be, but suggests somewhere around SI.45. Now this we know, that Murray bought that wheat for 89f cents, or thereabouts, in December, 1935.


John Gordon Ross: How much?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, a couple of hundred million bushels or thereabouts. And this is part of it. It was all gone but 6.964,000 bushels, and on July 31 that was in the shape of futures. The minister properly said this afternoon that I should not say they were all October options, because the evidence does not indicate that. But I can properly say they were futures. I think he meant to convey that possibly some may be December; I do not know. On August 28, it was determined that that wheat in the form of futures should be converted into real wheat. That costs money, and that money is indicated in these documents. I am asking, by what authority is this being done? I have had produced to me an order in council dated December 15, 1937, which I have read. That does nothing more than say that the minister recommends that the Canadian wheat board be authorized1 to exchange the long futures contracts that they have on hand as at July 31, 1937, namely, 6,964,000 bushels, for actual wheat to be used for seed and feed purposes. It was not all seed, mark you; part is feed.


Charles Avery Dunning: Feed for seeding purposes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It says for seed and feed purposes in Saskatchewan in connection with the sowing of the 1938 crop. The point I am making is that it was not all seed; part of it was feed. What I am asking is not unreasonable. We want to know by what authority this is being done, and why the
farmers of Saskatchewan have to pay the price of converting these options into cash wheat, when on July 31 your board saw fit to take that option and extend it at any rate to the future, that is beyond July 31. To-day the farmers of Saskatchewan and Alberta are going to be called upon to pay for it. The minister mentioned $1.45 as somewhere around what the price will be.


Charles Avery Dunning: That will be the outside limit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Including freight?


Charles Avery Dunning: All charges.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Carriage, insurance and
everything. That is the wheat which Murray took from McFarland or the wheat board or the cooperative at eighty-nine and a fraction cents in December 1935. There is the story. What I ask is, Where are the relevant documents? If we -were back in 1935 or 1934 with a story like this, just imagine what they would be saying! However, that is in the realm of conjecture and doubt; we shall leave that and deal with realities. Here are the realities, and I want some statement as to why and how and by what authority that is done.
I want to know more. We are giving the guarantee of the dominion government-I as a taxpayer am doing so-for this $14,000,000 in Saskatchewan and $1,900,000 in Alberta, and it is on the basis of wheat costing what has been indicated. The Minister of Agriculture made this clear this afternoon. Just imagine if we had done that, or anybody else with any business capacity! I find it incredible that this could have happened, knowing what conditions were in July, 1937. Was there anyone who had any doubt at that date about what crop conditions w-ere in this country? I crossed the plains just before that; I know that in Manitoba there was evidence of a crop, but I know that in parts of Saskatchewan and Alberta it was completely burnt up. Mark you, that is July 31, and here is the auditor's report that on August 28-


Charles Avery Dunning: The week ending
August 21.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is said here to be
August 19; that is the reason I turned it up, and with great deference to the Minister of Finance I am bound to take what the auditor says. He says that on August 19, 1937, the board commenced a policy of converting. There is the story, and I am sure the whole committee will listen with great pleasure to the explanation.
Seed Grain


William Daum Euler: As the committee knows, I
was not present while the discussion was taking place, but it seems to me there are just two points raised by the right hon. gentleman to which I should reply. The one. is with regard to the authority under which the wheat board was empowered to make these purchases of cash wheat; the other was with regard to the price per bushel which shall be paid by the Saskatchewan government for the wheat.
With regard to the authority, I have already given the explanation. The wheat committee of the cabinet met and decided that the chairman of the wheat board should be empowered to purchase this wheat, to turn the futures into cash wheat and supply the Saskatchewan government, and later the Alberta government as well. We did not think it was necessary to have an order in council. I am inclined to think we had the opinion of the solicitors of the Department of Justice; I am not quite sure about that, but I believe we were told that an order in council was not necessary to enable us to do this. I then wrote or telegraphed to the chairman of the wheat board that he could proceed in the direction indicated, namely the making of purchases of wheat and turning them over to the Saskatchewan government. Later on, as I said before-I think it was on the suggestion of Mr. Mclvor-it was thought that it might be better to have an order in council, conveying the authority in that way rather than merely by instructions from myself, authorized by the committee of the cabinet which has to do with wheat board matters. The price at which the wheat was to be transferred to the Saskatchewan government was an average price as between two dates, which I do not recall at the moment but which can be easily ascertained.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that settled?


William Daum Euler: The final settlement?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Have the terms been settled as to what the price is to be?


William Daum Euler: As to what the price per bushel is to be?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


William Daum Euler: No, I think not. The right non. gentleman means the price the farmer is supposed to pay? I do not suppose that would be possible.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The price at which the conversion was to take place?


William Daum Euler: I think not, but I am not certain as to that. I would say, however, that even if the price at which the Saskatchewan government bought from the wheat board were known, this would not necessarily empower the board to say what the price would be to the farmer, because other factors, transportation and matters of that kind, will enter into that price. I can give no further explanation than that. I take it that the government was at least acting in perfectly good faith in wanting to get that wheat over to the Saskatchewan government at as early a date as possible and at a fair price. I do not know whether my right hon. friend is trying to make the point that if that wheat was taken over at 89 cents, it should be transferred for seed wheat at that price. I would judge that the wheat should go to the governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta at what it was worth at that time, and that price was to be an average as between certain dates, which at the moment I cannot recall.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a difference of opinion between my hon. friend and the other minister in that respect, but that is all right; it is only a matter of memory in both instances.


William Daum Euler: I am speaking from memory now, and I think I am correct. I cannot give the exact dates, but'they can be easily ascertained. I could supply my right hon. friend with those dates without trouble.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Having regard to the experience of some of us on this side with respect to this matter, I remember that it was always thought desirable to have some legal background for any action taken, and I find that the powers of the board, as defined by the statute, were:
(a)	to fix a price to he paid to the producer for wheat delivered to the board as by this act provided, subject to the approval of the governor in council;
(b)	to sell and dispose of from time to time all wheat which the board may acquire, for such price as it may consider reasonable, with the object of promoting the sale and use of Canadian wheat in world markets;-
Those were the days when the advertisements with respect to bread were running so prolifically in British papers. I am quoting from section 8 of chapter 53 of the statutes of 1935:
(e) to sell and dispose of stocks of wheat and contracts for the delivery of wheat acquired from Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited and the wheat represented by such contracts as may be reasonably possible, having regard to economic and other conditions.

Seed Grain
That is dealing with cooperative wheat producers' wheat. This was a part of that wheat. There is, so far as I know, no other authority than possibly the prerogative right of the sovereign, that deals with this matter. I know of none at all, and I am asking for the authority for dealing with this wheat in this way.


William Daum Euler: I have explained that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If might makes right, the minister has explained it. If the dictatorial powers of the government extend without statutory authority to anything it pleases, I understand the situation.


William Daum Euler: Would my right hon. friend think that the subsequent order in council which was passed would rectify what he thinks was an improper action?


Richard Bedford Bennett: What your right hon. friend thinks is not just now the issue, but I shall tell you what he thinks. He thinks exactly what he says, that no order in council passed in December can give validity to what was done in August. That is what he thinks.


John Gordon Ross: Could it have been done under the other board, the former board?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; it could not have been done under any board-


John Gordon Ross: It was done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -as it stands now. That was done before the board was created. I should like to tell the hon. member for Moose Jaw that the circumstance to which he alludes was an entirely different one and had nothing whatever to do with this wheat board, which came into being in 1935 under chapter 53 of the statutes for that year, the administration of which has been solely in the hands of the present administration, except in regard to the fixing of the price for that year. If the hon. gentleman wants information with respect to seed which was bought by the old cooperative, it can easily be given.


John Gordon Ross: I am not talking about seed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What the hon. member wants to say, and does not quite have the courage to rise in his place and say, is: Was McFarland buying some wheat?


John Gordon Ross: No; I say
McFarland did buy wheat, and not from the producers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not. He dealt with it as defined in this statute:
(i) in selling and disposing of wheat as by this act provided, to utilize and employ without discrimination such marketing agencies, including commission merchants, brokers, elevator men, exporters and other persons engaged in or operating facilities for the selling and handling of wheat, as the board in its discretion may determine;-
In other words, the existing machinery was to be used; options were given and taken, and everything else was provided for.


John Gordon Ross: But McFarland bought 14,000,000 bushels of futures.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Absolutely, under that
section, and bought them for the board.


John Gordon Ross: Without any authority whatever.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; it was bought by the old cooperative before the board came into being, while it was still awaiting the authorization of the governor in council with respect to matters such as price and so on. But do not let us get away from the main issue, which is, by what authority this board, under the direction of the government, is now undertaking to give, in consequence of that arrangement, a guarantee which means that it will cost the settlers and farmers of Saskatchewan something in the vicinity of $1.45 a bushel for their wheat.


William Daum Euler: If they had bought it in any other way, would they have bought it for any less?	*


James J. Donnelly: The board were not buying wheat. They had their options and said they were going to take delivery of the wheat. That is not buying wheat. The other man had to go out and buy it and give it to the board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One or two more observations like that and the hon. member for Waterloo North will cry for " Blucher or night." That more nearly proves what we are saying than any observations which have been made by the minister. It is quite true that the board had become sellers of wheat, and they became sellers to Saskatchewan. They must be sellers at a price because the statute says they cannot sell except at a price. We want to know at what price they sold and that is what we have asked for. In view of the fact that the government directed the board to do this, surely we have the right to know three and a half months afterwards at what price they sold.


William Daum Euler: I have told that to my right hon. friend.
Seed Grain


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the minister with his generous disposition that he sometimes masks behind a frowning countenance be good enough to explain just what was the price?


William Daum Euler: I would be merely repeating what I have said already, and I am not going to burden the committee by doing that.


Charles Avery Dunning: My right hon. friend with his usual great ability has succeeded in weaving apparent mystery around a perfectly simple transaction. Here we had a condition in western Canada; it became apparent in June and July that over that great area there would not be a sufficiency of good seed for the following year. At the same time there existed a government agency, the wheat board, which had in its possession just short of 7,000.000 bushels in wheat futures contracts. These were just the same contracts as they had taken over originally from what my right hon. friend describes as the McFarland board. These futures contracts for wheat entitled the holder to get delivery at Fort William.


John Gordon Ross: They could deliver No. 1, No. 2, No. 3 or No. 4 northern, or No. 1 or No. 2 garnet.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall come to that in a moment. What would have been said of this government if, with a government agency holding nearly 7,000.000 bushels in wheat contracts, wheat had nevertheless been allowed to go out of the country and the farmers had been consequently unable to sow their land? As I recall it, we looked at the situation in late July after we came back from the imperial conference. I am glad my right hon. friend admitted a few moments ago that the wheat board had a perfect right to turn these futures contracts into real wheat, because that is the point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have to sell wheat. The law says that is their job.


Charles Avery Dunning: If the wheat board had the power under the statute to turn its futures contracts into cash wheat at any time, then there can be no question about the authority of the wheat board to go through with this transaction which we are discussing. Why is that? Once it has authority to turn futures contracts into real wheat, can there be any doubt as to its authority to keep that real wheat? Goodness knows, the wheat boards and the authorities which preceded them did keep wheat and wheat futures contracts for long enough periods, and they must have had authority to do so. At least, I am giving my right hon. friend credit for believing 
that he had authority to do what he did, just as we believe that we have authority to do what was done in this case.
What do we find? We find the wheat board as a matter of national interest instructed by a committee of the cabinet that, in view of the shortage of good seed, it would be better not to let wheat get out of the country so that we would be short of seed. Proceeding steadily from August on, the board proceeded to convert these futures contracts into actual wheat. It is apparent that it would have been useless and wasteful for them to have taken delivery of that wheat at Fort William, because Fort William is not the place where the wheat is required for seed. In addition, there would be heavy freight charges in shipping the wheat westward from Fort William to the places at which it was required. An even more important matter is that the deliverer of wheat under a futures contract would, as my right hon. friend well knows, have the power to tender to the board No. 1, No. 2, No. 3 or No. 4 northern. These futures contracts permit the deliverer to deliver these lower grades of wheat at an agreed upon discount.


John Gordon Ross: And No. 1 and
No. 2 garnet.


Charles Avery Dunning: All the garnet mixtures
could have been delivered. I shall do my right hon. friend the justice of saying that he never suggested that they should take delivery at Fort William.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He certainly did not.


Charles Avery Dunning: He knows perfectly well that if the holder of the futures contract does not elect to take delivery at Fort William under the terms of the contract, and requires delivery at some other place, he must negotiate the terms upon which that delivery is to be made, because it is a departure from the original contract which involves the possible delivery, as I have stated, of No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, or No. 4 northern at Fort William. I submit that not only had the wheat board a perfect right under this statute, as stated by my right hon. friend, to do everything which has been done thus far, but it had the undoubted power, as he says, to turn these futures contracts into cash wheat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; I did not say that.


Charles Avery Dunning: It had the undoubted
power to acquire that cash wheat, and it has the undoubted power to sell that cash wheat to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta in order that the farmers may sow it during the spring of 1938. The transaction

Seed Grain
is a perfectly simple one. As my right hon. friend says, they are sellers of wheat; their business is to sell wheat. Therefore, it is not their business to sell below the market. I believe I am correct in saying that the adjustments will involve turning the wheat over to the provinces concerned, to Saskatchewan at any rate, at a price based upon the average of prices between July 31 and whatever date is arranged for as the delivery date after this legislation has passed and it is possible to put through the financial aspects. My right hon. friend may take the financial statement and say that the surplus which existed now becomes a debt to the bank, and so on. He knows how simple that really is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly it is.
Mr. DUNNING; It does not cost all these amounts to carry wheat futures, but it does cost something to carry real wheat. Interest must be paid; storage charges must be paid, and freight charges must be paid when the wheat is moved from one place to another. The freight charges to each of the 1,100 individual destinations within the province of Saskatchewan will have to be paid. If, after that has been done, the prices involved are to be based upon the averages such as I have indicated, who can say that the transaction is an unfair one from the standpoint of the board, on the one hand, and from the standpoint of the farmers who are getting the seed, on the other?
The provincial governments appear to be perfectly satisfied. They are the primary debtors in the matter, and they have examined the whole transaction. They have dealt with the wheat board; they have not dealt with the government. The wheat board has perfect authority under this statute to sell wheat. In making arrangements to sell to these provinces, I submit that it is acting as much within its power as though it were selling to a miller, to an exporter or to any one else who might be buying wheat. There is the simplicity of this whole transaction. There is nothing mysterious about it at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If these orders in council are correct, there is a distinct limitation on the part of the wheat board with respect to this wheat. This is not the wheat that is covered by a special section in chapter 53 of the statutes of 1935. Paragraph (c) of section 8 reads as follows:
(e) to sell and dispose of stocks of wheat and contracts for delivery of wheat acquired from Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited and the wheat represented by such contracts-


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes-"and the wheat
represented by such contracts."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely. It goes on:

as may be reasonably possible, having regard to economic and other conditions.
That is what they had to sell. Then there is another provision with regard to their getting the wheat. That wheat, we find by the government's own records, was purchased by Saskatchewan, and here is why I say that- and, mark you, before any conversion took place at all-Saskatchewan bought the wheat under the provisions of that subsection.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is not bought yet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All right; then I am going to ask this question: Why did you pass the order in council on the fifteenth of December?
The committee of the privy council had before them a report, dated 13th December, 1937, from the Minister of Trade and Commerce, stating that the Canadian wheat board advise with regard to the question of converting wheat futures into actual wheat to be used for seed and feed relief in the province of Saskatchewan, that arrangements have been made by the Saskatchewan government for the purchase of this wheat.


Charles Avery Dunning: Exactly-"arrangements"; and they are not completed yet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely the hon. gentleman knows that the arrangements are arrangements to purchase the wheat; but being the kind of lawyer that he showed himself this afternoon, perhaps he has not appreciated that fact.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not a lawyer; but we have the wheat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This order in council says that they arranged to purchase the wheat, and here is the amazing part of it:
-and that all charges in connection with the handling, such as premiums, storage, transportation and any additional charges will be paid by the Saskatchewan government.
So that on December 13 last the government knew that the wheat board had sold the wheat to Saskatchewan.


William Daum Euler: We knew it before that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely. The Minister of Finance said he knew it when he came back from England, and I assume that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who does not seem to have graced that occasion with his presence, knew of it during the absence of the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Trade and Commerce had been wandering around Australia-


William Daum Euler: So had the right hon. gentleman.
Seed Grain


Richard Bedford Bennett: -and he learned during the absence of the Minister of Finance what was the fact. Here are the transactions. First, the wheat board, as authorized by law, sold wheat futures to the government of Saskatchewan.


William Daum Euler: Not futures; they sold wheat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the law says they have the right to sell wheat:

and the wheat represented by such contracts as may be reasonably possible, having regard to economic and other conditions.
They sold the wheat and they undertook to convert the futures into real wheat for the government of Saskatchewan. I want to know where their authority to do it came from.


Charles Avery Dunning: The right hon. gentleman himself said they had authority.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman misunderstood that observation. That had reference to their duties with respect to sales. They had no right to do a job for the province of Saskatchewan and take the risk of this money being paid.


Charles Avery Dunning: Take the risk of its being paid?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, by Saskatchewan, the premiums and all the handling charges.


William Daum Euler: There was the same risk if they sold it to anybody else.


John Gordon Ross: May I ask the right hon. gentleman what act he is quoting from?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Canadian Wheat Board Act of 1935, section 8, paragraph (c), and I have been reading from the order in council passed on the fifteenth day of December, 1937, which undertook to authorize something to be done which, according to the auditor's report, had already been done on a large scale, and for which the wheat board made an arrangement with the province of Saskatchewan as a corporation. It may have had power to contract to do a job of work for the province of Saskatchewan, but it is not so indicated in the powers granted to it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Read section 7.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Section 7 provides:
The board shall undertake the marketing of wheat in interprovincial and export trade and for such purposes shall have all the powers of a corporation and without limitation upon such powers the following


Charles Avery Dunning: "Without limitation," it says.
[Mr. Euler 1


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a special clause that dealt with the cooperative wheat, and then you find in paragraph (c) of section 8 that the general powers of this board were entirely different from its powers with respect to this particular wheat. That wheat formed the subject of special legislation. It was discussed in committee and there were varying views about it. Hon. members will remember the difficulties that came about with regard to the acquisition of this wheat. There is no question how that difficulty came about, is there? Paragraph (f) of section 7 says:
Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, to acquire from Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, upon terms to be approved by the governor in council, all wheat or contracts to purchase or take delivery of wheat in respect of which the government of Canada has given a guarantee.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my right hon. friend interpret the words in section 8, "it shall be the duty of the board," to constitute a limitation on the general powers that he read a moment ago in section 7 giving the board the powers of a corporation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The duty of the board legally imposed on them the obligation-


Charles Avery Dunning: Does that limit the general powers given under section 7?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Paragraph (c) dealt specifically with the board's wheat. The cooperative wheat was dealt with. After we get it into their possession, there is a definite way in which it has to be treated. It stands separately. There were no participation certificates to be given with respect to that.


Charles Avery Dunning: But the very language of paragraph (c) permits everything that one could desire.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Paragraph (c) puts a limitation on this wheat as distinguished from any other. I am not stickling over technicalities. The board undertook this work for Saskatchewan. What I am coming to is this: We knew what the situation was prior to the end of July. We had some clear appreciation of it apparently towards the beginning or middle of July at any rate. We did not do anything, but Saskatchewan did. We then permitted them to acquire the wheat; but we did not pass any order in council until they wanted to purchase some seven million bushels of wheat, and we passed an order in council in December authorizing them to do it in August, that is-after it had all been done.

Seed Grain
Then comes the question what the price is to be. The statute is obligatory on the price.
I do not know yet what the price was. I have been trying to find out all night. I am tremendously interested in the price, as every member is, because it affects two things. First, it affects the standing of the wheat board with respect to the McFarland wheat. Second, it affects the price the farmers of western Canada are going to pay for that same wheat. At what price was that wheat sold?


John Gordon Ross: Before the minister answers, I understand that the right hon. gentleman says that he is quoting from sections of the 1935 Canadian Wheat Board Act, and he is endeavouring to find out what authority the government had under the act to purchase the wheat for the province of Saskatchewan. I happened to be on the wheat committee a year or so ago, and as I remember it, the board under Mr. McFarland purchased some ten million bushels of wheat, not for any provincial government, but by way of wheat options for the purpose of gambling on the wheat market at that time. These facts were brought out before the wheat committee; they have never been refuted by anyone; and surely, if Mr. McFarland had that power at that time under this act, the government should have the same power under this legislation to purchase wheat for the provincial government that needs to buy seed for the farmers in that province.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose it may be desirable to make it clear that that observation has no merit in fact. I, therefore, shall do so. It was the cooperative enterprise that bought the ten million bushels of wheat.


John Gordon Ross: With th% same gentleman acting as chairman or manager of the cooperative.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was not the wheat board that bought it. Supposing the hon. gentleman just retracts the false statement he made.


John Gordon Ross: What false statement?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That the wheat board bought ten million bushels.


John Gordon Ross: Mr. McFarland bought it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. McFarland did not. The cooperative enterprise bought the wheat. We had the evidence of that. It was before the Turgeon commission.


John Gordon Ross: What Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde do is the same thing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, it may be that the hon. member feels that he has added to his reputation by making that observation. The wheat board had not yet been organized; it was in process of organization, and the cooperative turned that wheat over to Mr. Murray. It is true they sold some wheat during the next few days; but whatever parcel was mixed with it, the general body of wheat was turned over to Mr. Murray, on which a profit-


John Gordon Ross: It does not make any difference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member says it does not make any difference.


John Gordon Ross: Not a bit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The only difference I would suggest is that it would be the generous and kindly thing to say, " I made a mistake when I said that the wheat board bought the wheat. The cooperative bought it." It would sound better and look better in the future.


John Gordon Ross: The facts came out before the wheat committee. Mr. McFarland was working at the same time for both the wheat board and the cooperative under a guarantee from the government of this country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. The hon. member may have an account with a set of brokers as a wheat dealer. I do not suggest that as a member of parliament he has it.


John Gordon Ross: No; I have not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He might do two things. He might as a member of parliament do one thing; he might as a citizen do something else. Mr. McFarland, as part of the cooperative enterprise, bought that wheat, and hon. members will find the evidence in the Turgeon commission report if they want the rest of it. It was not bought by the wheat board; for the wheat board was in process of organization, and it was not an easy thing to organize; it took some time. That is all.


Malcolm McLean: I wonder whether the right hon. leader of the opposition would tell us with whose money Mr. McFarland bought this twelve to fourteen million bushels?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He bought it with the cooperative's and the banks' money. It was charged up, as the hon. member will remember, in the bank account of the cooperative enterprise-in three banks, I think.
Seed Grain


Malcolm McLean: With a guarantee from the government of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly; and the reason the guarantee was given was a sound one. It was during that interregnum before the wheat board took charge, and it was for the purpose of stabilizing operations in the price of wheat. This was in 1935, remember. This is the transaction in 1935 that we are talking about. The hon. member probably forgot that.


The CHAIRMAN:: Is clause 2 carried?


Ernest Edward Perley: No, Mr. Chairman. I think there has never been before parliament legislation as important as this on which so little information has been given, or, in relation to which, as regards the details in respect of this operation the government have been less-well, I would not say, frank, but certainly they have not put the details before us. This evening we have had the admissions: First, that they do not know the acreage to be seeded; second, that they do not know what the price is going to be; third, they do not know the quantity of seed required; and, fourth, they do not know where they are getting the wheat, whether in Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba-


Charles Avery Dunning: We know we have it.


Ernest Edward Perley: They do not know how much was converted from options into cash during any one month, and there is a great deal of information we cannot get. This is a very important measure, and we should have this information. I wish to refer to the statement made a minute ago by the' hon. member for Moose Jaw. If I had had about another two minutes I could have cited the evidence; I have the record here. I was just about to find the question which he brought up, because he was the person who brought the matter before the committee at that time. I may say that a day or two afterwards his statement was corrected, as the right hon. leader of the opposition has just stated; it was made plain that that McFarland operation was on behalf of the cooperative wheat producers.
The Minister of Finance mentioned the procedure with respect to this conversion. He stated that the contract called for delivery at Fort William, and he is quite right. He stated that Fort William was not the place where the wheat would be required. That also is certainly correct. He followed this up by stating that it would be useless for the board to take delivery of wheat at Fort William. I wish briefly to explain how that

conversion could take place. I have before me the daily prices of wheat and futures from August 1 to the present. On December 15, the date of the order in council authorizing the action of the board, cash wheat at Fort William was $1.39 for No. 1 northern, and the option which was being converted stood at practically 89 cents to the board. I think the minister will admit that.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does the hon. member contend that the value of that wheat was the value as of a date back in 1935, or the value at which it could be disposed of at that moment?


Ernest Edward Perley: I shall come to that. The option was for 89 cents. I gave the information this afternoon with respect to the switching and what it cost; and that was switched- true enough-from month to month, from 1935 down to December, 1937. I cited the evidence of the report of the wheat board this year that on those operations they made a profit on switching, and I quoted from the evidence given by Mr. Murray that their position was not weakened by switching from month to month. Therefore, the position as far as the board was concerned was that they had a contract at 89 cents which called for delivery of wheat at Fort William. Is that right? That is what the wheat would stand them there.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Ernest Edward Perley: The wheat was S1.39 cash wheat that day, so there would be 50 cents spread there. If they took delivery of the wheat, with discounts on Nos. 2, 3 and 4 northern, they could easily have had that cash wheat and sold it there and bought the wheat in the interior. I should like the minister to state what the spread would be between wheat at Fort William and wheat in the interior. Certainly wheat in the interior of Saskatchewan is not worth the same as wheat at Fort William, so they would have a little advantage there. I think they would have had no trouble in buying the wheat from the elevator interests in Saskatchewan even if they had taken delivery at Fort William. I have a report here showing the amount of wheat in the interior. There is no question in the world that there were twenty million bushels in the three provinces in December and January. I believe that the grain trade was advised not to ship any out, but to hold it there; that some arrangement would be made and that a certain amount of wheat would be required for seed. I am of opinion that there was not less than half the amount required, of No. 1 and No. 2

Seed Grain
northern wheat, in Saskatchewan. If I am not right in assuming that they could have taken delivery at Fort William, sold their cash wheat there, bought the wheat back in the interior, and been able to supply wheat to the farmers at not more than $1.20, I should like to be corrected, or to have the minister explain the situation.


Charles Avery Dunning: Shall we call clause 2 carried, Mr. Chairman?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to know at what price the wheat board sold this wheat to Saskatchewan? I am using now the language of the statute. It has been made clearer this evening than it was this afternoon that the purchase by Saskatchewan was early in August, on the 19th of August or prior thereto. At what price was it sold? The statute says that the price shall be stated, and I want to know what it is.


Charles Avery Dunning: The price was not stated when the arrangements were made to undertake this transaction. I have made that clear at least half a dozen times.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Trade and Commerce says otherwise.


Charles Avery Dunning: The Minister of Trade and Commerce on no occasion said that the price was set.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; he said it was agreed that the average price between certain dates should be the price.


Charles Avery Dunning: The formula agreed to
was that to be fair to every one it was quite evident that a system of averaging would have to be employed. On the first occasion when I spoke to the financial resolution preceding the bill I expressed it as my own view that the fairest way would be to take the average of prices from July 31, down to the date when the province actually took delivery of the wheat.
We reach this point in trying to satisfy my right hon. friend. We estimate that it will be between S1.40 and $1.45, taking into account all charges including distribution cost to 1,100 points in Saskatchewan. Closer than that we cannot come to-night. After all, what difference does it make to our getting along with this legislation whether it was SI.434, or SI.43|, or S1.44? We have endeavoured to come as close as possible, because the actual factors making up the transaction have not yet been determined, and cannot be determined until the transaction is completed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In his statement on Friday the minister said that no requisition had been made by the Saskatchewan government.


Charles Avery Dunning: Shall we call clause 2 was not the correct word, yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If I remember rightly, the Saskatchewan government last year canvassed the different municipalities and asked them to give an estimate of how much seed would be needed and what the acreage would be, and on the basis of that survey the Saskatchewan government asked for a certain sum of money to be granted by the federal government. The amounts given by the Minister of Agriculture last year were: wheat,
2.739.000	acres; oats, 1,300,000 acres; barley,
39.000	acres; flax, 14,400 acres; rye, 10,400 acres, making a total of 4.102,800 acres for which seed was to be supplied. A survey had been made, and on the basis of that survey a definite amount was stipulated as required to satisfy the operations. Has anything like that been done this year? The minister said that he had no definite figures as to acreage; but both Alberta and Saskatchewan must have made some survey in order to find out what the requirements would be, and at least an approximate figure must have been arrived at of the number of acres to be seeded, so that we should have some idea of the total acreage as compared with the total acreage last year.


James Garfield Gardiner: Those who have been associated with the making of estimates in connection with seed grain and seed grain requirements in Saskatchewan, and in AJberta as well, have been working at this job, most of them, during the whole seven or eight years that there has been necessity for supplying seed to the people of those provinces, and the same type of officials here at Ottawa have been engaged during all that period in checking all those estimates. Some of the ministers here at the present time have also had previous experience of the same kind in the provinces. With all that experience we know fairly well what the acreages are likely to be, but no one is prepared to make more than an estimate of the situation at the present time.


John Gordon Ross: No farmer can on his own farm.


James Garfield Gardiner: No. There is the additional difficulty this year, coming into all the discussions which have taken place with regard to this matter, that for the first time in the whole history of Saskatchewan there was not enough wheat grown last year to seed the province.
Seed Grain


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not on a full acreage crop.


James Garfield Gardiner: There was slightly over two bushels to the acre grown altogether, and by the time you cleaned that and eliminated what was unfit for seed, there was not sufficient grown in the province last year to seed the province. Furthermore, what is generally spoken of in this house as the drought area is not the drought area at all. What has been spoken of as the drought area comprises 170 municipalities in Saskatchewan, for which the federal government pa>rs the full cost, and fifty-two municipalities in Alberta for which the federal government also bears the full cost in connection with relief. But in Saskatchewan that is not half of the area in the whole province which is suffering from drought this year. The new sections are not in exactly the same position as the other sections of the province, because much of the land is suffering now its first year of drought. Some of it had a year of drought in 1931 and no drought since, and to begin to estimate the requirements of those sections as against the requirements of the other sections, would be, I think, futile. I have all the yields in the different municipalities, and I could read them to the committee, but they would not be of any value. Municipality after municipality has no yield whatever. When you get into the neighbourhood of Qu'Appelle river and Long lake, coming from the southwest, you get from two to two and a half bushels, and in areas still further removed to the north and east you get around four and five, while at the very best in some limited areas you get seven, eight or nine bushels. But those areas are extremely limited.
To speak of wheat in Saskatchewan last fall which might have been kept for seed purposes is to overlook the fact that it would have cost more to have kept it in Saskatchewan and to have shipped it from where it was to where it is needed than to have purchased it in Alberta or in Manitoba and shipped it in. All these matters enter into the estimate of acreage, and the nearest estimate that can be made by any one at the moment is the estimate I gave this afternoon, namely, that there will be in the neighbourhood-it may be above or it may be below this figure-of 12,000,000 acres upon which seed will have to be put through government assistance. This does not mean that the whole 12,000,000 acres will be seeded to wheat, or that the whole 12,000,000 acres will receive seed from the governments. There is, however, an acreage of 12,000,000 acres that we shall have to consider giving assistance to. If we take TMr. Gardiner.]
Alberta, the regulations there permit of seeding up to 300 acres; but that includes all that the farmer has in his bin, and to estimate the acreage there for which seed will have to be supplied as compared with some other areas where the farmer cannot possibly have seed in his bin, is an impossibility and something that would not help the committee in arriving at a decision as to what should be done.
The whole acreage that requires assistance from the government will get assistance somewhat on the basis which has been outlined to the committee, a basis that, as I pointed out at the beginning of .the discussion this evening, was not properly set out in the statement made the other day and this afternoon again, to the effect that the acreage was set in legislation. The acreage is provided for through the regulations provided for in the legislation, and that is subject to some change. But that is an acreage set for the purpose of making an estimate, and anything that can be given the committee can be nothing better than an estimate. We are relying on the provincial and municipal governments to do this year as they have always done in their own interests, to hold the amount down to actual requirements but at the same time to see to it that the province and the municipality are not placed in a difficult position next fall, if they have a crop, in consequence of no seed having been put in the ground this year. They are as anxious to collect tax rates as we are to do the right thing by these people, and we are just as anxious to do the right thing by them as anyone in this committee can be. All that we think it necessary for this committee to do is to keep a proper check to see that money advanced by the people of Canada is not squandered, and to rely on the elected representatives of the people in the province and the municipalities to take care of the needs of the people so far as these total amounts permit of that being done. I think that, having made that check, we have done all that this committee should expect in connection with a matter of this kind.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The bill says, "for purchasing seed grain and providing other assistance to the farmers." I assume the "other assistance" includes what the minister mentioned this afternoon. Could the minister give some statement as to the basis on which fuel would be given? Is it the same ratio as last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Approximately the same.

Seed Grain


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question of price having been adjusted in the manner indicated, perhaps the Minister of Trade and Commerce will give that information before we finally finish with this bill.
The only other question I wish to ask the minister is, how was it arranged that the wheat board should advance its own surplus moneys and borrow moneys to do what under the order in council it is provided that Saskatchewan would do? The statute simply says that Saskatchewan will bear all the incidental costs. I find now that the auditors' reports show that the board have not only exhausted the money they had on deposit, the two millions, and also other moneys, but also borrowed from the banks. Has the government any knowledge of any arrangements by which Saskatchewan thus divested itself of a responsibility which was the basis upon which this government gave them power to go ahead? The order in council is quite explicit on that point. In the order in council of December 15 it is provided:
. . . that all charges in connection with the handling, such as premiums, storage, transportation and any additional charges will he paid by the Saskatchewan government.
I merely ask for information, because it may become important in respect of the question of price. The report by the auditors of March 19, nine days ago, with respect to the financial side, reading from exhibit A, states that they owe the banks $325,270.53 and the seed and feed account owes them $5,2o5,/01.31. Perhaps the minister can give some information on that point.


Charles Avery Dunning: It all arises from the
well known fact that Saskatchewan could not finance a transaction of this sort without the guarantee of the federal government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not the guarantee
I am talking about but this money.


Charles Avery Dunning: Exactly; but it starts
from the fact that the credit of Saskatchewan is not such that it could pay on its own account fourteen or fifteen million dollars to the wheat board. The method by which this parliament dealt with the financing of seed wheat in the last two years was by way of guarantee of the credit of the provinces. That guarantee is not available to the provinces until this parliament enacts it into law. Hence the wheat board, in making the arrangement to accumulate this wheat for those provinces, had to look forward to the possibility of this parliament again acting as it had done in each of the last two years, by providing the requisite credit to
enable the provinces to carry out the obligation they were assuming. This government felt sure that this parliament would, by this method, once more give those western plains a chance to grow a crop. The wheat board took our assurances in this regard, and the bill implementing those assurances is now before this committee, to enable the provinces concerned to pay the wheat board for the wheat which it has acquired for them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That answers that part of the question, but not the question why they had to borrow money to do things which the province promised to do by the order in council passed by this government, wholly outside the question of the purchase price.


Charles Avery Dunning: The purchase price ineludes all charges; it cannot be separated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It seems to read as
though they were to treat them as being separate, that is, what was incurred by the board after the purchase was made would be dealt with by Saskatchewan paying these charges. If the minister says that this also is to be borrowed from the banks as part of the money, then I understand it will be included in the $14,000,000 of which the Minister of Agriculture has spoken, part of the purchase price.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then, assuming that
they are going to treat it in that way, the minister pointed out what the price would be to the wheat board; that is, what they would receive. They will receive back the money spent for the purpose of conversion of the options into cash wheat, including any premium paid. They will receive a purchase price on the basis of the average between given dates, as mentioned by the minister. The next question is whether this distribution that is to take place at 1,100 points, involving different freight rates and matters of that sort, would have anything to do with the amount of money received by the wheat board. This committee is interested in what the wheat board receives; what the wheat board should receive should have no relation to these 1,100 points to which wheat is to be shipped.


Charles Avery Dunning: The wheat board is disbursing the money necessary to take the wheat to the ultimate points, and must be reimbursed for that by the provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But that would not have any relation to the purchase price of the

Seed Grain

wheat. Suppose they sold the wheat to Dreyfus instead of the government of Saskatchewan, they would get a fixed price, say $1.25 a bushel. What I am asking the minister is whether these subsequent dealings between the board and the province have anything to do with the price that will be received by the board for wheat qua wheat.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister said something a moment ago which would lead one to believe that it might have.


Charles Avery Dunning: There will be merely
reimbursement of the expenditures made by the board on behalf of the province, in keeping the wheat the necessary length of time and paying premiums for the purpose of converting cash into options.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the purchase price qu.* wheat will be the average?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Ernest Edward Perley: The minister has given
us an idea what the price of the wheat may be. Has he an estimate of the price for oats, barley, rye and flax?


James Garfield Gardiner: The estimated cost of the wheat is 81.45; seed oats, 70 cents; seed barley, 75 cents; seed rye, $1; seed flax, SI.50; feed oats, 60 cents; fodder, $17. Petroleum products are estimated at $1,250,000; repairs to machinery, about $372,000. That is just in the drought area of 186 municipalities.


Ernest Edward Perley: That is an interesting
statement. I have a copy of a telegram which was sent to me on February 7, which indicates that this question of the distribution of seed and feed was discussed on the grain exchange, because the telegram is from the grain exchange. The prices quoted at that date are exactly those quoted by the minister now. It seems rather a coincidence that these prices which were quoted on or about January 28 should be exactly the same as those given to-night by the minister, and this telegram also indicates the estimated number of bushels required.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is really nothing peculiar about that. Any farmer in western Canada could have given my hon. friend the same prices. That is exactly what we are paying for feed at my own farm, 60 cents a bushel. I paid 58 cents last fall. That is the price all over Saskatchewan, as my hon. friend knows.


Ernest Edward Perley: The Minister of Finance mentioned that the price was not yet fixed. Did he mean the price to the farmer, or
IMr. Bennett.]
did he mean that the price was not decided at which they should take this wheat over from the grain interests, the grain firms that have the wheat in the elevators out there? Does the minister mean to indicate that they are taking this wheat and distributing it and it is being seeded, and that there has been no price arrived at or set at which it is to be taken over from the grain companies?


James Garfield Gardiner: The question, as I
understand it, is as to whether the price spoken of during these discussions, $1.45, is an estimated price to the farmer, and only an estimated price. I have understood all through the discussions, as I think the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has also understood, that this price is to include all the costs of laying the grain down on the farm. It can be only an estimated cost, because as yet the grain has not been laid down. As I said at an earlier point in the discussion, the intention of the provincial government, as far as we know it, is to lay down the grain to all individual farmers at the same price. This, of course, necessitates that - they know the actual cost of delivery to these 1,100 points throughout the province before the actual cost to the farmer can be determined. At the moment they have just made an estimate of it, and this government has checked that estimate and is satisfied with it.


Ernest Edward Perley: Then there is no definite price arranged so far as the grain firms are concerned?


James Garfield Gardiner: The wheat was actually taken over from grain firms. I imagine all, or practically all of it, has been taken over at a certain price, and that price will figure in the final price the farmer pays.


Ernest Edward Perley: The minister could not give us that price on the basis of No. 1 northern?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would have to get a check on all the wheat taken over since last July. Several million bushels were taken over before the middle of October, and you would have to get all the prices and average them for the term, together with the costs of storage and everything else.


Ernest Edward Perley: Could the minister give the minimum or maximum price?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture could answer the question I asked a few moments ago, as to the basis of distribution of feed, fuel and repairs to each individual farmer?


James Garfield Gardiner: As I understood the question, it was as to what is to be supplied. I think the best way to answer that is to read

Seed Grain
the section of the act. Subsection (4) of section 2 of the Municipalities Seed Grain and Supply Act, 1938, of Saskatchewan, reads as follows:
"Supplies" means petroleum products, feed grain, fodder, repairs to implements and parts, repairs to harness, formaldehyde and other smut control compounds and gopher poison, and includes such other commodities and such services as the lieutenant-governor in council may approve.
I think it will be agreed that this covers everything. Section 3 of the Agricultural Relief Advances Act of Alberta reads:
The lieutenant-governor in council may authorize the provincial treasurer, in order to provide for the payment of any expenditures incurred in respect of advances made in pursuance of this act during the year 1936 and during every year thereafter, for the purpose of furnishing to necessitous farmers, all or any of the following commodities, namely seed grain, fodder, feed grain, fuel oil and lubricating oil.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What I had in mind was this. On Friday the minister was good enough to tell us what seed the farmer would get on the basis of the land he had prepared for crop. I wondered if the minister could give us, as was given last year, how much fuel the farmer will get, how much feed he will get, and what amount he will be allowed for repairs on the basis of the amount of land he has available. I have before me what was given last year, and I wondered if the minister could give us any idea of what will be given this year to each farmer on the basis of the amount of land he has already for crop, and whether that will be given over and above the seed allotment already outlined by the minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the minister
answers, I am going to make a suggestion, along the lines of the observations made by the hon. member for Weyburn. In view of the wide powers conferred upon the lieutenant-governors in council by the provincial statutes, I had thought it might be desirable to say that in no event would the amount advanced for seed purposes exceed a certain number of dollars an acre.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is in their law now, 8200 a quarter section.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that in the law or the regulations?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is in the law.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That means $155 an acre. I asked that because I became a little uncertain about it after the minister told me that part of what he thought was in the statute was in the regulations. He is quite certain that is in the statute?
51952-113J


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; I have it in the statute here.


John Gordon Ross: That works out to about $2 an acre for the crop land.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not $1.25 for each acre seeded. There is provision that in certain sized farms the acreage seeded is to be a certain amount, and that figures out closer to $2.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like that information from the minister when he can give it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Some of this I hesitate to place on the records as definite information. This is a matter which is being dealt with by councils and by the provincial government, and much of what we say here just makes it that much more difficult in the line of administration. I think it unnecessary to say that this government is insisting that one of the other governing bodies should supply so much oil an acre or oil at such and such a cost an acre, thus just making it that much more difficult for the people who are checking up on all these expenditures to do what is just and proper without being involved in undertakings in which we probably should not involve them. I think the best I could do would be to give the estimated figures of what the costs will be, but I do not think we should say things in this chamber which will commit men to make expenditures that probably they think should not be made. If it will satisfy my hon. friend, I might say this, that the estimates with regard to oil and supplies generally will be on approximately the same basis as they were last year, taking the price feature into consideration. But to say that the government under all circumstances, if a man is using an engine, will supply so much oil or so much gasoline in terms of dollars, I think involves those administering the acts in undertakings in which I do not think they should be involved.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think that is a most unsatisfactory way to meet the situation.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Minister of Finance may laugh, but last year the provincial government of Saskatchewan circularized the municipalities. They set out, as I read this afternoon, a table, so much wheat, so much barley and so on. Then they went on to estimate the amount of fuel a man would get, so many gallons of distillate an acre, so many gallons of gasoline to so many gallons of distillate, and so on. If it was a good policy last year to lay down a definite basis of distribution, I cannot see why it should be wise
Seed Grain

this year to leave the matter surrounded with a haze of mystery. In view of what I pointed out this afternoon in connection with the situation in Saskatchewan, I do not think anything would do more to remove discontent or wrangling within a council, within a municipality or between an individual farmer and an inspector, than for the regulations to state clearly that according to the size of a man's farm and the amount of land he has ready for crop, he will be entitled to a certain amount of seed per acre, to a certain amount of fuel if he is a tractor farmer, to a certain amount of feed and to a certain amount of money for repairs. Otherwise it is inevitable in the distribution that someone will get a few more dollars than someone else.


Malcolm McLean: Rightly so.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Not necessarily.


Malcolm McLean: Would my hon. friend say that everyone should get the same amount of money for repairs, irrespective of what the requirements may be?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who is going to settle
that?


John Gordon Ross: You cannot
settle that until you get out there and find out.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There ought to be some basis. If the settlement of this matter is to be left to some person or persons, there will be trouble.


Malcolm McLean: That will be
inevitable with some items.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It was not considered inevitable last year when the Saskatchewan government sent out a circular describing the basis of distribution. I think we should proceed with a basis such as that. I am not suggesting that that particular one be used, but certainly something should be agreed upon so that this committee will know that this money is being distributed on a certain basis. We should know that the distribution will be made according to the amount of land ready for cultivation and not according to what some person shall decide what another person ought to have. I think we are providing for discrimination of the very worst sort.


John Gordon Ross: I have heard
it said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but I think it has been proven to-night that very little knowledge is a very dangerous thing.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member ought to know.


John Gordon Ross: There has been
only one member on the opposite side who has spoken who really knows anything about agriculture. I refer to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. I have been farming in western Canada for some twenty-nine years, and I say right now that I do not yet know how much grain I am going to sow this spring.
I cannot know that until I go out there to have a look at the land after the snow is gone in order to see its condition. How can one expect a municipality or an inspector to know definitely how much land will be prepared? The hon. member for Weyburn discusses this matter as though all land had to be cultivated this spring in the same way. It will cost twice as much to work some land as it will to work other land. Some land will take half a bushel more grain per acre than other land. Certainly no one in the provincial government can tell in the middle of the winter what will be the requirements per acre. We have the estimates before us, but they cannot tell nearly as well for a municipality or a provnice as I can for my own farm, and I have no idea at all right now. I do not know whether I shall sow 200 acres more or less of wheat this spring. I cannot know that until I see the condition of the soil and know what work must be done. It is foolish to expect any government to know these things. The government are providing an amount of money which they estimate will be needed for seed in these provinces, and that is the best they can do. The amount provided is a maximum amount, and that is all that can be done at this time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member for Moose Jaw makes a great deal out of the fact that only one member on this side who has spoken is a farmer.


Mr. DUPUIS:: How much land has the hon. member?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not a farmer, but I know a great deal more about an omelette than any hen that has laid an egg.


John Gordon Ross: The hon. member can mix things up.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member takes his own experience as a farmer as the basis for his argument. He forgets that when he returns home he will be able to use more or less seed as he decides, but the majority of people who will be getting seed under this plan will be sowing less land than they would like to sow.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


John Gordon Ross: Not necessarily.

Seed Grain


Vincent Dupuis: The minister said it was the minimum.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The fact of the matter is that most farmers will not be getting as much seed as they could use. That is apparent from the schedule the minister gave the other day.


James J. Donnelly: In other years they
have been sowing a lot of land they should not have sown.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member for Wood Mountain may know of instances like that, but I do not. The hon. member for Moose Jaw says that some pieces of land may take half a bushel more an acre than others, and that some farmers may require more for repairs. That may be true, but it is necessary to make a survey of the entire district to determine the number of bushels an acre required for this piece of land, the amount of distillate required for this farm and the amount of feed for that? That would be impossible. You will be doing far less harm by drawing up a schedule than by trying to adjust yourself to every contingency to be found in different parts of the province. You say it is nonsense to draw up a schedule, but Saskatchewan drew one up last year. All I am asking is that you return to the practice of last year.


Charles Avery Dunning: They will this year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If they will this year, why is the minister not able to state what it will be? He was able to tell me last year when I asked.


John Gordon Ross: A minimum has been set; does the hon. member want us to set a maximum?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not know what is the minimum.


John Gordon Ross: That information has been given half a dozen times.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What is the minimum amount of distillate a man will get?


John Gordon Ross: One tractor will use fifty per cent more distillate than another. How is one going to know how much is necessary?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is the government going to have its inspectors test out all the tractors by driving them?


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps I could explain the way in which this is arrived at. It has been known in previous years, and particularly last year, about what the average cost would
be for the whole acreage to be seeded in a municipality, or even in a whole province for that matter. The percentage of the land worked with horses and the percentage worked with tractors are fairly well known to the government authorities in both provinces. They estimate that a certain percentage of the crop will be seeded with tractors which will require a certain amount of fuel. A particular farmer will need so many gallons of gasoline and so much oil because he is farming so many acres with a tractor. But to put that into either a regulation or a law would be placing the provincial governments and the municipalities in a much more difficult position than they would be in otherwise. We know this from experience. I think it is much better to make estimates of what the average cost per acre will be; what is the average requirement for repairs; what will be the average amount of oil and gasoline required to operate a tractor; what will be the average amount of feed and fodder required; I think it is much better to arrive at one's conclusions and to set the limits in that way.
Then we can allow those who are closer for purposes of administration to arrive at decisions as to what ought to be done. I am sure that the hon. member for Weyburn will agree that if it is impossible for a municipal council to make the decision, and make it properly, or impossible for an inspector on the ground, no matter how he may be appointed, to make it, it is impossible for us to do it here. You may criticize the methods of appointment of the inspectors and all that; but if the inspector is capable of checking a quarter section of land, and he walks over it and sees its condition and the equipment that is on it, he is in a much better position to state what the amount ought to be than any hon. member, no matter how familiar he may be with agriculture. The best we can do in connection with these matters is to set the maximum amount which can be used for different purposes; to try to get that maximum as near as we can to the actual requirements, based on experience; then to set up the best checking organization we can get and see that the best inspection system is set up, not by ourselves but by others, for we only check that work; and then try to see that none of the money provided is wasted. When we have done that, I think we have done practically all we can do, and I would hesitate to put my opinion either in the form of a regulation or in legislation of this parliament as to how much gasoline should be used to farm a quarter section of land.
Seed Grain


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Did the minister find it unsatisfactory last year when they suggested one gallon and a half of distillate an acre?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have nothing to do with the administration; but passing through Saskatchewan as I did from time to time last summer, I think it was found very difficult in practice, largely because certain individuals take those figures and go out and say, "You did not give this fellow what the law or somebody in the house says he ought to get." That only makes trouble in the administration of the distribution. I would much prefer to check any complaints made afterwards and see that the proper thing is done, if anything improper is done, than for us to do anything now which would make administration more difficult.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I submit that you will have a great deal more trouble in this way if an inspector decides that of two farmers living across the road from each other one shall have a certain amount of fuel or a certain amount for repairs, and the other man something different. You will have far more trouble in that way than in what I am suggesting. I am quite aware that you will have a differentiation in types of soil and in conditions, and hardships might be worked on that account; but there will be a great deal more dissatisfaction and a great deal more quibbling done when you leave the whole matter to the individual judgment of some man who, if he is human, is bound to make mistakes and to have his interests, his influences and his likes interfere with his judgment.
One more question. The minister said this afternoon that feed and fuel would not be deducted from the amount of seed the man could get under the schedule. Does that apply also to repairs?


James Garfield Gardiner: 
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I raise the point only because it has been rife in Saskatchewan that a man would be allowed a maximum of seed for 250 acres, and that if he required repairs, the cost of the repairs would be deducted from the amount of seed he could get.


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am glad to hear that.


Mr. COLDWELL:: The definition of repairs is sufficiently wide this year, I take it, to allow of ordinary repairs being made at the local blacksmith's shop.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, yes, in actual practice. I might say in reply to what the hon. member for Weyburn has just said, that there is a limit on repairs, but it is only a limit of five per cent of the total credit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The total credit is $200?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; $200 a quarter section.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I mean.


James Garfield Gardiner: If a man is farming 320
acres, it is twice that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Suppose he has 250 acres, scattered over six quarter sections; would he get $1,200? That is one of my difficulties.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is limited by the 250 acre provision, if that is in the regulations this year. I assume it would not be higher than three hundred.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Did the minister say five per cent?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That would be $10 on a $200 credit?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That would not be a very large amount for repairs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I must say I think this
is terribly loose legislation. Just look at it for a moment, and think what we are doing. I, of course, realize the severity of the criticism of the hon. member for Moose Jaw, but it does not deter me from carrying out what I conceive to be my duty.


John Gordon Ross: I was not speaking of the right hon. gentleman at that time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a great thing to be able to farm on the stock exchange. I cannot recall any such loose legislation as this since I have been in the house.


Charles Avery Dunning: It has passed the house
in two successive sessions.

Seed Grain


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the situation seems
to be so much worse than it has ever been before. The language here I realize is not different from what it has been on other occasions, but what concerns me is where it leads to in the light of what has been said this evening. Is the federal government to have inspectors, and, if so, how many? How many inspectors is the provincial government going to have, and what is their relation pending a provincial election?


James Garfield Gardiner: The federal government have had inspectors for the past three seasons to check the feed and fodder put out and to check the requirements for seed. The number employed this year as of the particular date on which the answer was given the other day in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, was, I think, in the neighbourhood of thirty.


Ernest Edward Perley: Twenty odd.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it was twentynine. That is not the highest number we have had at any date, the highest number being thirty-five, but on the date on which the question was asked the number was twenty-nine. The numbers will not likely be increased beyond that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think everyone who has been following the discussion this evening will agree that our country is in a sad plight. No one could listen to what has been said here to-night without realizing how serious the situation must be. What we are doing is saying that we shall find, first of all, the seed for 250 acres in necessitous cases; second, that we shall find the feed and the fodder for the horses, if horses are used; third, that we shall find repairs for the engine, and fuel, distillate or gasoline, and that we shall find the lubricants. We are going to find everything that may be necessary for the purpose of enabling the crop to be put in. The maximum is $200 for each quarter section, but the area of 250 acres may be scattered over many quarter sections. When I put the case; to the minister a moment ago of the possibility of a man getting $400, he said that might be; but as regards the man who has 80 acres fit to crop on the 160 acres, what is the sliding scale on a quarter section; what is the maximum if he has only a quarter, if he can sow 70 or 80 per cent?


Charles Avery Dunning: Sixty per cent of the
cultivated portion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If he has a quarter section of land all of which in times past has been cultivated, 96 acres can be put down to wheat, and then he can get $200. But if
50 acres of that is on one quarter section and 46 acres on the other quarter section, he gets $400, on the basis of the statement made here to-night.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, but why not?


Charles Avery Dunning: He is restricted still by the number of bushels per acre for the land he seeds. That is the other restriction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; he is restricted as to the number, but I am talking about the repairs and the feed and fodder. The limit is $200 for each quarter section?


Charles Avery Dunning: Including the seed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, I asked if that included the seed.


James Garfield Gardiner: It includes everything.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the outside limit of everything.


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps I had better
read section 10, which clears the matter up:
A municipality which has borrowed money under this act shall from time to time expend it in the purchase and distribution of seed grain and supplies to be furnished to farmers who are unable to purchase the same without assistance and who have become unable to do so by reason of failure of crops or other adverse conditions; but the municipality shall not advance in any year seed grain and supplies of greater value than $200 in respect of any one quarter section.
That is the maximum limit for any one quarter section.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the case of oats and rye the situation would be different from that in the case of wheat.


Grote Stirling: What is the total amount of money which the dominion government has guaranteed and which it has to mp?t?


Charles Avery Dunning: I gave that the other
day.


Grote Stirling: It is on Hansard?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have it, but it is on Hansard. I gave it on the resolution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not deterred from doing what I conceive to be my duty by the criticism that I am not a farmer; I am dealing with legislation only as such. Might it not be desirable to incorporate in the statute the regulations that at the moment are purely regulations? Shortly put, the only protection we have here with respect to either of these provinces is the maximum of the amount we may guarantee.


Charles Avery Dunning: It must be used for certain purposes.
Seed Grain


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are not going to have control of that. That is my whole point. You start with the municipality. The Minister of Agriculture has dwelt upon the desirability of including the municipality because of the knowledge they have of local conditions. But, while the Minister of Finance is the custodian of the country's money, the bald fact is that the amounts of $1,900,000 for Alberta and $14,500,000 for Saskatchewan constitute the only limitation imposed in connection with this whole matter. You can think it over as carefully as you may. I have been sitting here for the last fifteen minutes going over it as carefully as I can.


Charles Avery Dunning: The terms of the statute are fairly explicit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know. But the provincial statute has been worked out by the people on the spot. What we thought of as a statute is purely regulation, and the government is introduced as one of the bodies that determine the matter, but as far as the Dominion of Canada and its taxpayers are concerned the only limitations imposed on our liability are those two amounts of $1,900,000 and $14,500,000. That is the reason why I started out with the idea that we should endeavour to impose some limitation in the way of conditions in the statute itself and make it a criminal offence to endeavour to violate it, because in communities there are rackets that arise which one little expects. I could give day and date with respect to some that have occurred in all parts of the country. We have them in every province; we all know that. All one has to do is to take the reports which come in sometimes from the mounted police, and one can find out without much difficulty what happens in some of these communities. No one for a moment questions the honesty of the great majority of the people. But when one is dealing with something which belongs to a government, the rule of conduct is not the same. I do not see sufficient safeguards in the legislation. However, I am not going to labour the matter further.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Governor in council to approve form and terms of guarantees.
Grote Stirling: Would the minister be good enough to repeat that figure-I have been looking through his statements of the other day and I do not find it-with respect to the total amount of guarantees over the seven or eight years during which the dominion government has made those guarantees.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, the guarantee
method was applied only in 1936 and 1937. Prior to that time the government lent money to the province and the province bought the seed with the money lent to it by the federal government of that day. I assume my hon. friend does not wish me to go back that far.


Grote Stirling: What I wanted to arrive at, even though it was only in the form of a rough figure, is what has it cost Canada to assist the farmers of the drought area on to their feet again?


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member means for the whole period, regardless of the method?


Grote Stirling: Has the minister any idea of the total?


Charles Avery Dunning: With respect to seed, or everything?


Grote Stirling: Seed.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall give a brief statement with reference to it. In 1932-33 Manitoba got $600,000 by way of loan from the dominion government. Saskatchewan in the same year got $6,000,000 and Alberta, $140,000. In 1933-34-these are still loans to the governments, remember-Manitoba got for relief in the drought area, including seed grain, $250,000. There was nothing for Saskatchewan or Alberta in that year. In 1934-35 Manitoba got $225,000 for relief in the drought area, including seed grain; Saskatchewan got $3,000,000 for seed grain, and by way of specific loans to pay relief, feed and seed accounts on hand July 31, 1934, to 31st August, 1935, $4,500,000. Alberta in the same year got $2,095,000 for assistance in seed grain and seeding operations. In 1935-36 Manitoba received $408,000 under similar conditions to those previously related; Saskatchewan, $6,000,000, and Alberta, $1,100,000. The totals up ot that date, because that was the last year in which the direct loan policy was followed, are: Manitoba, less repayments, $1,106,000; Saskatchewan, less repayments, $18,900,000; and Alberta less repayments, $3,195,000.
It will be noted that some of these are not wholly for seed grain; there were years in which seed grain and relief were more or less run together. These amounts that I have indicated were, of course, affected to some degree by the write-offs authorized a year ago over loans generally in that year. But with respect to our guarantees which have been given, no losses have been paid by the dominion up to now. That is because the dominion's responsibility does not become enforceable until there have been three crops,

Seed Grain
including the crop sown, and that has not occurred as yet. Therefore, under the guarantees it cannot be said yet what our ultimate loss will be. It will be remembered that when I first suggested this type of legislation to the house two years ago, I related the satisfactory experience which Saskatchewan had had with the guarantee method as compared with the direct loan method over the years in the past. Where you have the guarantee method with the machinery of the municipality and of the bank helping you to collect, the experience during the years in which the credit of that province was good, when the province did not have to come to the dominion at all for supplementary credit, was that the great bulk of such seed grain loans were repaid under the guarantee method. Of course, we have not the conditions to deal with that have prevailed in 1936 and 1937.


Mr. CHURCH:: As I understand it, the
seed will be given through the municipalities, the province guaranteeing the municipality and the dominion guaranteeing the province, in this case to the banks, in an amount of some 814,500,000. What I want to know is why, in the matter of seed, the same principle is not followed as in connection with relief. In the distribution of relief the Minister of Labour does not deal with the municipalities. Why utilize a quasi-political body like the governor in council? Why not use Mr. Purvis, former head of the employment commission, who was selected by the Minister of Labour and was the representative of the duPont dynasty in Canada. The Globe and Mail is evidently trying to unload him on our party as leader so as to make our party, as it were, merely an adjunct of the duPont dynasty of America, and we are not going to become any such thing. I submit that there should be a principle behind every vote. Why should we deal differently with Saskatchewan and Alberta and let the farmers deal directly with the municipalities? Why should the Ontario government not deal directly with the mayors in relief matters, as in this Bill No. 78, instead of having the municipalities deal with and through the province? There is a principle involved, and I submit the proposed method is unfair. The same principle should apply in all the provinces on all relief measures.


Ernest Edward Perley: I should like the minister
to look into the question of power. I think it would be advisable to discuss this matter with the provincial government, because there is no question about a shortage of power. I
have heard the statement made by the superintendent of one of the experimental farms in the west, that 40,000 horses which had been shipped to eastern Canada in the winter would not come back. That will deplete the horse power in the province to a considerable extent. The question is a serious one, and I hope the ministers will take it up with the provincial authorities and that more assistance will be given than is provided for under the legislation as it stands.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Terms of guarantee.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In outlining the regulations the Minister of Agriculture said that a committee of the cabinet and an inspector for the district would determine the amount of seed grain to be advanced. Who will have the final veto? The municipal council will receive applications from a number of farmers and those applications will be forwarded to the committee who will sit in with the inspector from that particular district. If it is decided that the amount is too much, will the reduction be made on a percentage basis or will the individual applications be reviewed and reductions made where deemed advisable? The minister said that six men in a municipal council were in a better position to know the farmer's needs than we were in this house. I have heard that before, but often the municipal council's decision is vetoed by someone else. I know, of course, that there must be some control; but I should like to know where the veto will lie, and whether the final decision will cover the total advanced to the municipalities or whether individual cases will be considered.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is entirely a matter of provincial administration, and anything that I may say with regard to it cannot be at all conclusive. The practice is for farmers to apply to the secretary of the municipality, and when the council meets the applications are submitted and discussed by the committee who know the conditions. The applications are submitted either to the whole council or to a committee of the council and to the representative of the government, who will be this inspector spoken of here, and he reports back to Regina with regard to the matter. He makes his own check, and the decision is usually reached as a matter of agreement between the province and the municipality in exactly the same way as we reach an agreement with the provinces. They
Seed Grain

discuss the matter from all points of view and decide upon the total amount to take care of the municipality.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the inspector be the final authority on the question as to what a certain farmer shall have, or by what amount his allotment shall be cut down?


James Garfield Gardiner: In 99 cases out of 100 they will agree that there is no final authority.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Some of the councils do not feel that way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why does the minister put paragraph (ii) in this form? We are dealing with our own guarantee, and I should have thought we would have said that we are not going to give a guarantee for any liability which accrues prior to three years from the date the guarantee is given to the province. The conditions under which our obligation attaches under the second sub-paragraph of section 5 make it referable entirely to the provinces. I should have thought the minister would have said that our guarantee should not become effective until three years after the date of the payment by the banks, because it is covered by the agreement. We introduce into this bill a provision that it does not prevent the province from making voluntary payments from time to time before the expiration of the three years. What have we to do with that? Obviously any money the provinces pay, so much the better for us. The whole fabric is based on a different appreciation of the transaction that I have. We, the federal power, are not concerned about their condition; all we should say would be that our guarantee would not attach until three years after the date in any event when the payments were made by the bank.


Charles Avery Dunning: I speak with bated breath about the part of section 5 to which my right hon. friend refers, because nothing has had more microscopic attention on the part of eminent legal counsel than this section, in order to ensure that the liability of the province and that of the government of Canada shall be separate and successive, and not joint-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is clear.


Charles Avery Dunning: -and, second, that we shall not give a dominion guarantee except in cases where the province has arranged that it shall have three years before its liability is enforced.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is where we differ.
[Mr. Gardiner !


Charles Avery Dunning: With all respect I can only say that that is as I am advised.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not want to question the law officers, but I have seen some fearful and wonderful products occasionally. This undoubtedly makes the province the determining factor. I refer particularly to that part which provides that the province shall not be prevented from making payments from time to time. What have we to do with that? All we have to say is the second condition, that no liability shall accrue under our guarantee until the expiration of three years from the date of the advance.


Charles Avery Dunning: With deference I think my right hon. friend is missing one point, namely, that there is to be a provision forbidding me as Minister of Finance to sign a guarantee unless the guarantee given by the province has the three year leeway. My right hon. friend will see that if the government could be required by the banks to pay in advance of the expiry of the three year period, that would create an obligation which the dominion government, if not under the terms of this legislation, at least for the sake of the credit of the country, would have to meet. So we endeavour to take care of it by saying that the Minister of Finance must not give the guarantee of the dominion unless he is sure that the province which is being guaranteed will not be required by its creditor to pay until three years from the date of the advance. That is really the intention. Then, in order to provide for the possibility of the province paying sums voluntarily in advance of requirement, the exception is made. Of course we are very anxious to have them do that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I merely say that the minister has much greater confidence in the provinces when he is dealing with the distribution of seed and oil and feed than when they are making a bargain with the banks. If the provinces have not intelligence enough to make the bargain that you say they have to make before you will give your guarantee, I have not that measure of confidence as to the other things which have been said here tonight with respect to the distribution of seed, oil, etc., because the provinces have to make that bargain, not we.


Charles Avery Dunning: But we refuse to come in unless it is a particular kind of bargain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, this may be the way to do it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

Railways and Shipping
On section 7-When province deemed unable to fulfil its guarantee.
Richard Bedford Bennett: That is an extraordinary clause. Surely the Prime Minister was not present in council when this bill was passed. Look at what the governor in council is going to do. He is going to decide that Saskatchewan is unable to pay its debts.


Charles Avery Dunning: The colleague of my right hon. friend, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, last year raised the point in connection with similar legislation to this in connection with the words in section 5, paragraph (i), "that the province is unable to fulfil its guarantee." He prophesied that such words would be completely unsatisfactory to the banks. He said there must be some means of defining when inability on the part of the province arises. We have tried to meet that point, because I may say the banks took the hint and did advance legal doubts as to the position. We have tried to meet the difficulty by section 7.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should say it makes it possible to attach an entirely different meaning to the words "inability to pay." The way in which it has been expressed is that the governor in council may by order, not define what is inability to pay, but define the circumstances under which the province shall be conclusively deemed unable to pay.


Charles Avery Dunning: There were a number of headaches over that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Orders and regulations.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Should we not say, as was often pointed out here, "not inconsistent with this act"? Some question was raised when we were on that side of the house and you were on this side regarding that. "To carry out the purposes and intention," I think should be limited by the words, "not inconsistent with the provisions of this act."


Charles Avery Dunning: It is just the same as it was before.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. DUNNING moved the third reading of the bill.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the minister undertake that the file dealing with the report made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is just now out of the chamber, will be made available for us to read? In all conscience what we should do is read that
file before the bill has third reading; but in view of the urgency of the matter, I shall be content if I have an opportunity to look over these telegrams and correspondence.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall be glad to call the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the necessity of bringing down all correspondence leading up to the order in council to which my right hon. friend refers.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the. house adjourned at 10.53 p.m.
Tuesday, March 29, 1938