AUSTRIA


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary -of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies in French and in English of the statement being made on behalf of Canada to the deputies of the council of foreign ministers on the establishment of an independent and democratic Austria. Perhaps it would be the desire of the members of the house to have this printed as an appendix to the Votes and Proceedings of today.
Mr. GRAYDON:: Mr. Speaker, this is about the third statement of the kind that has been laid on the table. When shall we have an opportunity of discussing these matters in the house?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The procedure of the house is, of course, in its own hands. We are now dealing with what is regarded as urgent legislation in accordance with a unanimous resolution of the house. When we get back to the debate on the address there will of course be an opportunity to discuss any matter connected with these statements or any other matter of general interest to Canadian policies. That would probably be the first opportunity that would arise for discussion of these statements which have been tabled.


Gordon Graydon: May I suggest to the minister that we ought to have two days set aside for the house to discuss external affairs. The situation as to lack of discussion has gone as far as we can allow it to go.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I was going to suggest that if this statement is not too long, it might be printed in Hansard, thus giving it wider circulation than it would get in Votes and Proceedings.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If that is the desire of the house, I have no objection to its appearing in Hansard instead of in Votes and Proceedings.
Austria

Canadian statement on the proposed treaty for the reestablishment of an independent and democratic Austria.
On January 14 in a memorandum submitted to the special deputies for Germany of the council of foreign ministers, the Canadian government stated that its essential interest in the German settlement was that it should provide the basis for a lasting peace. At that time the Canadian government was not prepared to submit its views on the substance of the German problem, pending consideration by the special deputies of its proposals for a procedure which would permit Canada and the other allies to take an appropriate part in the preparation of the settlement. The Canadian government proposed that appropriate participation might be achieved through the association of the other allies with the deputies, through committees or otherwise, in the actual drafting of those sections of the settlement in which they were most directly concerned.
In communicating this statement to the deputies, the Canadian representative made known that its observations on proposed procedure for preparing the German settlement applied mutatis mutandis to those envisaged for the drawing up of the Austrian treaty. No assurance has been forthcoming from the special deputies that a more satisfactory method of preparing the settlements will be adopted and the Canadian government has therefore not considered it advisable to appear before them to express its interest in the substance of these questions.
In the ease of Germany, in order to give all practicable assistance to the special deputies, and without prejudice to any representations Canada might wish to make at a later date, a memorandum containing certain preliminary views on the German question was prepared and submitted to the chairman of the deputies for Germany.
For similar reasons and in order that the reestablishment of a free and democratic Austria may be accomplished as expeditiously as possible, the Canadian government now presents below certain of its general views on the Austrian treaty.
The intention of the governments of the United Kingdom, the United States of America, the Soviet Union, and France to see reestablished a free and independent Austria, which was stated in the Moscow declaration of November, 1943, and in the subsequent declaration at Algiers of the French committee of national liberation, is one which earns the full support of the people of Canada. On January 30 of last year the Canadian government noted with satisfaction the steps which had been taken in Austria and which had resulted in the reestablishment of an autonomous Austrian state and of an independent Austrian government. At that time Mr. Mackenzie King stated that the elections which had been held in Austria in November, 1945, and the consequent reorganization of the Austrian government in accordance with the wishes of the people, were a welcome restoration of the democratic practice of government by consent, in a country liberated from the German invader.
The Canadian government now wishes to see a satisfactory settlement concluded between Austria and all the allies at the earliest possible date. It is in the Canadian view of vital importance that this settlement be of a nature to contribute to a set of circumstances most likely to ensure a permanent European peace. With

this main principle in mind, Canada supports the recognition of a free and independent Austrian state within the boundaries it possessed before the anschluss was imposed by Germany. The Canadian government considers that formal recognition of the newly constituted Austria, by ratification of the proposed treaty, should be followed, at the earliest possible date, by the withdrawal of allied forces of occupation, and that the authority exercised by the allied commission for Austria should, upon entry into force of the treaty, be transferred to the Austrian government. Only when all allied forces have been withdrawn and full powers have been restored to the Austrian government will it be possible for the Austrians to act as a free people.
In order to ensure the continuance of Austria as an _ independent and democratic state, it is the opinion of the Canadian government that the treaty should provide that the Austrian government will abstain in the future from any action likely to impair the independent status of Austria, and that any future anschluss with Germany should be specifically prohibited. Canada does not, however, consider that the signatories to a treaty should be asked to secure the future integrity of Austria, but rather that any threat to Austrian independence should be dealt with by the united nations. If the four occupying powers, however, wish to go beyond this and themselves make such a guarantee it is a matter which would not concern the Canadian government.
Of importance to the well-being of the people of Austria, and as a guarantee of the permanence of democratic institutions there established, the treaty should provide for the continuance of the democratic system in Austria, for the guarantee of fundamental human rights, for the prohibition of anti-democratic organizations, and for the elimination of the last vestiges of nazi influence in Austria.
In making this submission the Canadian government assumes that an opportunity will be provided for Canada and the other allies to examine the draft treaty with Austria before it is put in final form by the council of foreign ministers for signature and ratification.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved that the Public Accounts and the Report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1946, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.
Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: May I ask if the reports of War Assets Corporation will go there at the same time?


Mr. ABBOTT:: I can give that consideration. Those were referred to a special committee last year, as my hon. friend will remember.


Mr. KNOWLES:: But that is not being set
up.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can give further consideration to the matter.

India-Suez Canal-Palestine


Mr. HOWE:: There is no objection to that.


Gordon Graydon: Did I understand the Minister of Reconstruction to say that there will be no special committee on War Assets Corporation this year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not say that. I said there is no objection to sending the report of War Assets Corporation to the public accounts committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Kidd), the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a matter of definite, urgent public importance, namely, the action of the government of Great Britain regarding, the present situation in India and the Suez Canal and their 'abandonment without the knowledge or consent of the dominions while our houses of parliament were in session; and the importance of retaining them at present and not dissolving, abandoning or liquidating them, on account of their great importance to the empire and to Canada and its security and defence in peace and war alike; and the protection they afford to us, the abandonment of which, without the consent of the dominions and of the empire, will cause great injury to Canadian trade and commerce and to the protection they have afforded to our seaborne trade and traffic.
As to the urgency, last year we were asked by Australia and New Zealand to confer on these matters, but declined.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I must thank the hon. gentleman for having sent me a copy of his proposed motion before the house opened, The question raised by the hon. member is a very serious one, but as the Canadian government is not directly concerned therein I fail to see that there is any urgency which would warrant a motion to adjourn the house for the purpose of discussing it at the present time. The hon. gentleman will have further occasion to discuss this matter.


Thomas Langton Church: I should like your permission to say just a few words on the question of urgency.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: The hon. gentleman is not in order.


Thomas Langton Church: It was abandoned without our knowledge or consent.


Gordon Graydon: Has not the hon. member the right to make an explanation indicating the urgency of the matter?


James Horace King: The hon. member knows the rules of the house. In his motion he sets out the urgency and his reason for asking leave to move the adjournment of the house. Having read his motion I am satisfied that there is no such urgency. That is why I asked the hon. gentleman to wait for another occasion to discuss the matter.


Thomas Langton Church: Canada will have to take the responsibility for this.



INDIA AND PALESTINE-REQUEST FOR MORE COMPLETE ANSWER TO QUESTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: At page 714 of Hansard for yesterday I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question which, though supposed to be answered, was not answered at all. Hon. members may see the matters set out in the question, which also asks whether this government was advised or consulted in these matters of liquidation and abandonment, and whether the governments of Australia and New Zealand had any consultation with the government of Canada on the action being taken by Britain in these countries. The question was not answered at all. The answer simply refers to an address by Mr. Attlee last month. I wanted Canada's answer. Surely I am entitled to an answer, under the rules of the house.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): I leave it to the house to determine whether or not the question has been fully answered. The first question was:
Can the government inform the house of the present situation in India and Palestine?
The answer was:
The present situation in India was outlined in a statement made on February 20 by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.


Thomas Langton Church: That has nothing to do with it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The next part of the answer wTas:
The present situation in Palestine was filmed in a statement made in the United Kingdom parliament on February IS.
Inquiries of the Ministry

Those statements have been reproduced in the press, and no further information is available to the government that can be communicated to parliament. All other communications but those made in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom were sent to the government of Canada as confidential and secret information.


Thomas Langton Church: I still ask for an answer to my question. Britain gave India peace and security and justice for a hundred years. This kind of answer is just dodging the issue. It is no answer at all.



HOUSING ACCOMMODATION-INCREASES OF TEN PER CENT AND UNDER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, based on a form I hold in my hand which is a landlord's offer of a lease of housing accommodation for a term of two years. Will the minister state whether or not under section 18 of order 294 of the wartime prices and trade board, forms for an increase of not more than ten per cent in the rental of housing accommodation are being circulated?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The answer is no.


Air. COLD  WELL@: May I ask what this form is, then?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I don't know.


Air. COLD ELL:: I will send it over to the minister.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Thank you.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. HUMPHREY AIITCHELL (Alinister of Labour):: In reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Alaclnnis) I now table a list of the names of the persons and organizations to whom copies of the draft suggestions in respect to industrial relations legislation, prepared by a committee of the Department of Labour, have been sent under confidential cover.



UNEMPLOYMENT IN CITY OF WINDSOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. ZAPLITNY (Dauphin):: Air. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of

the Minister of Labour. Is he aware of the serious unemployment situation which has developed in the city of Windsor? If so, what steps is the government taking to meet this emergency?


Humphrey Mitchell: I would say at once to the hon. member that the Minister of Labour is well aware of the situation existing in Windsor, and was well aware of it long before the hon. member thought of asking a question in the house.


Air. COLD  WELL@: How do you know that?


Humphrey Mitchell: Now, just a minute. I had a discussion with His Worship the Alayor of Windsor, my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Air. Alartin) and the hon. member for Essex North (Mr. Brown). After a lengthy discussion concerning the whole situation it was agreed to set up a committee representing the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Labour and the city of Windsor, which would move into Windsor with the end in view of meeting the situation existing there. That committee has been most successful. Instead of the situation becoming worse-which, for reasons best known to themselves, perhaps some people would like to see-it is getting much better. Through the instrumentality of the committee we have been able to reduce by over a thousand the unemployment in the city of Windsor.



SUBSIDY TO THE DOMINION COAL COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Air. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Alay I ask a question of the Alinister of Reconstruction and Supply? I directed my question to the Alinister of Finance yesterday, and he said he would refer it to the Minister of Reconstruction. I wonder if he did so. My question appears at page 723 of Hansard.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Air. Speaker, the statement I made a few days ago on the subject was a correct one, except as to one particular, namely my remarks that all subsidies are now the responsibility of my colleague. I find that all subsidies are his responsibility, except the subsidy to the Dominion Coal Company. That still remains my responsibility, by reason of the order in council which established the subsidy. I hope that both the subsidy and the responsibility will end on Alarch 31 of this year.

Inquiries of the Ministry



NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
NAVAL SERVICE-DISPOSITION OP SHIPS "WARRIOR", "crusader" and "uganda"
On the orders of the day:
Air. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):: In view of today's press release will the Minister of National Defence say where the Warrior, Crusader and Uganda will be placed in reserve, and how long it will take to make them operational again?


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: It has not been decided yet where the5r will be placed. As to how long it will take to make these vessels operational, that will depend upon the kind of treatment they are given in being placed in reserve, and on the pressure with which they are taken out. Ordinarily it would take three to four months.


Mr. GREEN:: If I may ask a supplementary question, is there any reason why a statement as important as the one issued today, dealing with the navy, should not be made in the house while parliament is sitting?


Brooke Claxton: I should be very glad to make such statements in the house if that were the general wish of hon. members-


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Finance made one yesterday.
Mr. CLAXTON -and if it were in accordance with the practice of the house. However, I think hon. members will appreciate that at a time like this there are many developments with regard to our defence forces, and if all such statements were to be made in the house it would be necessary to take up some time almost every day. I do not believe hon. members would wish that. This statement concerned the employment of some eight vessels of the Canadian navy.


Howard Charles Green: The whole navy.


Brooke Claxton: And I thought it would meet hon. members' views to make the statement in the way it was made. However, if it is the view of hon. gentlemen that this should be done, I should be glad to accommodate myself to their wishes in any way I can.



SUMMERSIDE, P.E.I.-R.C.A.F. TRAINING SCHOOL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. MacNAUGHT (Prince):: Will the minister state when the Royal Canadian Air Force training school at Summerside will be opened, and what will be the number of personnel?


Brooke Claxton: It will be open on or about April 1, 1947. The number of service personnel will be in the neighbourhood of 700, and the number of civilians in the neighbourhood of 100.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES PURCHASE OF AIRCRAFT FROM CANADAIR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Is the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply in a position to say whether or not Trans-Canada Air Lines have purchased some twenty-five DC-4's from Canadair, or whether it has ordered that number within the last few days?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Trans-Canada order has not been placed. An order is pending for twenty North Stars, and a transaction is also under way by which the physical assets of the plant making the North Star are being sold. We hope the sale of the plant will be completed within the next few days, and at that time I shall be able to announce the price and complete the contract for the purchase of the North Stars. When all that is completed I shall make a comprehensive statement to the house.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM BRYCE (Selkirk):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Fisheries, of which I have given notice. Has the government reached a decision on the proclamation of the Fisheries Prices Support Act of 1944, and the appointment of a board, in view of the extreme urgency of the situation?


Hon. H. F. G. BRIDGES (Minister of Fisheries) :: The answer is no. I have nothing to add to my statement of February 20 as it is reported at page 605 of Hansard in reply to a question asked on that day by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell).



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, because of his close inter-
Inquiries oj the Ministry

est in house procedure? Following the statement made by Your Honour yesterday respecting questions asked when the orders of the day are called, may I ask the minister when it is the intention of the government to set up a special or informal committee to study the rules? I make this most urgent plea because I believe many hon. members are dissatisfied with the present method of transacting this part of the business of the house. It may be that there is a way out of it, and I think we should try to find that way if it is at all possible.
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): May I say first that we feel deeply indebted to Your Honour for the constructive suggestion you made yesterday. I agree largely with what my hon. friend has said, and at the earliest opportunity I shall discuss the matter with my colleagues having in mind what action we might consider wise in the circumstances.


Gordon Graydon: I believe that if half a dozen persons were to sit down for a couple of hours they could clear this whole thing up and have the debates of the house function more smoothly from now on.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. L. SMITH (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of National Revenue when the radio committee would be set up. His reply was that he was giving the matter consideration. If he is- not now in a position to answer, can he give me an intelligent guess as to when his consideration will reach some finality?


Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that,
at the present time, is in the near future.



FARM PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. FERGUSON (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Agriculture aware that the award for the production of the finest oats on the North American continent this year was awarded to Gordon McArthur of Stayner, Ontario, and that W. L. Hamilton of Collingwood was awarded the three awards for the production of the finest apples in North America; and that both these men live in Simcoe county?


James Horace King: Order.



BOOK OF REMEMBRANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. LENNARD (Wentworth):: I
should like to ask the Minister of National Defence when he will be in a position to answer the question asked by me on February 6, and again on February 21, of which I gave notice?


Brooke Claxton: About the book of
remembrance?


Frank Exton Lennard: Yes.


Brooke Claxton: It is receiving consideration.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, February 24, consideration of the motion of Hon. Mr. MacKinnon for tihe second reading of Bill No. 23, to amend- the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: Therefore for the period from 1935 down to 1939 there was no accumulated profit to be divided among the farmers of Canada; there was no participation to pay. In 1940 a balance was made which showed a loss by the wheat board of over $60 million, and that loss of $60 million was made up by the government of Canada. It is suggested by some that we should go back to that plan, that we should have the wheat board operating again as it was then operating, that the government of Canada should assume responsibility for any losses and therefore assume responsibility for seeing that there would be at all times a floor price payable to the farmer no matter what the world price of wheat might be.
If we are correct in assuming, and I imagine we are, that the farmer needs at least $1.35 a bushel in order to make it possible for him to produce wheat in western Canada and to maintain himself and his family at a proper standard of living, then in order to raise the price of wheat from where it was in 1938-39 up to $1.35 per bushel it would have required, not the $60 million which was required on that occasion to raise wheat 18 cents, from 62 to 80 cents a bushel, but well over $200 million. That is the amount that would have had to be taken out of the treasury of Canada in order to make certain that $1.35 per bushel could be paid to the western farmers for their wheat.
Having had this experience, those of us who live in western Canada and have farmed there are of the opinion that if that is all we are going to have in Canada for the future, if the only kind of wheat board we are to have is one which can only take the wheat when we have losses, and1 therefore those losses are to be charged up to all the taxpayers of Canada, some day we shall have a parliament which, because of the enormous costs of that kind of scheme put upon the taxpayers, will vote that system out of existence. Why would it do so? At the time in question, and no matter what the situation might be now, that wheat was going to the wealthiest nations in the world. We in Canada were being asked to finance the sending of 61 cent wheat to countries much more able to buy wheat than we are. The people of Canada sent it to them at 61 cents when we were paying to each of our farmers 80 cents a bushel for that wheat -and if we gave a price anything like what the farmers believed was required we would have to pay three or four times that much out of the treasury to make that wheat available to the people of those countries. As we sit here today after fighting a long war, and as we see some of those countries experience

great difficulty in financing, I think we are too much inclined to take into consideration the circumstances which exist at present and to figure in our own way that these people are going to have great difficulty in returning themselves to conditions somewhat similar to those which prevailed within five or six years after the first great war. Having been over there two or three times since the last war ended, and having travelled over a considerable part of that countiy, I want to emphasize the fact here, as I have emphasized it outside the house, that there is no other place in the world where 400 million people can live on as high a standard as the 400 million people can live in the territory between Britain and the Russian line-and when I say that I compare it with all of North America. If we had 400 million people living on this continent they would find it most difficult to live on as high a standard as the 400 million people who live today in Europe. I admit that having gone through six years of war they are experiencing great difficulties, but there is no other equal area of agricultural lands which can feed as many people as can the little peninsula known as Europe, nor is there any similar area elsewhere as rich in mineral wealth beneath the land upon which industry <;an maintain a great population and live at the same standard as it can in Europe. I believe that in due course they will again reestablish themselves to the position where they can buy the food of this country and can pay for it- not only in Britain but in the other countries of Europe.
Having, that point of view, Mr. Speaker, I believe we are justified not only in doing what has been done but in going somewhat further. As I stated a moment ago, from 1935 down to 1943. the wheat board did not pay participation, but in September 1943 the government under the War Measures Act passed an order in council under which all wheat in Canada was placed under the control of the wheat board. The order in council declared that wheat was to be marketed by the wheat board and that from that time forth the wheat board was to purchase all the wheat from the original producer and see that it was distributed in accordance with the wishes of the government.
Immediately we took over the wheat and made it the property of the wheat board we were able to value it at the market price of that day, and because we did that we were able to pay participation on the crops of 1940, 1941 and 1942. Later we paid participation on the crop of 1943. But even under that system we are three years behind in pay-

Canadian Wheat Board Act
ing participation. We have not paid participation annually. We have not yet started to pay participation on the crop of 1944, and this is 1947. So I am suggesting to the house that it is not correct to say that we paid participation annually under the wheat board from 1935 to 1943, or that we paid it annually, although we paid it on an annual basis, from 1940 down to 1945.
With regard to the period from 1943 to 1946 and down to the present, when the wheat board took over the wheat in Canada they had a carryover of approximately 600 million bushels. Since 'that time we have grown three crops, the first one 284 million bushels, the second 416 million bushels, and the third 305 million bushels-and that is leaving out the crop we are now handling. Three full crops were handled by the board, and they amounted to over one billion bushels of wheat which provided some three-quarters of a billion bushels of wheat to be actually handled by the wheat board. So along with 600 million bushels of a carryover the wheat board handled the wheat which was produced and placed on the market from three very good crops in the period intervening.
What was the situation at the end of the 1945 crop year? Seventy million bushels of wheat were left in the elevators; therefore we entered upon 1946 with 70 million bushels, plus the 420 million bushels which were grown in 1946, to be handled by the wheat board. This answers I think the suggestion which has been made that there has been some difficulty in supplying as much wheat to anyone in 1946 as was supplied to countries prior to 1945. We had a carryover of 600 million bushels at the beginning of the 1943-44 crop year; then we grew three good crops, and much of that wheat was in elevators at the seaboard ready to be shipped as boats pulled in for it. So the distribution of the wheat to different parts of the world was much simpler then than it is this year, when we have a carryover of 70 million bushels, and a crop harvested under difficult circumstances, therefore moved in the first instance rather slowly to market, and then moved about on our railways, again under difficult circumstances with the heavy snowfall that we have had this winter -both east and west. But in spite of that fact, Mr. Speaker, as the house was told the other day we have delivered 72 million bushels out of the 160 million bushels that we agreed to deliver to Britain within twelve months.
Therefore I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) is quite justified in saying that the whole 160 million bushels will be delivered to Great Britain before the end of the year which we are passing through.
But what I wanted to emphasize more than anything else was that this board handling wheat is a government board with absolute authority over the wheat. It was able to move it from our elevators and farms in the quantity of 1,300 million bushels to the different countries in which it was required, and market it to advantage in order to assist the people of the world who are in need of food, and at the same time give reasonable returns to producers. It is important we should realize that this board did that very difficult task during that period of time.
I want to ask a question which had something to do with the statement which was made last night by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) when discussing this question. He made the definite statement that he did not think at this time he was called upon to make a decision on the question whether the grain exchange had been a successful means of marketing wheat or whether the wheat board had been. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that-
Mr. FULTON; That is not what he said at all.


James Garfield Gardiner: To all intents and purposes that is what he said, and I think he would agree to that.


Mr. ROWE:: It is near enough for the minister's purpose.


James Garfield Gardiner: And I am going to say something along that line. The hon. member for Calgary West the other night said that he did not think he had to make a decision on that question at the present time. If I heard him correctly, that was the gist of his remarks. He was answering a suggestion made from the central part of the opposition that there should be a decision on that question.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: The central part of the opposition.


James Garfield Gardiner: Personally, sir-and I am not now trying to give the policy of the government; that is for the minister who introduced the bill, and no doubt he will do that before the vote is taken; what I am going to say will not I think be very far removed from what is the policy of the government or what is the policy of many other hon. members. Personally, then, if I were forced at the present time to poll a vote in the house on the question whether we should have the wheat board market our wheat or the grain exchange market it, I say without hesitation that I would poll my vote in favour of having the wheat board do it. I am

Canadian Wheat Board Act

speaking of the situation which exists now, Mr. Speaker. But let us go back to the beginning of this period.
What did we decide twelve years ago? We decided that we should allow these two systems to operate side by side, and that over a period of time we should decide which was the better. I must say, sir, that if I were compelled to poll a vote in the house on the question whether the system of marketing as we had it then under the wheat board were to be continued as the all time system I am afraid I should have to vote against that too. I do not believe it is in the interests of the farmers of Canada to be in the position where their wheat is delivered to the government at a time when someone is going to take a loss on it and be delivered to someone else at a time when there oan only be a profit taken on it. That being so I do not think that system is the proper one to pursue from this time on.
We have been operating under the compulsory system of marketing through the wheat board. Since 1943 practically all our wheat has been delivered to the wheat board. Small quantities have been delivered to local mills in western Canada, but nearly all of it has been delivered to the wheat board. We have had some experience under that system and generally speaking I think that farmers, whatever others may think, have been fairly well satisfied with the marketing of their wheat from 1943 to the present time.
There is another period ahead of us, the period from 1945-part of which is behind us- down to 1950. I should like to call hon. members' attention to this fact at the moment. The bill which we are considering divides the periods into three pool periods. The first one is the period preceding July 31, 1945; the second is the five-year period succeeding that down to July 31, 1950, and the third is the period beyond that. It is provided in the bill that some time prior to 1950-I presume during the last session before part of this particular measure would go out of existence by the lapse of time-this bill must come back to the house, and when it does come back it is presumed that a decision will be made as to what the future policy is to be with regard to the marketing of wheat in Canada. In other words we have passed through about three and a half years of a seven-year period during which we are to have the experience of a compulsory marketing system. During that period we are in a position to compare the operations of that system with the operations of the system prior to 1943 and back to 1935, and with the operations of the system which existed prior to

the setting up of the wheat board. Parliament will then be asked to determine what the future system of marketing wheat is to be.
In other words this bill establishes for the next three and a half years a system under which the wheat board takes delivery of the wheat, markets it and returns participation to the farmers. It has been suggested by a number of speakers, and particularly by the leader of the opposition, that participation should be paid out annually. His chief reason for that was that the bill as we had it before provided for paying it out annually. Under this particular system we are not paying it out annually. Last night I gave one reason, not as to why we would not pay it out annually but first as to why the $1.35 had been set as the initial payment. The $1.35 was set because if we had sold all the wheat which was likely to come to market at the floor of the price provided, that $1.35 a bushel would be realized by the government of Canada or by the wheat board, and therefore could be paid to the farmer. Last night I said that was important because we did not desire that a charge should be made against the general taxpayers of Canada in order to make a system of this kind possible. Because we did desire to enter into understandings with Britain, with regard not only to wheat but other products as well. We have contracts with regard to every important farm product-pork, bacon, beef, cheese, eggs, and canned milk. We also have this contract for wheat. The other contracts carry us through-or most of them-to the end of 1948. This one carries us to the end of the 1949 wheat year.
Some have suggested that if we wanted to assist Britain we ought to charge that assistance to the treasury of Canada rather than to the farmers. Well, there are two ways of doing that. One would be to lend the money to those who are going to purchase, and the other would be to pay the money out-in subsidies, if you like-to the farmers, and by subsidizing them, make it possible for them to deliver the wheat to Britain. There is not a great deal of difference in principle except this, that we are asking people who we believe in due course will be able to pay their own way, to pay back to the treasury of Canada money which w7as lent to them with which to buy food and other products during this transitional period. In other words, we have linked ourselves for the .transitional period with Great Britain, and we have said to the other countries of the world as well as to our own people and to the British people: We went through the war together. We are prepared to go through the transitional period

Canadian Wheal Board Act
together. We say that there is to be consideration of these questions of international trade at an international trade organization meeting of the united nations and of the international marketing of wheat at an international committee meeting which is to be held in London, beginning, I think, next month, and continuing on through a period. We have said that for at least a part of the transitional period between the end of the war and the holding of these meetings and the reaching of decisions the government of Canada is prepared, in the matter of food at least, to associate itself with Great Britain in producing food, delivering it to the British isles and making it available to the British people. That is not done wholly because we have a kindly feeling toward the British, although we do feel kindly disposed toward them. It is partly because we like to have a kindly feeling toward ourselves, Mr. Speaker.
In the years preceding the war we had great difficulties in marketing our products. We never did, even during the war, market more than approximately 160 million bushels of wheat for consumption in Great Britain. But Great Britain says to us: Now that the war is over, while these discussions are going on, whether they be long or short, we are prepared to cooperate with Canada in seeing to it that there is a market for the surplus of her farm products at reasonable prices.
Our friends say that participation should be paid out annually. But it would be much more difficult to get that stabilization of return which the farmers of western Canada are asking for if we attempted to make the payments annually rather than at the end of the five year period as is proposed under this bill. I think that most of those who have fears with regard to the matter are afraid that the bottom is going to fall out of wheat in 1948 or 1949. If there is any strength in that argument or if there is any danger of such a thing happening-and I must admit that there is some, Mr. Speaker; there always is danger of that kind of thing happening-nothing would serve the farmer of western Canada better than to have a payment towards the end of that period of the kind which is likely to come as a result of selling wheat at the level at which it has been sold during the last two years and at which it may be sold for another year or more.
I have exhausted my time, Mr. Speaker, and I just want to say in closing-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not want to take too much time on this matter; there are others who want to speak. But I do want to mention 83166-49J
one question that was raised, namely, as to what is the meaning of the section in the agreement which deals with the matter of payments to be made in the last two years of the contract. I will just read what was read from the contract last night by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross):
In determining the price for these two crop years, 1948-49 and 1949-50 the United Kingdom government will have regard to any difference between the prices paid under this agreement in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years and the world prices for wheat in the 1946-47 and the 194748 crop years.
I do not know how I can make my understanding of the statement any clearer than I made it at Montreal, and that statement was-read to the house last night. But I may indicate again to the house the experience we had in that matter. Some one said that I had conducted some of the negotiations; I think he said I had conducted most of them. I would not say that I had conducted most of the negotiations, but I think I was present when all the negotiations were carried on 4 and when this question was raised as to what was to be the position, it was raised as a result of this fact. Hon. members will recall that in 1945 when this question of a pooling of wheat was first raised on the floor of this house, the statement made was that the government of Canada would guarantee a floor of one dollar a bushel for five years, and that we were prepared to sell wheat to nations which undertook to enter into agreements with us, at a ceiling of SI.55 a bushel. When the discussions were on at that time we indicated clearly that we were immediately opening negotiations with Great Britain and were prepared to open negotiations with others. Those negotiations were opened with Great Britain, but there was a change of government in the intervening period and it was ten months before they were completed. When the negotiations were finally discussed, the question raised was whether the British government was prepared to buy our wheat at S1.55 a bushel for the five year period. We had gone through almost one year and four more years were to follow. The British government took the position that four years was a long time. They were quite prepared to give us a contract to purchase wheat at $1.55 for two years, and then said that they' were prepared to put a floor under the last two years, of $1.25 for the third year and' $1 for the fourth year. We asked them this, direct question:	"Does that mean that youi
still want a ceiling on the last two years?"' They said, "No, we do not want a ceiling on the last two years." In other words, there
Canadian Wheat Board Act

is nothing in this contract which says that we cannot go higher than $1.55 in the last two years.


James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


James Garfield Gardiner: The next question which was asked was this: Assuming that we do take losses in the first two years, because the market is higher than the $1.55, what is our position in the last two years? Without any hesitation whatsoever on two different occasions they said that Canada would have a right to expect that those losses would be taken into consideration in the last two years; and as a result of those discussions the words which are in the contract were placed there by the British themselves, and written into the contract before they signed it.
Having regard to the discussions which took place, and the wording of the contract, nothing could be clearer than that the British intend to take into consideration, in setting the price for the last two years, any losses we may have taken in the first two years. I am not going to say, following the remarks ol the hon. member for Souris that this means we would sit down and say that because, when Britain was faced with the possibility of having to reduce her rations when difficult weather conditions made it impossible for us to get wheat to her in the volume we should like, she went to the Argentine, as was suggested last evening, and bought a limited quantity of wheat at a high price, therefore she must pay us the difference between that high price and the $1.55 we are being paid. I think hon. members on all sides of the house will agree that we should not do so. Last evening the leader of the opposition said he would not do away with this contract or do anything to compel the government to do away with it. I took that to mean that if he were called upon to form a government while this contract was in force-which heaven forbid-he would carry out the contract; and I am quite sure any other leader in this house who might be called upon to form a government would carry out the contract, as 1 believe the British will carry it out as well. So I should think we are fairly safe on that score.
I do not know of anything else I was asked to deal with, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think there is anything in connection with the bill I desire to deal with just now. As I said a moment ago, the Minister of Trade and Commerce will give the official answers to the questions which have been asked, and I am

sure will deal with them to the satisfaction of all hon. members of this house. But before resuming my seat may I say that I believe this bill, and another which I expect will be brought in tomorrow, dealing with the other contracts made with Great Britain, at least pave the way for the maintenance of the agricultural population of Canada during the transitional period on a standard of living which will at least bear favourable comparison with that of any other period in the history of agriculture in this country.
When the period of this contract is over I hope our relationships, not only with Britain but with other countries, will be such that we can always trade with others whether under contract or not in the same spirit as we have traded with them in the past. In that regard I have only this to say. When I was attending the food conference at Copenhagen I was interviewed by representatives of Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium and France as to the possibility of those countries entering into agreements similar to that into which we have entered with Britain. On each occasion I told those who interviewed me that the policy of the government in that regard was to listen to any proposals which might be made by any government to the effect that they would like to enter into an agreement of that kind, and I suggested that if they felt inclined to do so they make representations to the government at Ottawa where those representations would be considered. That was in September, 1946. Up to the present time none of these countries has proposed entering into a contract along the lines of our contract with Britain. We have discussed the matter with some, but contracts for given quantities at given prices for four years have not been proposed.
I wanted to make that statement in order to say this, that in every case the individuals representing governments who discussed the matter with me said they had no criticism whatever to offer in regard to the fact that Canada was selling wheat to Britain on a four year contract at a price lower than they were being asked to pay for it buying from month to month or even year to year. They said their reason for that was that they acknowledged the relationship which exists between Canada and Great Britain. They acknowledged the relationship which existed during the war when, had it not been for Canada, Britain would have found great difficulty in carrying on in the interests of all those European nations. So they said anything done by Canada and Britain in cooperation was fully understood by the others. So far as our natural markets for wheat in other countries

Canadian Wheat Board Act
are concerned, they have not been endangered by this contract. Others understand the position and realize that unless there are real changes in the relationships between the nations of the world concerning wheat, Canada is going to need a friend like Britain not only throughout the transitional period but for some considerable time thereafter. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, if I did have anything to do with obtaining the contracts for food which have been obtained with Britain-and I had something to do with them -it was because I believed those contracts established stability in agriculture such as we could not obtain in any other way, and such as we have not had at any other time.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) today with keen interest, as I have listened to him on many other occasions. In rising to take part in this debate I realize the futility of discussing here in parliament a contract already made in principle. Once again I think the minister hedged a bit in referring to the remarks of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) last evening. At that time my leader said the new contract was agreed upon before it was brought to parliament, and that he saw no reason in our international relationship for breaking that contract. I see no reason, either. But as I listened to the minister today I could not help but think once again that in all my experience in parliament I have never heard anyone so eloquent, so vociferous and so emphatic in predicting future uncertainties. The minister is a trained parliamentarian, as he demonstrated this afternoon in the powerful argument he offered for what I believe is the weakest case ever presented to this house having to do with agriculture.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that it may be possible to take my remarks or those of my associates on this side of the house and say we are not in favour of giving the hungry people of the British isles food at low cost. That is not so. I am sure the sentimental ties that have existed all down through the years, as well as our sense of obligation to a close ally during a time of terrific strain and crisis such as we experienced during the last war, put us on common ground in our concern over the plight of tihe British people and our desire to extend to them the maximum possible aid for their sustenance at this time. I offered no criticism of the emergency measures taken by this government during those awful years to extend the greatest possible help to the motherland when she stood as the bulwark of freedom and civilization itself. I know those
with whom I am associated, and I am sure this applies to hon. gentlemen opposite as well, feel in retrospect that despite what we have given to the motherland by way of cash; despite what we have given her in the way of production; despite what we have given her by way of effort on our part, whether it was in blood, sweat or tears, we have no regrets, because we realize that without her we would have been in terrible straits.
When the Minister of Agriculture garbled the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) and made reference to certain friendships for the grain exchange at Winnipeg, certain thoughts occurred to me. I am not pleading the case for the grain exchange. Indeed, I do not know them, and I am not as close to them, from the standpoint of geography, as is the Minister of Agriculture. If the grain exchange had sold Canadian wheat five years in advance, if it had created a five-year pool and had held the money during the interval, I was wondering if the Minister of Agriculture would not have been the first to suggest that a fixed price does not allow for the changing sizes of crops. Would he not be the first to say that fixed prices do not allow for changes in farmers' costs? Would he not say that a fixed price over a period of five years would be bound to result in inequity, and would have to be changed? Would he not say that such a five-year pool wou'd create a feeling ol uncertainty among the wheat growers? Would he not ask-and the same might be said of the wheat board-"Where is the export quota on which to base a five-year fixed price, one which will be sound throughout the whole of the five years?"
Long-term agreements such as these are conspicuously arbitrary and unscientific. They will never be able to stand up to international change in price levels. The Minister of Agriculture has seen fit to refer to history in connection with the wheat sales of Canada and the development of wheat growing in this country. I have sat in the House of Commons a long time, as has the hon. member who is now acting in the absence of Mr. Speaker and, in common with him, I was a plain dirt farmer in the old province of Ontario. I have had twenty years in which to study at close hand the wheat issue, although I have not been directly involved in the growing of wheat in western Canada.
I was in the house many years ago, as you were, sir-before the Minister of Agriculture sat here, or many of those with whom he is associated. But out on the hustings he was more vociferous than many of the quiet ones who sat in the house at that time, when he
Canadian Wheat Board Act

made his claim that the western agricultural areas would always be the bread-basket of the world.
I remember so well the attitude taken long before 1930 by his predecessor in the Department of Agriculture when I made the suggestion that we were rapidly drifting into an unbalanced economy. At that time he said there would never come a time when the world would not want Canada's wheat. In the light of that statement I recall looking back on those years and having made a speech in 1929 when I urged upon the government of that day that our granaries were rapidly filling to over-capacity, that our markets were disappearing-those markets to which the Minister of Agriculture has referred today and which in nine cases out of ten had set up high tariffs before 1930.
Every granary in Canada was bursting to capacity in 1930 with unsold grain. In 1921 we enjoyed heavy exports of agricultural products overseas. Meat was sold in quantities comparable with the amounts now sold, after all these years of development of the market. By 1930 we were importing animal products to feed our own people. We had gone blindly on. The wheat pools were formed in those years around 1924. And I say to hon. members to my left, who believe in cooperative production, that they should beware of what happened in 1928 and 1929. Between 1920 and 1930, when the price was reasonably high, the wheat pools of western Canada, of which my hon. friend was a staunch supporter, said to the world markets, ''You will pay us so much for our wheat, or you will not get it." The hon. member who now sits in Mr. Speaker's place will recall that, because he sat with the government at that time.
Those were the days when tariffs were raised against our wheat. It was then that Spain increased her tariffs against us, and -was followed by Germany and almost all other European countries. I have listened to the Minister of Agriculture speak-and no one can spread it on the record more fluently than he can. He speaks about those days of the Bennett government, from 1930 to 1935, but does not mention that Mr. Bennett and his government sat in office five years following ten years of Liberal regime, when the country had fallen into economic doldrums. Everyone knew that twenty million people throughout the world were standing idle. Everyone knew, too, the policy of the party now sitting to your right, sir, in respect of trade agreements, when it held office before. The Prime Minister boasted .of having made agreements wilh almost every

country of the world. But what was happening in Canada? The record speaks for itself. More people left Canada than came here; we did not even maintain our normal population. University graduates went to the United States. Indeed by 1928 we became so proud of our wheat growing areas that we told Europe, "Y'ou will pay us so much, or you won't get our wheat for your bread."
In 1931 our granaries were still fuller, and again in 1932 and 1933. And during those years the price went down


Mr. BENIDICKSON:: What was the price?


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friend is not following me. He sounds like an infant crying in the night, an infant crying for the light. He wants to know, the price. Go back and read your school history, and you will find the same price in Queen Elizabeth's day. I will tell you the reason why-and it happened before you were_ here. It was due not wholly but principally to world conditions, and it was due also to an unbalanced economy for which your party was more responsible than any other in Canada, I do suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is why those countries which had been importers of our wheat reduced their importations from year to year. I can well recall when I suggested-and hon. members who now sit opposite will recall it

that we should not put all our eggs in one basket. I suggested at that time and on other occasions that we should encourage the export of live stock rather than wheat. But we have had this muddled prescription of the government to cope with.
In 1934, as a result of these conditions, as the minister has well said, the European countries placed prohibitive tariffs against our wheat. He has referred to the conference of world wheat producers convened by Mr. Bennett's government of those days. In that connection I should like to refer the minister to the words of the present Prime Minister, who was leader of the opposition at that time. These are words taken from Hansard-the page number does not matter. It was in the session of 1934.


William Moore Benidickson: What was the price?


William Earl Rowe: You never sold any, anyway. What are you worrying about?


William Moore Benidickson: I thought you were
in the log business.


William Earl Rowe: Well, if I was I would have no better opportunity to judge timber than I have now with what is sitting in front of me. I did not mean of course that it is wooden, but rather I was referring to its inexperience.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
At that time the present Prime Minister said:
I ask, Mr. Speaker, was there ever an agreement which, in a situation such as faces western Canada at the present time, could mean less of service to the agriculturists, or if you like more in the way of irony. We have to cut down our exports very considerably. We have to do something further. For the next year or two we have to keep down our export of wheat, in the only possible way we can do it, unless the government itself is to purchase it-by reducing the total area of wheat production. What is Canada going to get in return? The wheat agreement says that the wheat importing countries have undertaken that they will encourage the consumption of wheat. They will not encourage increased production in their own countries, and once the wheat produced by these exporting countries has risen to a certain figure, which comes to about 98 cents or one dollar in terms of Canadian money at the present time, and remains at that figure for several weeks the wheat importing countries will consider lowering their tariffs to admit more wheat from the wheat exporting countries.
The government of the day held a world conference at that time and all the countries involved were represented. Hon members to your right, Mr. Speaker, have been great champions of world markets, even from the days before you were born, in 1887. It was that party that pleaded for commercial union with the United States of America because they contended that that was where we could sell our agricultural products. They were going to sell where they could get the most and buy where they could buy the cheapest.
Have you ever seen such a glaring example of the opposite, as has been shown in the past five years? We have sold our beef, our bacon, our poultry and our hogs at two-thirds the price that we could obtain on the United States market. For fifty years hon. members to your right have been asking us to elect them and they will enter that market for the farmers. We elected them and we have ever since been prohibited from entering that market. We have watched that market offer prices almost twice those being received by the Canadian producer.
I have mentioned our balanced economy; but there was another factor brought to the attention of those opposite during those years, the fact that the European people were changing their habits of consumption of foodstuffs. It sounded strange to me when ten, yes, fifteen years after that had been pointed out, the Minister of Agriculture said that Europe was going to starve; that they needed wheat and wheat alone; that they needed bread and bread alone. That was his prescription-cereals, as the last hope of survival.
It is now a matter of record that the trend is the other way. In 1913 the United Kingdom and other European countries consumed
a much greater percentage of wheat as compared with other products than they did in 1930. In 1930 the European market, including the United Kingdom, consumed eighty-nine per cent of the wheat consumed in 1913, but their consumption of other animal products had increased to 150 per cent on the average, and as high as 220 per cent in the case of eggs. But the present government would not heed the trend. In 1938, just before the beginning of the war, it was found that those European countries which formerly took our wheat reduced their consumption and importations of Canadian and other wheat for the several reasons I have - mentioned from 40 per cent of their requirements to 27 per cent. True, the war came in 1939 and Germany and other countries had to stock up their granaries and get ready for war; true, the great surpluses we had were of some use, but no one knows better than the Minister of Agriculture-I do not know why I should refer to him, because this bill is sponsored by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon), but the Minister of Agriculture sometimes speaks for a lot of departments and he speaks with a lot of skill-


James Garfield Gardiner: I speak for myself.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, but as yourself you are pretty well involved in many departments. According to the press, the minister is even into the Department of Finance because he says that industry is to be taxed of all its surplus, which will be turned back to the people. Is it any wonder that Mr. Douglas, premier of Saskatchewan, has since welcomed him into the C.C.F. party? I believe in British Columbia the minister got into the immigration department because he said he was going to bring 12,000,000 more people into Canada, but when he got back here his government placed the door ajar and modified that policy.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will send the hon. member a copy of the speech and he can read it.


William Earl Rowe: That is just a general way of saying that you were misquoted. The minister has been, the most misquoted man in Canada because every paper reported him. He speaks on trade and. commerce with some vigour and certainly with considerable authority, and, I hope, closer to the facts of that department than he has been in the immigration department.


James Garfield Gardiner: The facts were right on immigration.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


William Earl Rowe: Your government is going to bring in 12,000,000 more people?


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that, and even the newspapers did not say that.


William Earl Rowe: Oh, yes; I have a copy here, and I can remind you of what you said. I do not wonder you forget because if I talked as much as you I would forget a lot too. It says that millions from Europe are coming in, that it is urgent, and 12,000,000 is mentioned by the Vancouver Sun.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not saying that I said the government is bringing in 12,000,000.


William Earl Rowe: It does not say that you said it, but it is inferred by the press. Again you are being misquoted. May heaven help the freedom of the press of Canada. We carried on this war as partners. It was an emergency and I know every hon. member will agree that we should assume our full responsibility. Therefore I have no criticism to make of the prices paid at that time, but now we are dealing with the future. I say with all respect to the Minister of Agriculture-and I always try to avoid saying anything that will hurt his feelings because I appreciate his bonny fighting qualities just as much as I doubt the soundness of his economic philosophy-as I look back and think of the statements made by the Minister of Agriculture during recent years I am amazed to see that this is the man who is now gambling with our future.
It is a fortunate thing for this country that the farmers of Canada refused to take his advice. Millions more in Europe would have starved. In the short time he has been in this house he has paid the farmers not to grow wheat, and he has paid them to grow wheat.


James Garfield Gardiner: And they did both.


William Earl Rowe: They did both, but at opposite times to when you told them. That proves that they had not much confidence in your advice. A few years ago, when speaking in London, you told the farmers of Ontari'o to kill their brood sows. Then you came back and told them to get all the brood sows they could. Even the pigs seemed doubtful as to what was happening in this country.
I do not want to twit the minister, but his forecasts in years gone by have been just loud outbursts of Liberal expediency. On wheat he has been wrong three times; on hogs he has been wrong twice, and on feed grain he is still wrong. The Minister of Agriculture may think that is unfair, but I hope he will recall that when he was trying to curtail the production of wheat I urged that, while wheat would win the war, it would as well save the

peace. I urged him not to curtail production, not to hold back production for higher prices, but to have greater production. There is not an economist who is included among his experimental friends who does not realize that if we are to raise the standard of living in this countrjq let alone throughout the world, we must have greater production.
The government encouraged the expansion of hog production some time after the speech the Minister of Agriculture made a few years ago in London when he told the farmers not to keep their brood sows. From then on, the policy of the government has been a hit or miss policy. There has been no more eloquent spectacle of failure in forecasting than the situation we have seen since then in connection with the agricultural situation. The big crops of 1942, 1943 and 1944 were credited to the increased summer-fallowing which the minister had brought about in western Canada. The government did not even give credit to the weather. The export contracts with Britain for bacon and dairy products were made at an excessively high price. It seems strange, if the minister is sufficiently able now to forecast events for the next five years, that he should have allowed 93,000,000 bushels of feed to go to the United States in the following year and 41,000,000 bushels last year, and then should come to the house and say that the reason why we did not have more bacon produced and fell short of our contract commitments was that we did not have enough feed grain in the country. I only point these things out to show that the Minister of Agriculture is no more infallible than anyone else when he undertakes business prophecy.
Then in 1945 the government pleaded with the farmers to produce ten per cent more oats and twelve per cent more barley. But the farmers, not having much confidence in the government, did not increase their oats or barley acreage. Again, in 1946 the government renewed their plea for more barley and oats, but the farmers, growing ever more doubtful, reduced their production of barley fifteen per cent and their production of oats by eight per cent. And now, having permitted all this feed grain to go to the United States, the government is faced with a feed crisis in this country.
A few weeks ago in the city of Toronto the Minister of Agriculture is reported to have said that the new economy should be for western Canada to grow all the feed it can and ship it to the east for the eastern hog producer. As a hog producer I am interested in that, but I am not sure whether the minister has net one policy for Ontario and

Canadian Wheat Board Act
another for Alberta; whether he would make the same speech in western Canada as that he made in Toronto is still a doubt.
We have had eight years of price-fixing by the government.


Mr. GRANT:: Good times.


William Earl Rowe: That covers the entire period of the war and, had it not been for the fact that the world was spending about one-third of its income on war, this government might have been facing the spectacle of a worse depression than in 1930. So let not my hon. friend get his economic wires adjusted, even if the ministry have theirs crossed.
Today the general taxpayer of Canada is paying out of the federal treasury $8 per hog to subsidize hog production.


James Garfield Gardiner: What has that to do
with the wheat contract?


William Earl Rowe: Hogs eat wheat. Seventyfive per cent of the hog is made up of the grain it eats. That is why you tell the farmer how much grain he should grow and how much he will get for his oats and barley. The barley bonus and feed wheat drawback is S3.50 per hog. So that the hog is closely connected with grain.
This government has boasted of having avoided inflation, but it has cost the taxpayers of this country about one billion dollars in subsidies to support this new type of economy during the last three years.
Other agreements have been made to supply food products to the British isles. I have just as much confidence that the British will live up to their contracts as I have in anyone else. I know Britain will try to live up to her contracts just as she has kept her covenants before. But the Minister of Agriculture in the last words of his speech let the story out as to why this agreement was made. It is based on fear, almost born of panic, because the minister said, if the bottom falls out of the market in 1948 or 1949 what are we to do then? Will it not be a grand thing to be able to hand out to western Canada participation certificates then? Certainly you will need them if you have 12,000,000 new people coming into this country about that time. There is nothing so fearful as fear.
Canada is a great country with wonderful possibilities; but, Mr. Speaker, trade and economics in this old world, cold as it is, 'have never been built up over a long-term basis on sentiment but on reality. Have you ever heard of the head of an industry advertising that five years from now he would have too 83166-50
much of his products to sell? Have you ever heard1 of a good businessman negotiating a fixed price contract for five years in adtvanee? True, there are men in industry just as honourable as the Minister of Agriculture but, if a businessman came to you and said that he was losing money on his contract with you and that he could carry it on for only another year, would you insist on 'his living up to the contract? The government is so chock full of sentiment that there seems no room for logic. Is that the reason for giving Britain wheat at a lower price than we can sell it in the world's market? Suppose Britain comes to us in 1949 and says that she can buy wheat somewhere else at fifty-nine cents a 'bushel would this government say: We will make you live up to the contract. That would be unnatural. It is unsound; it is fantastic; it is dangerous to the future welfare of agriculture and the general economy of this dominion.
Britain made a contract with Argentina at fixed prices for a period of four years, and before two years of the contract were up the price was raised in the middle of the contract. Why? Because the Argentine farmer was not getting enough for his products. The Minister of Agriculture has 'boasted of having made a contract with Britain at a fixed price. The farmers of this dominion know they are not ' making enough money to pay them to produce hogs. Did the Minister of Agriculture ask that the prices in the 'baconi contract be raised? Silence does not give consent, but it does show concern.


James Garfield Gardiner: Is that a question?


William Earl Rowe: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, he did not.


William Earl Rowe: The price was originally fixed at $25 per hundredweight; the ink was hardly dry on the contract before the price was raised another $2, and now it is proposed' to raise it another $2 on the first of September. The taxpayer of Canada pays $8 per hog as his share of government bonus on hog production.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was all one transaction.


William Earl Rowe: All the snore serious if it is. It may be all the one transaction when the shoe is on the other foot. You may have Britain coming to you and saying. We raised the price of bacon $2 per hundredweight, and now will you lower it when we are facing an economic crisis? I submit that that is a precedent in the other direction. All is fine when the times are good'; in the old rough street-

Canadian Wheat Board Act

corner saying, "all is fine -when the goose hangs high," but wait until the cold days come round.
Today the Argentine has made a contract with Brazil for the selling of her wheat at $2.84 a bushel. Is she any less friendly with Brazil than Canada when Canada says to Brazil: We will sell it to our mother country and our ally at $1.30 a bushel less than you are buying it from the Argentine? Is she any less friendly with Brazil when the Argentine makes a contract with Brazil and with Peru for the same price and says to them in a five-year contract: If wheat drops we will supply you for the five years, but when wheat drops wre will sell you the wheat at the lowest price that we took for wheat in the month preceding? Wheat fluctuates on the world market as any natural commodity will do. I have never heard of any business contract made on any other basis.
Today the minister has emphasized at great length and with great fluency how we can trust the Britisher; that there will never be a time when we shall not get this money at this fixed price.
I noticed in this morning's Globe and Mail-*


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friends yawn. If they would read this paper a little oftener they would be sounder economically at least, and it would not hurt them politically either. I know there would no government who ever read the financial part of that paper or any other good financial writer giving birth to policies such as these. I say in all sincerity, Mr. Speaker, that we are headed-


Thomas Vincent Grant: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friend would not understand that word, but there is such a word in parliamentary practice as sincerity.
Before he died, the late Lord Keynes commented on the situation and as a great economist said:
Britain's only hope of attaining equilibrium lies in a policy of buying in the cheapest market and selling in the dearest. Yet at the moment the world, under American leadership, is expecting her to do exactly the opposite.
May I quote from Agriculture Abroad, a a paper which I think those who have read it will agree is watching world events and trends just about as closely as any other magazine. Agriculture Abroad, and The Empire Producer in its issue of October, 1946 state:
Considerable antagonism towards the financial aspects of the bulk purchase agreements between Great Britain and Denmark has been voiced in

Great Britain. Mr. J. X. McLean of the National Farmers Union expressed concern that the purchase of foodstuff below the costs of production . . . would once again cause "primary producers to experience the ill effects of the disequilibrium which was characteristic of the period between the two wars."
In a leading article, the "Farmer and Stock Breeder" in its issue of September 17, 1946, castigates the agreement stating "when it comes down to forming governments to subsidize their farmers to meet their bargains with us, we are knocking the linchpin out of the wheel of world pi'osperity and sabotaging international confidence."
That was written wdien the revision of the agreement was under discussion. It is time that we stopped, looked and listened to see where this government is leading us by this type of policy.
I am not critical of the carrying out of the agreement. The leader of my party said that he would not do anything which would cause our going back on international contracts; but when such contracts have been made without any responsibility, as this contract was made, I think it is our right to protest. We do not suggest fixing prices for five years; we do not suggest gambling with the farmer's future.
The Hon. Mr. Strachey, the British food minister, in answer to a question from the opposition in the British House of Commons [DOT] with regard to the low prices paid Denmark for food, said:
No government could withstand criticism of the British consumer at any time if she did not buy foodstuffs at the lowest price in world markets.
We have sold our wheat for this year on the estimated world price for $283 million less than it would have brought in the world markets. In answer to my question the other evening the Minister of Trade and Commerce did not say whether there was $120 million in the treasury now. He spoke with such caution and care that one was led to believe he was afraid to say or did not know what was in there. We do not know whether it was held in the bank without interest, held on good securities at low interest, or on doubtful securities at high interest. The Lord, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture alone know where that money is. The sum of $106 million or $150 million does not make much difference to this government. I suggest that in its search for this type of stability the government leads the Canadian farmer into increased future uncertainty.
The government is acting like certain stock brokers with this difference. Some brokers sell you short but give you back the money. The government sells you short and keeps the money.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
Usually the fanner is a pretty quiet and cautious man in business. I have always been cautious myself. I try to be-


An hon. MEMBER:: But not quiet.


William Earl Rowe: It is a fortunate thing for agriculture that I am not as quiet as my hon. friend. However, if I were behind such policies as he is now I would not speak at all because I would know enough of party allegiance to keep quiet. If the hon. member keeps quiet much longer he will not be behind this kind of government-


Mr. MUTCH:: The hon. member should keep quiet at times.


William Earl Rowe: The hon. member is very quiet as a rule, but anyone who is-


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I commend the practice to the hon. member.


William Earl Rowe: The hon. member ctmimends the practice. Well, perhaps what the hon. member has not contributed by his silence has not hurt the country, and I shall leave it at that.
I was about to say that the farmer is a cautious and quiet type of businessman. He has to be a businessman; but today he is, as the saying is, off to the races. He is certainly off now and he is being taken by the two ministers on the wildest broncho ride of the newest Gardiner variety type of economics that he has ever experienced. He has never reckoned with such recklessness before. It is the greatest agricultural gamble in the history of Canada. It is the longest venture by the shortest-sighted minister we have known since confederation. I say that with all respect, because the minister knows no more than I do as to what the price of wheat will be any more than he knows what the price of newsprint will be in 1950.


James Garfield Gardiner: I differ from the hon. member; I do not try to guess.


William Earl Rowe: 
An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: The riding the hon. member comes from grows fourteen bushels to the acre; we grow7 fifty.


Thomas Vincent Grant: On two acres.


William Earl Rowe: One acre of the hon. member's grows fourteen bushels, but ours produces fifty bushels, but we are supposed to sell only fourteen bushels. Probably I should not emphasize these details, but I am emphasizing them for this reason. We have here a bill which almost out-soeializes socialism. It is a blueprint for a totalitarian state, if my hon. friends to the left could ever be successful enough nearly to approach getting into power; but, as I look at them now, I see very little hope of it and I am not so much afraid. I believe there is one contribution that Liberal expediency has made in this country by keeping just one pace ahead of socialism. It has been so socialistic that, before the next election, the people of Canada may know what socialism is and that may save the country from a greater degree of socialism. I only suggest that it is a dangerous trend. I know the Minister of Agriculture, for the years during which he was adhering strictly to the policies of the late Liberal party, felt that way too. I have been amazed and frightened by the speeches he has been making lately. I was very much upset when the premier of Saskatchewan welcomed him to his party. Indeed, when I see this bill come dovm, I wonder just what party he does expect to lead in this country, because it seems to me that the drift of the government seems to be toward the left. The trend of this government is to out-socialize the socialists whom they fear, and their only hope for power will be in an amalgamation of the two.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: Perhaps that is the reason w'hy it is reported that the leader of the C.C.F. party was offered the leadership of the Liberal part}7. You have them mixed. The Minister of Trade and Commerce shakes his head. I
Canadian Wheat Board Act

know he would be very sorry if this bill ever brought that about, and it is the most socialistic bill we have as yet had.
I see that my time has about expired-


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Go ahead. It is amusing.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Nothing about the bill?


William Earl Rowe: If I were the Minister of Agriculture, I would do as 'he did and go on; and I am glad that he did go on. But I am not going to proceed even though he nods approval. I am just going to say in conclusion-


An hon. MEMBER:: Go ahead; we like fiction.


William Earl Rowe: Evidently you should know fiction as you have read nothing else. I listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) speaking the other day, and I was amused. I do not think there is anyone in the house who has listened' to more Liberal campaign speeches than I have. There are not many who have been here longer, although a couple to my right have been. However, I have been here for a long time and I could not help being amused, Mr. Speaker, to find that at last we heard the truth of how this fancy political game is being played-in order not to get Liberal expediency and socialism confused-when he said that those speeches for free enterprise, individual liberty and the opportunity to expand this country on one's own initiative, which were made in an election campaign did not mean much. He said those Tom, Dick and Harry speeches were used only for the purpose of getting into power. Now, when all the noise is over and the smoke of battle has cleared away, with a bill like this, with the powers the government wish to assume, with the fixed price and the straitjacket they wish to put on the old independent farmer, it is no wonder that one can scarcely distinguish between the Tim Bucks and the Roebucks in economic policy.


William Scottie Bryce: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I am going to do my very best to keep to the bill. I do not intend to discuss the ramifications of agriculture. At the same time I do not want to try to cover ground which has already been covered. My colleague, the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bentley), last night said many things with which I agree, and I do not want to go over them. Among the things he said was the statement that the price of the things the farmer has to sell should always be based on parity. I want to emphasize that. Another thing is that this parity can never be set, because it depends on 
our cost of production and the things we have to buy. The great handicap the farmer has had during the time I have been in this country is that he has always had to go to the other fellow and say, "How much will you give me for this? Then, when he went to buy anything he always had to say, "How much do you want for it?" The price has always been set by the other fellow. For over thirty years the organized farmers of western Canada have taken a keen and active interest in the legislation affecting the marketing of grain. Their organizaton began with demands for legislation under which they would receive something like a square deal in the marketing process; and throughout all this period changes have been made in the grain act either in response to direct demands of the farmers or as a result of recommendations of commissions appointed at their request to inquire into the working of the marketing system. It is quite true that royal commissions inquiring into the system of marketing grain have put their stamp of approval on it. But remember, one hundred years ago the stamp of approval of orthodox business was put on the practice of working little children under twelve years of age. That was in Britain. If the world is to be fed, if wars are to be ended, the speculative system of grain marketing, which depends on scarcity, must be discarded.
In 1919 the wheat crop was marketed by a wheat board set up by the dominion government. In 1920 the government decided to discontinue the board and return to the private competitive system. That decision was strongly protested by the organized farmers and the government was asked to continue the wheat board, but without avail. It was the demonstration of collective marketing by the operation of the Canadian wheat board in 1919 and 1920 which brought home to every western grain grower that the futures system was not essential to the successful marketing of grain. There has always been a strong sentiment among the wheat producers of western Canada against the futures system which, in their opinion, determines, by public speculating, the price of the grain they have to sell. The interest of organized and unorganized farmers in matters pertaining to marketing has been continuous and consistent over the last thirty years, and since 1919 the belief has persisted throughout the west that only a wheat board or a grain board handling the whole of the western crop would give efficient and satisfactory service and ensure to the farmer a square deal.
Take my own case as an example. When the boys came back fiom the first great war the same slogan was used: "A square deal for

Canadian Wheat Board Act
the returned man." In fact, many times you heard that the returned man should get perhaps a little better than a square deal. I was one of those individuals who set themselves up as farmers at that time. Wheat was a little better than $2.50 a bushel, and the things I had to buy were based on that price for wheat. In other words, my implements, my cattle, my horses were based on $2.50 wheat. But might I remind hon. members at this point that at that time wheat, basis No. 1 northern at Fort William, was $2.73} cents a bushel. The Winnipeg futures market reopened on August 18,
1920,	By November 18 the cash price had declined 66 cents to S2.074. On November 18,
1921,	the cash price was SI.Ilf, or a drop of 95} cents in that one year. On March IS, 1922, by which time practically all the 1921 crop was out of the hands of the farmers, the price had gone up to $1.43}. Again, by October 18,
1922,	the peak month for farm deliveries, the price was down to SI.02}. On April 18, 1923, again when little or no wheat remained in the hands of the farmers, the price was up once more to $1.22. But at the peak of deliveries, on October 18, 1923, the price was down again to 95J cents. It has been argued repeatedly that the farmer can take advantage of an advancing market, but I would remind hon. members that the farmer, who is paying for his farm and machinery, has all his debts come due in the fall when he sells his crop, and never has had the opportunity of holding on until the market improves.
To come back to my own case, here was wheat down to 95} cents, but the things I had sought to establish the farm were being 'paid for on the basis of wheat at S2.50. The arguments advanced then in favour of the establishment of an open market have been repeated in the last six months. If we believe what we say. the boys who came back from the last war and who are establishing their farms today have earned a square deal, and for their sake we should support this bill and let them have guaranteed prices for a number of years. This will enable them to plan their farming operations in an orderly way and avoid the unfortunate experiences of the soldier settlers of the first great war, who are still trying to meet the obligations they incurred in 1919 and 1920. The conditions I have been describing have been at the root of the failure of those soldier settlers to meet their obligations. Had the wheat board been continued all those years, I am sure those men would have been able to carry on successfully.
I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that only the wheat board saved the prairie farmers in the years between 1940 and 1944. The maiket almost disappeared, but the board, supported by government funds, purchased farm deliveries. Toward the end of the war, when wheat came into demand, the board was able to sell its accumulated supplies and return many millions of dollars to the farmers in final payments. This could not have happened under a speculative system of grain marketing. In September, 1943, the Winnipeg grain exchange was closed to wheat speculation. Since that time, through the wheat board all farmers have received the same price for their grain, allowance being made for different qualities and different freight rates; and all will receive final payment on the same basis.
If we can control our economy in war time and prevent inflation in the interests of everyone, I am sure we all agree that this should be done. Then I believe it is in the interests of all that we should exercise sufficient con^ trol over our economy in peace time to prevent unnecessary deflation and a recurrence of the depression of the thirties. I would direct attention to what has happened in regard to rye, one of the grains over which there was no control. I brought this matter to the attention of the minister repeatedly. With the so-called open market in operation last year we saw rye futures reach $3.14 a bushel, when the visible supply of Canadian rye in all positions stood at around 350,000 bushels. If we look back to July, 1938, when the visible supply of Canadian rye was under
900.000	bushels, the futures price in that month reached a high of 52| cents. That is to say, in July of last year the visible supply was
550.000	bushels less than at the same time eight years earlier, while the price was roughly $2.60 a bushel higher. Price fluctuations on the Winnipeg grain exchange are attributed to supply and demand. If we compare these two periods, it is difficult to consider the supply situation as a price factor. Therefore one must assume that demand was largely responsible for the price which prevailed in 1938 and the price quoted last July. In 1938 the speculator had other commodities in which to interest himself. More recently his speculative activities have had to be confined to rye.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I hung my head in shame when I visited the, continent a year ago and they referred to the speculation in rye. The French people who worked in the underground movement, for our benefit, suffered for want of food while we allowed people in Winnipeg, who never produced a kernel of grain, to gamble with the food of a nation, rye, which in most cases the poorest people eat. I was ashamed when they tackled
Canadian Wheat Board Act

me on that question, when I saw where forty-seven people of the underground had been shot at the stake for helping us, their allies. I hope that black spot will never reappear in the history of 'Canada. Last night the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) made it quite clear where he stood, and at this time I wish to assure the hon. member, who has been a personal friend of mine for many years, that when 1 twit the opposition I do not refer to him.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Thank you.


William Scottie Bryce: I know where he stands. I sat in the house with the hon. member who formerly represented the constituency of Qu'Appelle; and if the opposition who are skating around these days would have the courage to put on paper what they really think-


Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: That applies to the C.C.F. opposition, too.


William Scottie Bryce: My hon. friend's ignorance surprises me.


James Sinclair: I am
surprised to hear a member of the C.C.F. saying that,.


William Scottie Bryce: As a brother Scot, don't
betray yourself.


James Sinclair: Brother Scot or not, the C.C.F. is still in opposition.


William Scottie Bryce: Coming back to what I said, 1 want the hon. member for Souris to know that what I shall say has reference to the party sitting around him, not to the hon. member personally.
Some remarks appear in yesterday's Hansard about his sincerity in fighting for the farmers. I couple my name with that of the hon. member for Souris in that connection. Whether it was hogs, wheat or anything else in Manitoba, when it came to a fight for the organized farmers both the hon. member for Souris and I would be found there; and although our political ideas may be as far removed as the poles, we will give credit where credit is due.
I am sorry the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) is not in his seat at the moment. He seems to have a quite open mind on the subject, for he says, as reported in Hansard:
I can see no reason why the Winnipeg grain exchange should not operate at this moment. I cannot see that it has anything to do with the operation of the wheat board. If the operation of a wheat board is the best way to dispose of our grain, let us do it in that way.
That is a typical statement by a lawyer, a man trained in law, where he evades the issue.

Then he goes on to talk about compulsion, and states that he does not believe in it. He has an open mind so far as the grain exchange is concerned, but he is prepared to let those people who should know decide those things. To make anything a success there must be some degree of control.
My hon. friend, who drives a car, knows he must go down the right side of the street, because he is compelled to do so. If he does not he would cause an accident. When he comes to a red light he knows he must stop; he is compelled to stop, again so as to avoid an accident. My hon. friend who, I presume, belongs to the bar association, knows that before one can become a member of that association it is compulsory to pass the necessary examinations to become a full-fledged lawyer. He must pay his fees, too. Surely the hon. member will grant that if the majority of the farmers in this country want a wheat board, it should be the right thing for the rest to follow; that is, if a majority want it.
I do not need to send this bill to a committee to make up my mind about it. I have been a victim of the grain exchange for twenty-eight years, and my mind is made up. If the hon. member for Calgary West is still trying to make up his mind, I suggest that he had better buy a farm, and he will find out. A man who can rise in his place in the House of Commons and talk about so many subjects, but who has not been able to make up his mind sufficiently well to state it in the house, surprises me.
If we are ever to have orderly marketing, which is the only means of giving to the farmer steady prices, then there must be marketing control; and this group is of the opinion that that control should come from parliament and not from an order in council. We are objecting to the bill on the ground that it grants that power solely to the cabinet.
The hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Miller) belongs to the same lawyers' union as does the hon. member for Calgary West, because it is nation-wide. He admitted that twenty-five lawyers would give twenty-five different opinions on the interpretation of the wheat agreement.


James Sinclair: And twenty-five different fees.


William Scottie Bryce: The same would probably apply, no matter what legislation was placed before them. So far as they are concerned, it all depends upon whom they are working for. If we look at the record of the party to which these two hon. members belong, it is clear that their party has rlways placed itself on record

Canadian Wheat Board Act
in support of free monopoly enterprise, with no controls over the marketing. And while they have to their credit brought in the Canadian Wheat Board Act of 1935-


Mr. FULTON:: And the marketing act.


William Scottie Bryce: it was in the dying days of the session in 1935, with a view to gaining the confidence of the western farmer.
I wish to assure hon. members that I am as anxious for justice to consumers as I am for justice to producers. As cooperators, this group believes that the proper organization of the marketing and distribution of all products would give recognition in a mutual way to the rights of both.
Having the national welfare and interest of Canada at heart, I make no apologies when I urge and support legislation for the continuation of the Canadian wheat board. I have urged it in the past, and I shall continue to do so until the product of our farms is no longer an object for speculators and profit-seekers to gamble with, but is put into channels of consumption in the most efficient and economical manner for the benefit of both producers and consumers.


Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members are agreed that producers of wheat in particular- and that is what we are discussing-should receive a price which would ensure their enjoying a decent standard of living. It is obvious, however, that hon. members are not agreed as to how that desirable condition is to be brought about.
I speak as possibly one of the oldest farmers in the house, my experience with farming in western Canada having originated in 1901. I have had over thirty years' experience in the ups and downs of farming; but to my mind the most priceless privilege the farmers of Canada enjoy is that of owning and controlling their farms. It is that privilege which I *see is endangered from the ever-increasing controls, first from those which are national in scope, and now, with even more danger, from those which are international. We are just emerging from a war period and we have not really adjusted our economy to the necessities of peace. This is a most difficult period and, like other hon. members who have spoken, I would not like definitely to commit myself one way or the other at the present time.
In comparing the system of open markets with the grain board method of marketing, I think one aspect has not been touched upon by any previous speaker, the matter of distribution. Which method ensures the better and widest and fairest distribution of grain? I
know it can be argued both ways, but I would point out that it is only since these controls have been enforced that we have had food famines. There never was any widespread famine in the world that I can remember until free marketing came under arbitrary control.


Mr. McCUAIG:: Do you not think the war had something to do with it?


Norman Jaques: The hon. member mentions the war. I was farming after the last war and I do not remember any famine during that time, but there are widespread famines and1 bread lines after this war. I am not going to be dogmatic about it; I merely suggest that there may be a connection between world famine and the arbitrary control of supply and demand.
I think national control might be fairly safe, but it is another thing when we come to international control. That means the food of the world will come under the control of fewer and fewer people until one or two men, responsible to nobody, responsible to no parliament, responsible to no country, will have the control of the world's food and therefore control over the lives of hundreds of millions of people. That is a most desperate and terrible possibility that we must face.
Much has been said about the sins of speculation in food. I think every hon. member will admit that every producer, whether he be a farmer or a working man, wants to sell his products at the highest possible price. Probably the only exception would be those who are mentally deficient. In the same way every farmer's wife-I am referring to farmers because we are discussing farmers-if she is a good housewife wants to buy the products of other farmers or at least of other working men at the lowest price she can. That is an instinct which has endured from the beginning of history and it will continue to endure so long as people are free to buy and sell as they please. Otherwise I do not know how supply and demand can be determined.
In connection with every product there is a point at which the maximum amount of that product can be sold or marketed, and that point can be determined only by countless millions of daily transactions between buyers and sellers all over the world. Whenever the freedom of the buyer and seller is interfered w'ith or controlled it simply means that there is less buying and selling, and pretty soon there is less of production. Experience proves that.
It is strange that, in spite of improved methods of production, we seem to be again
Canadian Wheat Board Act

entering a period of actual scarcity. I remember between the two wars we had a condition where there was plenty of goods but there was a shortage of money. Now that there is plenty of money, what do we find? We find that there is a shortage of goods. I suggest to hon. members that neither of those conditions is entirely natural, and I do not think they happened of their own volition.
The freer the market, the wider the distribution followed by the greater production. As I said when I started, we all agree that farmers-I am singling out farmers simply because we are discussing a grain bill-or grain producers in this country should be in some way-I am not going to quarrel with the method-guaranteed at least a decent standard of living, provided that they are efiScient.
As I said, the only question is how those conditions are to be brought about. I represent possibly the finest agricultural district in western Canada. Let me repeat what I said at the beginning. The most priceless privilege a farmer in this or any other country has is his freedom to own and control his farm and his farming methods. That privilege is becoming more and more threatened by more and more controls. I see no reason why the farmers, the wheat farmers if you like, cannot be guaranteed decent prices so that they can have a decent standard of living without being called upon to surrender in any way whatsoever the privileges which they have always enjoyed of owning their farms and controlling their farming operations.


Duncan John McCuaig: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make one or two observations on this bill. I am supporting it in principle for three reasons; first, because of the grain growers' bitter experience with the grain exchange method of selling grain, with its total disregard of price relationship in the national economy of Canada; second, because all farm bodies in western Canada have been asking for a stabilized near-parity price basis since the close of world war I; and, third, because I believe that in the very near future there will be serious difficulties to contend with in connection with world trade, imports, exports and foreign exchange.
As I see the future ahead of us, the handling of grain is a national business of the first magnitude, with international stabilization agreements. The speculative market is a thing of the past. The government has two contracts, one with Great Britain and one with

the Canadian -wheat grower. That with the Canadian wheat grower is the one which concerns me.
The export price has been amply dealt with by other members of the house, but I should like to add this one observation. Europe is receiving the major portion of our agricultural implements and is building her own industries on a scale never before thought of, and this bespeaks a tremendous agricultural revival in those countries to which we used to export large quantities of wheat.
Whether we agree with this or not, or with the way in which it has been brought about, we must face the fact that our great northern neighbour, Russia, is growing into the world's greatest nation in agricultural production and in industrial development, bringing millions of acres under wheat cultivation in Siberia, a land which is comparable wth our own western plains. I think it is about time that we sat up and took notice and with the least possible delay started to do all in our power to enter into friendly reciprocal trade relations with our neighbours both to the south and to the north of us.
Canada can play a great part in bringing about a one-world family. Atomic energy has brought men to the cross-roads in our civilization. It will be one-world or no civilization. This propaganda of prejudice, hate and ignorance of each other spells chaos to Canada.
I have in my hand a table showing the average price received for all grains in Saskatchewan from 1911 to 1946. In that long period of thirty-six years wheat reached the dollar mark only fourteen times, and once reached a low of thirty-five cents, which meant about nineteen cents a bushel to the farmer when all transportation and service charges were taken care of. This is a strong argument in itself for stabilized parity prices with other branches of Canadian industry. For the years from 1939 to 1942 the average prices for wheat in Saskatchewan, at local points, were as follows, and I wish to put this on record:
Year	Price per bushel
1930		 47
1931		 38
1932		 35
1933		 47
1934		 61
1935		 60
1936		 92
1937		 $1 05
1938		 58
1939		 54
1940		 58
1941		 59
1942		:	 78

Canadian Wheat Board Act
In only one year in those thirteen did wheat reach the dollar mark, and let me point out that the price of SI.05 in 1937 was purely a manipulated price on the Winnipeg grain exchange. When it was definitely known in the fall of 1937 that seed would have to be bought over a large area to seed the 1938 crop, speculators got into the market and wheat went to S1.05-purely a gambler's market. Six months later, when there was less wheat in Canada, and before the 1938 crop ever reached the market, the price was back to 54 cents.
This experience and the devastating effect it had on the economy of Canada in the years between 1930 and 1942 should have taught us a lesson that we should never forget. It clearly showed that, as the agricultural economjr goes down, all else in Canada goes down with it.
The farmers of western Canada want an all-grain marketing board, under the control of parliament, the people's representatives- one large pool. Private traders cannot handle the job, nor can any other group within the nation.
Some may call this bureaucracy. I would sooner have a bureaucracy under a democratic parliament than a bureaucracy of private monopolistic institutions, with no responsibility except to their own shareholders and that largely by proxy.
I do not care what the export price of wheat will be. We must have in Canada a price for all grains that will give us a balanced Canadian economy and a stabilized parity price. The products of industry must compare in price with the products of agriculture. The low prices of wheat which I have just quoted and the great contribution which the wheat grower has shouldered in domestic prices to the Canadian consumer to the tune of
8100,000,000-these things must not be forgotten when the new order is being drafted.
I would ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) to explain to the house the grounds on which the government decided that the wheat grower should sell all Canadian consumed wheat at thirty cents a bushel under the export price. I have been asked that question in my constituency and I have not been able to answer it. I would ask the minister to answer it.
My second question is, on what ground did the government sell Canadian wheat to forty-two countries outside of the United Kingdom at SI.55 a bushel, which was around forty-five cents a bushel under world prices?
At six o'clock th' house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I think this bill, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, has been discussed from nearly every angle and viewpoint. It is not my intention to go over any of these arguments again or to make much in the way of additional statement. However, during the debate there were various matters raised to which I wish to reply at this time. I should like to emphasize once again that the purpose of the legislation now before the house in the form of amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act is intended to provide a period of stability for wheat producers until July 31, 1950. In my opinion this is what producers generally have been endeavouring to secure over the years. The policy being carried out by the government is even more important when it covers the early post-war period when conditions abroad are so uncertain. It was only a few years ago that the organized farmers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, in convention in Ottawa, urged the government to set a price for wheat at SI Fort William, Port Arthur and Vancouver. We all know that conditions in many ways have changed definitely since that time. We know that the farmer, as well as the rest of us, is paying more for the things he requires as a consumer. But I think that ini this short time we have gone a long way to bring to the deserving producer of wheat, who is so important in the economy of Canada, a substantial measure of security.
I wish to correct the impression left by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) that the government is asking for any powers requiring producers to sell grains other than wheat to the board. Under this bill the board will be enabled, with the approval of the governor in council, to buy, sell and deal in grains other than wheat, and thus afford to producers of such grains an optional method of marketing them.
Last evening I was asked to clarify the position in regard to the new domestic price for wheat for feeding purposes. The position is that the price of wheat for feed purposes in Canada increased by 33i cents a bushel as a result of the decision taken by the government to increase the domestic price of wheat, effective on February 17, 1947. I would point out, however, that the subsidy of twenty-five cents a bushel on wheat for feeding purposes is still being paid and that the free freight policy in effect in recent years
Canadian Wheat Board Act

good crop this year, but that crop does not exceed more than about 420,000,000 bushels. Domestic requirements during those three years will be 420,000,000 bushels. The remainder for export or storage would be
930.000.	000 bushels. Grain in storage may be increased by 375,000,000 bushels. Allowing for grain in storage, at an estimated amount of
375.000.	000 bushels there is left a remainder for export of 555,000.000 bushels.
If therefore we stored 375,000,000 bushels we would have only 550,000,000 bushels for export over the three-year period, or an average of only 185,000,000 bushels per crop year.
If we consider our flour exports this would not give us even enough to fill the United Kingdom contract. Moreover it is very unlikely that we would produce three crops in a row averaging 450,000,000 bushels. I cite these assumptions to show that any restriction on marketings during the contract period is unnecessary.
I was asked some questions by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross). I am sorry I am not in a position to answer one question at this time. However the information is being prepared, and I shall be glad to have the answers given while we are in committee, if that is satisfactory.


James Arthur Ross: Is that with respect to feed wheat?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.
Before concluding, I would ask the indulgence of the house to allow me to make a brief statement regarding Mrs. A. Kelsey of Erickson, British Columbia, who last December became the world's first wheat queen. Only a modest amount of publicity has been given Mrs. Kelsey's accomplishment and her work has been given no official recognition, which I should like to do at this time.
Mrs. Kelsey is a modest lady; perhaps that explains as much as anything why her fine accomplishments have had so little notice.
Born in Worcester City, England, where she attended school, and later living in Newport, Monmouth, she left in September, 1911, and arrived in Regina, Saskatchewan. She was married in St. Paul's Church, Regina, Saskatchewan, on May 6, 1913, to Mr. Charles Kelsey who resided at Keddleston, Saskatchewan, about forty miles from Regina. Because her health was frail, her husband and she later moved to Erickson, British Columbia, where she has resided since.
I have seen several pictures of the Kelseys' fruit farm, and it is to the credit of the Kelseys that they have since not only continued their fruit growing but have concentrated on the growing of seed grain. Com-

mencing in December, 1931, she has exhibited field corn, and since 1932 she has exhibited wheat. In the years that have elapsed she has won forty-three awards in all, including twelve for wheat and twenty-two for corn.
To demonstrate that she has not become the world's wheat queen by any chance of circumstances, I should like to list her twelve wheat awards:
1932, 2nd for a sheaf, Marquis, Vancouver. 1934, 2nd for 18 pounds handpicked, Marquis, Victoria.
1936,	2nd for 18 pounds handpicked, Marquis, Vancouver.
1938, 5th for 18 pounds handpicked, Marquis, Toronto.
1934,	37th for 15 pounds handpicked, Marquis, Chicago.
1935,	23rd for 15 pounds handpicked, Marquis, Chicago.
1936,	12th for 15 pounds handpicked, Reward, Chicago.
1937,	10th for 15 pounds handpicked, Reward, Chicago.
1938,	9th for 15 pounds handpicked, Reward, Chicago.
1939,	8th for 15 pounds handpicked, Marquis, Chicago.
1940,	7th for 15 pounds handpicked, Reward, Chicago.
1946, 1st world's championship, Reward, Chicago.
Throughout these years of concentration toward earning the world's highest award for wheat, she has had very indifferent health and occasionally very bad health.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that all Canadians will join with me in paying tribute to a courageous woman who has brought credit not only to herself but to Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Definitions.
Mr. WRIGHT:: I should like to say a few words on this section. First, I would commend the minister for his action now in having brought to the attention of the house and the country the noteworthy achievements of Mrs. Kelsey in winning the world's highest award on wheat. It shows just how persistent the ladies are.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


David McKenzie Wright: She is to be complimented on that and on the honour she has brought to Canada.
I do not wish again to discuss the principles of the bill. They were thoroughly discussed in the debate on second reading, and our views

Canadian Wheat Board Act
in respect to them were ably expressed by the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bentley). I want to point out to the committee that there are two important principles involved in this bill. The first is the principle of long-term agreements with importing countries for food. That is a new departure in connection with the supplying of the world's food requirements, something that has not been done at least in modern times. We in this group believe that this making of direct agreements between the governments of exporting and importing nations is a step in the right direction. We are not surprised that there is opposition to it. For instance, we are not surprised that the more conservative members of the Progressive Conservative party are alarmed at it. Naturally they are alarmed at any change.
This change is something for which organized agriculture in Canada has been asking for a long time. The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe appeared to be very much alarmed at this. He speaks or pretends to speak for the farmers of Ontario, but that is not the expressed opinion of the organized farmers, either of Ontario or of Canada. They have expressed their opinions on this matter at their annual conventions for a considerable number of years. Their opinions have been that there should be orderly marketing of our agricultural products and that there should be agreements with importing nations on basic food products. I should like to quote the latest resolution, part of which was quoted by the minister a few minutes ago, passed by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, as reported in the Manitoba Cooperator for February. This convention, representative of agriculture right across Canada, went on record as saying:
The convention expressed confidence in the operation of the Canadian wheat board and the management under its present chairman, and requested that the C.F.A. seek to have the Canadian wheat board made a permanent organization and be extended to be the sole marketing agency for all commercial grain.
I shall deal with that a little later.
At the same time the delegates voiced strong opposition to the reopening of the Winnipeg futures market, commonly known as the Winnipeg grain exchange.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Where was that resolution from?


David McKenzie Wright: From the Canadian Federation of Agriculture meeting in Winnipeg the early part of this month.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Do they take in Ontario as well?


David McKenzie Wright: I am surprised that an hon. member from Ontario should ask that question.
Surely he should realize that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture represents the whole of Canada, and I assume Ontario is still in Canada.
The second principle involved in this bill follows naturally from the first. If the government of any country is to be able to carry out its commitments with other countries in connection with the orderly marketing of foodstuffs it must establish a marketing board to carry out those contracts. That is what this bill does; it continues the Canadian wheat board until 1950.
I believe the powers of that board should be extended to permit the control and marketing of all grain in the Dominion of Canada. That is the expressed wish of organized agriculture in this country. From my contacts with farmers right across this dominion I feel quite certain it is their desire that the board should operate on all grains. As a matter of fact I do not think the board can do an efficient job in the marketing of wheat, in the regulating of the amount coming forward to market and in the regulating of the amount available for export, unless it also controls coarse grains. I am convinced that, before bringing in this bill, the government should have made a statement to the house and to the country on their coarse grains policy. That should have been done so that we could have discussed more intelligently certain provisions in this bill.	_
If the board takes the right under the bill to regulate the marketing of coarse grains, along with that right should go some responsibility for the price of the grain to the farmer. We do not know whether it is the government's intention to remove ceilings entirely from coarse grains. We do not know the intentions of the government with regard to present prices of coarse grains. At the present time those prices are entirely out of line with the price of wheat as laid down in the wheat board act. Until there is an adjustment of that relationship, I think the farmers of this country will be in a precarious position with respect to the production of coarse grains. Before this bill goes any farther, I think the minister should give some indication to the committee of his intention with respect to coarse grains.
This bill is brought in to permit the carrying out of the provisions of the British wheat agreement. There has been considerable criticism of that agreement in this house. The Hon. Mr. Strachey, minister of food in Great Britain, sat in the gallery here and listened to some of the discussion the other day. He is reported in a press report to have said that he wished he could have brought
Canadian Wheat Board Act

the official opposition in Great Britain over to the gallery here in Canada and have them listen to the official opposition here. He said that they were following an entirely different line in Great Britain. There they were criticizing the government for making too lenient an agreement with Canada, while in Canada our official opposition are criticizing the government because they did not make a little tougher agreement. It seems to me that (he government, with this bill, has probably struck something of a fair medium between those two extremes.
I believe the price of SI .35 as indicated by the government to the farmer in 1945 was fair at that time, but conditions have changed since then. When that price was announced by the government it was understood by the farmers that the price ceiling policy was to be maintained. If it had been maintained I do not think there would have been any particularly strenuous objection to that price.
Since that time the cost of production of wheat in Canada has risen by between fifteen and twenty per cent. On the basis of that rise in the cost of production, which is a responsibility of the government, the government should be prepared at this time to increase the initial payment to $1.55 a bushel. I do not think that increase would be any more than the rise in the cost of production since 1945.
I agree with the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture that in all probability it would be unwise for the western farmer or any group in Canada to obtain, through special legislation, concessions which would have to be paid for out of consolidated revenue fund to the extent of millions of dollars. I think sooner or later that would react against the group, whether it was labour, whether it was a farm group, whether it was a manufacturing or any other group in Canada.
I do not think there would be any danger in increasing the initial price to $1.55 at this time. The government have already sold a considerable amount of wheat, both the 1945 and the 1946 crops, and the prices were considerably over the $1.35 initial payment. Furthermore, the prospect of the price of world wheat remaining high for a further period of one or two years is much better at the present time than it was in 1945.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What was the highest price ever asked of the minister by an organized agricultural body-$1.35, was it not?


David McKenzie Wright: I think the minister would agree that much higher prices have been asked by the different farm organizations in Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: The highest price asked officially by the federation was an initial payment of $1.25.


David McKenzie Wright: That was the floor price, based on farm costs at that time.


Arthur Leroy Smith: When was that? Within the last four or five months, was it not?


David McKenzie Wright: No, that was a considerable time ago, at the time the price was set.


James Garfield Gardiner: Two days before the contract was signed last July.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Not much more than four or five months ago.


James Arthur Ross: Very much less than a year ago.


David McKenzie Wright: The government did carry on negotiations over a considerable period with farm organizations with respect to this wheat agreement with Great Britain, and quite rightly so. I have no doubt that these organizations at that time agreed on an initial payment of $1.35, plus participation certificates. I think the price was based on costs at that time. But since then the government has gradually dropped its price control policy, with the result that costs have gone up, and the government must accept responsibility for that.
As I said before, I do not think an initial payment of $1.55 for the five years would involve the government in any large expenditures from consolidated revenue in view of the reserves that have already accumulated and are likely to go on accumulating in the next year on the wheat agreement, and in view also of the amount of wheat being sold to other countries outside the British wheat agreement.
The agreement has also been criticized as being bilateral. It is claimed that it will be a hindrance to the making of multilateral agreements. But after what the Minister of Agriculture said this afternoon and from other things that have been said before, I am quite sure that will not be the case. For many years organized agriculture in Canada, especially the wheat growers of western Canada, have been urging an international agreement on the marketing of wheat between the principal importing and exporting countries and over the last ten years active negotiations have been carried on toward that end. They have not been very successful so far, but I believe that this action by the government of the largest wheat exporting nation in the world in making an agreement with Great Britain, the largest importing nation, has not hindered but rather helped the making of

Canadian Wheat Board Act
multilateral agreements. I think the proof of that is to be seen in what is taking place today. We are much nearer an international agreement on wheat today than we ever were before in the history of those negotiations and, as I say, I think this wheat agreement with Britain will help and not hinder an international agreement. I am sure that this government intends to establish international agreements to the fullest possible extent. In my opinion the only guarantee of stability to the producers of wheat in Canada is an international agreement between the importing and exporting countries covering periods of years. The international agreement must then be carried out by marketing boards within the countries signing the agreement. I do not think you could ever carry out such an agreement with the Winnipeg grain exchange operating. It would be physically impossible to do it. There would be no stability if a speculative market entered into the picture. The only way in which such an international agreement could be carried out wrould be through marketing boards in the countries which are signatories to the agreement. I think that must be the ultimate aim in the marketing of our wheat.
I am very glad that the minister announced that the government -would be prepared to take all the wheat produced in the pool period, but I was not quite sure from his statement whether the government agrees to take all the wheat produced in 1949 or just that amount of the wheat which happens to be delivered by August 1, 1950. I hope the minister will clear up that point. If there should be a shortage of storage space in 1949-50 and a certain amount of the wheat is held back on the farm, will the board accept that 1949-50 crop after August 1? I think they should, and I should like the minister to clear that point up.
To carry out these agreements it would be necessary to store grain somewhere in the world in years of surplus production. I am convinced that the importing nations should accept some of the responsibility for providing that storage. They should be prepared to build storage space in their own countries or in the country from which they are importing so that they can bear their share of storing the surpluses which it may be necessary to implement these agreements fully.
We shall have to assume responsibility within Canada for providing storage space. I am convinced that part of the grain should be stored on the farm. We should not depend entirely on the storage facilities at the head of the lakes and in eastern Canada, but we should start now, under the wheat board, an
ever-normal granary programme so that in years of surplus production some of the wheat may be stored on the farms where it is produced. The common sense of that was amply demonstrated in the drought periods in western Canada when we had to haul wheat all the way back from the head of the lakes to certain areas in western Canada to be used for seed purposes.there. In an area like western Canada, where our climate is such that we cannot count on anywhere near the same amount of production from year to year, an ever-normal granary plan should be established and part of the grain should be stored permanently on the farms where it is produced.
The government should assume some responsibility in regard to the storage of that grain. They should establish a standard form of granary which would be necessary for a farmer to build on his farm if he wished to take advantage of the provision of storing grain on the farm. They should pay storage on the farm. Not only should they pay storage on the farm but they should make some advance to the farmer on the grain stored on his farm for future delivery. I am not going to argue as to what that advance should be. Personally I believe it should be at least fifty per cent of the value of the grain. Whatever may be decided, some advance should be made to the farmer when he takes the responsibility of carrying that grain. Some allowance should be made to him for storage of the grain on the farm.
It has always been the opinion of this group that there should be a parity price for our grain, not only for wheat but for other grains as well. Our recommendation has been that the value of the participation certificate which is issued on wheat on which the $1.35 is accepted, or in case the government should see fit to advance the initial payment to $1.55, should be paid and that the value of the participation certificate should be based on the cost of production or a parity price. That price should not be a fixed price; it should vary with the costs of the goods the farmer has to buy. If these costs increase, then the value of the participation certificate should increase. If it decreases then the value of the participation certificate should decrease with it. It should work both ways. I believe the farmer would be satisfied with an arrangement whereby he received at any given period his appproximate cost of production or parity price.
I know the former Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has strenuously objected to this on various occasions and said that it could not be worked out; that it was not possible to estab-
Canadian Wheat Board Act

lish it. But I am quite convinced that it can be established and that there should be set up in Canada a commission which would determine what is a reasonable division of our national income as between the manufacturer, the labourer and agriculture, and on the basis of the findings of such a commission and the total production of Canada we can arrive at some fair division of that income. At the present time it is decided by strikes on the part of labour and agriculture, by the manufacturers' associations and other organizations coming to Ottawa and behind the scenes interviewing the government and trying to get for themselves certain concessions. That is not a fair way in which these things should be decided. It is much more intelligent for us to come out into the open, to set up a body which would arrive at some intelligent decision based on statistics, based on all the facts which they would have before them as to what that relationship should be. If we did that I am sure that we would have greater production in this country, because you can only get greater production when you have satisfied labour and satisfied farmers. That was proven without doubt during the war.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Would the hon. member permit a question?


David McKenzie Wright: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I ask it solely for information. I have heard this word "parity" used in many different ways. Would the hon. member mind defining what he means by "parity". I assure him the question is not asked critically. I am really asking for his definition.


David McKenzie Wright: So far as the farmer is concerned, "parity" means the relationship which the price he gets for his products bears to the cost of the goods which he has to buy, a fair relationship between the cost of the goods he has to buy and the cost of the things he has to sell.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Thank you.
I just wanted to get the meaning the hon. member had in mind.


William Earl Rowe: Is $1.35 a parity price?


David McKenzie Wright: I do not know.


William Earl Rowe: The hon. member should.


David McKenzie Wright: I do not think anybody else knows or can know until he has made the necessary investigation to find out.


Mr. ILSLEY:: It has a relationship.


David McKenzie Wright: Yes.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Not a proper one.
[Mr. Wright.3


James Lorimer Ilsley: It does not mean much to say that it must have a relationship.
Mr. W7RIGHT: A proper relationship.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A proper relationship to what?


William Earl Rowe: The hon. member should investigate these things before he speaks.


Humphrey Mitchell: How does my hon. friend get a fair relationship between what the worker has to buy and what the farmer has to sell?


David McKenzie Wright: It works both ways. It can be established in some way other than the way it is being established at the present time, namely, by strikes on the part of labour and the farmer. I can assure the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) that, if his government had seen fit to do something like that, they would have relieved him of a lot of the responsibility which he has had over the last few years in labour disputes throughout the country. It is because of the unfairness between the relationships of what labour is getting and the price of the agricultural products, because there is no established relationship between them, that you get this spiral of inflation which is growing in the country.


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I ask the hon. member another question?


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Mr. Chairman, I believe there is a rule with regard to debate-


Arthur Leroy Smith: I was asking my hon. friend if he would permit a question. I think the hon. member will agree that I have not been facetious. I did ask him for information. I am not now interrupting because of what somebody else said. My question is, do you think that would necessarily change from year to year, or would it be a constantly fluctuating thing? Could you put it over a period of five years as the government is now doing with wheat?


David McKenzie Wright: No; I think it would be a constantly fluctuating thing based on our ability to produce in Canada, and that is the only basis on which you can put anything, our ability to produce and the amount we produce. I am quite certain that, under some arrangement such as that, we would get greater production in Canada, and that is what all of us want. The only way in which you can have further wealth in the country and a better standard of living is by production.


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I ask one more question? I agree with everything that the hon. member has said, that only with

Canadian Wheat Board Act
greater production can we have a better standard of living. Let us assume that the farmer's costs go up. Let us take an average figure of ten per cent a year for the next five years. What does the hon. member think about the government's grain price being fixed over a period of five years?


David McKenzie Wright: I said that, so far as this group is concerned, we believe in the payment of a participation certificate based on the changes in the cost of production. That is our policy.


An hon. MEMBER:: Each year?


William Earl Rowe: Annually?


David McKenzie Wright: Each year, yes.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: Order. I must remind hon. members that the hon. member who has the floor must not be interrupted without his consent.


Arthur Leroy Smith: With respect, Mr. Chairman, did I not ask the permission of the hon. member?


Mr. IRVINE:: Let us start a class in agricultural economics.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am sure hon. members will agree that I asked the hon. gentleman's permission on two occasions before I asked the question and he gave me permission.


William Henry Golding: I would also remind hon. members that they have an opportunity to speak after the hon. member has taken his seat. An hon. member should not be constantly interrupted.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Are you, Mr. Chairman, going to rule that although, through you, I asked the hon. gentleman permission to ask a question I am still out of order? If so, I shall never ask another one.


Thomas Vincent Grant: That is the best news we have yet heard.


William Henry Golding: I would remind the hon. member that he is not the only one who has asked a question.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then remind the other hon. members; do not remind me.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The cheer section over there may just as well shut up now.


Thomas Vincent Grant: We have got your goat.


David McKenzie Wright: I wish to assure the committee that I had no objection to the questions
asked by the hon. member for Calgary West, and I hope my answer was reasonably intelligent to him.
I am not going to deal with the bill at any greater length at the present time. We shall have certain amendments to offer on the various clauses, and they will follow the lines I have indicated as being the policy of this group with respect to the bill. We hope the committee may see fit to adopt some of those amendments because we believe they are in the interests of agriculture in Canada.


Mr. CHARLTON:: In order that the record may be kept straight I feel it is my duty to say a word at this time. On various occasions we have listened to the C.C.F. party to our left make the statement that they apparently were the only party in the house speaking for the farmers of this country.


David McKenzie Wright: Not at all.


William Irvine: You go ahead and speak for them.


John Alpheus Charlton: They have intimated that in this house on many occasions.


James Arthur Ross: One hon. member did that just last night.


John Alpheus Charlton: Also, the hon. member for Melfort just made the statement that all the farmers in Canada wanted the wheat board to handle all their wheat and grain.
Mr. AA^RIGHT: No, I did not. I said that the federation of agriculture had stated that, and just in designated areas. I am not speaking for eastern Canada. In anything I said I had reference to the act and the act refers to "designated areas" in Canada.


John Alpheus Charlton: Well, the hon. member did speak of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which he said represented all the farmers in Canada. Is that right?


David McKenzie Wright: It is the official mouthpiece of the farmers.


William Irvine: The organized farmers.


John Alpheus Charlton: Are you sure just what you did say?


David McKenzie Wright: Quite. The record will show it.


Mr. COLDAVELL:: Ask him if he knows
what he is saying.


John Alpheus Charlton: I wish to make it quite clear that the resolution mentioned by the hon. member for Melfort was not a unanimous resolution passed by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I have been a member of the Canadian Federation of Agri-
Canadian Wheat Board Act

culture for quite some time and I hope I can still speak for a few farmers in my own constituency in Ontario. I know they would not agree with that statement. As far as the prairie members are concerned, the hon. member for Melfort did not appear to know just what a parity price was. If he believes that SI.35 is a parity price for wheat now, I think he is badly mistaken.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: He did not say that.


John Alpheus Charlton: No? He apparently did not know what it was.


An hon. MEMBER:: You tell him.


John Alpheus Charlton: I believe the farmer in the west should know what the parity price should be.


Mr. ARCHIBALD:: The hon. member
should stick to his programme and we will stick to ours.


Mr. HARKNESS:: The hon. member had better stick to his fish.


William Henry Golding: Order.


John Alpheus Charlton: The hon. member for Melfort also made the statement that the price would be constantly fluctuating. What is the meaning of this wheat agreement, then, if they want the price to be constantly fluctuating? I really think he is arguing against himself in a good many ways.
The east has been sadly neglected in this debate so far. It is a western problem bo a great- extent, but not wholly. As far as the wheat board handling our grain- is concerned,
I would give the farmers of Canada credit for being able to do some of 'their own business, and I really believe that some of the farmers in Ontario would still like to handle their own grain where they please and when they please. I say also that if the farmers are given this challenge that they have to be spoon-fed by any government, regardless of politics, then I believe i-t is a challenge the farmers of Canada will accept; and through cooperation I believe they can do part of their own business at least.


Mr. JUTRAS:: I am: happy to support this bill mainly because it is a legislative form of giving added stability to agriculture. We have heard a great deal about how important agriculture is to this country, and how to achieve that stability. It has been the concern of this government for many years, has been the concern of organized agriculture throughout Canada-, and today it is probably of more concern than ever to all those connected with agriculture. The government started out, with

-that aim in mind, by consulting at great length with all the various agriculture organizations in Canada, and adopted the practice of referring from time to time to organized agriculture. During the war, as one way of achieving that stability, the government started by closing the grain exchange. Then the government undertook the marketing of wheat for the farmers. I think everybody will agree that so far, at any rate, they have 'had a great measure of success in handling the wheat for the farmer. Then the government went out for long-term contracts with countries overseas. I for one am convinced, and I think everybody engaged in agriculture will agree, that the only way to achieve true stability for agriculture in- Canada is to get contracts overseas in order to dispose of the wheat. I am happy to know at this time that the efforts of Canada are directed toward that end and that organized agriculture-the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and all other bodies-are devoting a great deal of time and energy to supporting and encouraging the international organization on food and agriculture. I believe that is ultimately the surest way of assuring prosperity in Canada for agriculture, and more particularly in western Canada.
After going out for long-term contracts, the government went one step farther and instituted t'he present policy of paying an initial payment and keeping the balance to form a fund or pool, no matter what you call it, in order to have something to draw from later on, should the price of wheat drop to a low level on 'the world market. In this way there is at least some measure of stability; the farmers are definitely assured: of at least SI or $1.25 for their wheat over the five-year period. Some objection -has been raised because they were not being paid the difference between $1.35 and $1.55 yearly. I believe the Minister of Agriculture covered that matter very well this afternoon. When we look at the question more closely we find that -t'he waiting period will be very short, with payments for 1943 not quite completed and those for 1944 just- commencing, so that by the end of the five-year period the farmers will not have to wait very long. Just in passing, I might mention that the spreading out of -the difference between $1.35 and $1.55 to the end of the five-year period will, I am sure, save the farmers substantial sums in income tax, which is one consolation- at least.


James Arthur Ross: If they do not grow any wheat at all they will not have to pay any tax.


René Jutras: If you look at the figures, particularly for Manitoba and Saskatchewan,

Canadian Wheat Board Act
you will see that a large percentage of the farmers are paying income tax. At the end of last session a report was tabled in this house showing the number of farmers in Canada paying income tax and breaking that total down by provinces. I believe the farmers of Manitoba were paying the most in income tax, and the number of farmers was shown to be very large. So it is quite reasonable to assume that if this money were paid at the present time-


Mr. MILLER:: Does the hon. member suggest that the farmers of Manitoba are paying more income tax because they are making more money than the farmers of other provinces, or does he suggest that the government is chasing the farmers of Manitoba more than the farmers of other provinces?


René Jutras: I am surprised to hear such a question coming from the new member for Portage la Prairie.


James Arthur Ross: Why not answer it then?


René Jutras: I shall come to that. I was not insinuating anything along that line. In the first place, I do not know how the report was arrived at, and I am in no position to give an interpretation of it. As I said a moment ago, it was tabled in the house. You can interpret it in your own way; other hon. members may interpret it differently. Certainly I am not insinuating that the government is going after the farmers of Manitoba more than the farmers of any other province, nor am I suggesting that the farmers of Manitoba are more prosperous than the farmers of other provinces. Many factors enter into this matter, and I am in no position to judge them at the present time. However, it is a matter of record; if you go back to the end of last session you will find the report in question. I am not presenting this as an argument in favour of the action being taken; I am just pointing it out as at least one consolation to the farmers.
My hon. friends across the way seem quite excited about this bill, apparently mainly because it is a statutory way of giving life to the wheat agreement and is closely related to it. Their principal objection seems to arise from the form of the wheat agreement with Britain; and they suggest among other things that the full amount received under the contract should be paid to the farmers at once. In other words, they do not agree with this idea of forming a pool for five years; nor do they approve the scheme as a whole. I have listened quite attentively to all the speeches made in this house since the beginning of this
debate, and I must say I have not heard any concrete suggestions from the opposition as to how this legislation should be changed, since, as I said, it does give a certain stability to agriculture. The only suggestion has been that we throw the market wide open and let the chips fall where they may. That system has been tried in the past; it has proved disastrous to the farmers, and I for one fear the results would be the same if it were tried again.


James Arthur Ross: Who suggested that?


René Jutras: Apparently I am not the only one to feel that way.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Chairman, the
hon. gentleman just stated that suggestions have been made that we use the open market and let the chips fall where they may. Would he say who made that statement during this debate?


René Jutras: I did not say I was quoting those words from anybody. I think you will agree that you do not favour the wheat agreement as such.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


René Jutras: I think we can reasonably assume that the opposition does not favour it, and that is exactly what I was saying.


William Earl Rowe: No, not exactly; you just dreamed that.


René Jutras: Well, I was saying you do not like the agreement but had not offered anything constructive to replace it. I believe many hon. members here coming from other than the western provinces must have had the impression from the official opposition that this wheat agreement was certainly not favourable to the farmers and that as a matter of fact it was not liked by the farmers.
Then let us see who favour the wheat agreement. We might refer to various groups in the western provinces, but if we take the cooperatives, the pools and the organized farmers, I think we pretty well cover the farmers, and I do not know that we can go any farther. Take the cooperative movement in the western provinces. Only the other day I was reading about the farm forum movement in the province of Manitoba. Their report on the question of the wheat agreement reveals that ninety-four per cent of the forums in the province favour the wheat agreement with Britain, for the reason that it gives a measure of stability which they have not had in the past. Then, if we come to the wheat pool, on many occasions it has
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Arthur Leroy Smith: Is that true of the state of Kansas, for example?


René Jutras: I was not referring to one state, I was referring to the United States of America. Surely you will not argue that the wheat problem in the United States is similar to the wheat problem in Canada?


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not?


René Jutras: They are not dependent upon the export of wheat to the extent that we are in Canada. While I could go on and deal with this matter for hours, I think I shall leave it there for today. It is quite obvious that our whole farm, economy is dependent on wheat. It all comes down to this: If we do not get outside markets for our wheat we are sunk, because this government will have to come in and subsidize. It is all very well to suggest that the farmers should be permitted to take the highest price they can get and then, if the price of wheat goes down in a few years, the government can be asked to use the consolidated revenue fund to subsidize the price to the farmer. But the farmers are rather sceptical about such a procedure, because they remember how difficult it has been in the past to get anything from the consolidated revenue fund with which to subsidize wheat. They have had experience with all governments, and farmers in other countries have experienced the same difficulty even though other types of government are in power. Today they would much rather contribute to a fund themselves in order to make sure that at least there will be something. Should things go wrong, I think it can be reasonably assumed that a favourable government would give them some help. Otherwise their chances are small. They know that and that is the reason why they have given their support to this contract. No one knows exactly how it will work out but at least this is one thing that can be tried. They are in favour of it and that is why I am happy to support this bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think I should first draw attention to the fact that we are somewhat circumscribed because the government has not given any indication as to its agricultural policy. This bill is entitled, "An act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935." However, it goes far beyond dealing with the details of the Canadian wheat board and any conflict which may exist, either in the minds of hon. members or throughout the country, as between the wheat board and
Canadian Wheat Board Act

the Winnipeg grain exchange. It affects the whole sphere of agriculture in Canada by the fact that under the definition section grain is defined to include wheat, oats, barley, rye and flaxseed. That, if nothing else, would indicate that this is a measure which affects a great deal more than the mere operation of the Canadian wheat board.
That definition goes to support my initial statement that this involves the question of the agricultural policy of the country today. I repeat that we find ourselves somewhat at a disadvantage. Despite all the efforts which were made yesterday and again today, and at the time when the resolution preceding this bill was introduced, the government has showed what amounts to an astonishing reluctance, in fact one might almost say an absolute refusal to indicate just what is its policy with respect to agriculture. Naturally that handicaps hon. members who want to discuss this bill intelligently.


James Garfield Gardiner: We like to keep ourselves in order when we are speaking.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The government frequently finds it is of advantage to interpret the rules of the house in order that it may do what it wants to do. I do not recall that the rules of the house preclude the government or the Minister of Agriculture from making any statement as to policy when introducing a bill.
I think that is an artificial refinement of the rule which has been introduced by the government during this session in order to eliminate the possibility or the duty of making a statement as to policy when legislation is being introduced. In fact that brings up the point to which I was coming. Apparently they seek to avoid making a statement of policy for the simple reason that they have no policy. The government has become so used to government by order in council and by an overwhelming majority that they have not found it necessary to state their policy or to defend their policy. At the present time they are attempting to proceed under that same custom.
It was remarkable to notice during the debate yesterday the efforts that were made to induce both the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture to make statements on agricultural policy. I do not think it is any stretch of a phrase to say that the ministers positively refused to make a statement of policy. Before we can discuss an important measure such as we have before us tonight, it is essential that we have some statement of policy in order that we may know what we are talking about. So I come back to the statement I originally made, that it is only complete lack of policy which would
induce the government or the ministers to refuse to make the statement for which we have been asking.
The same practice has been evident in connection with every other bill they have introduced. I do not want to refer to the debates in detail, but hon. members will recall the defence bill, the fertilizer bill and various other matters which were introduced and where a reluctance amounting to refusal to state policy was apparent on the part of the government.


James Angus MacKinnon: Our policy is contained in the bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the point I am trying to make. The government is trying to introduce a measure of all-embracing importance under the guise of a bill to amend the wheat board act, but this measure goes far beyond the mere machinery of the wheat board. This involves the whole agricultural policy of the government.


James Garfield Gardiner: I thought you said there was none.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is none, but there should be.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is more policy in this than you can absorb.


Edmund Davie Fulton: 
Mrs. STRUM:: Cabbages and petunias.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Some hon. members may be interested in flowers, but I do not happen to be interested in flowers at the moment, and I pass on to more commercial commodities. Yesterday we tried to obtain some information with regard to the effects of the government's policy on the poultry producers in western Canada and we were unable to obtain any statement whatsoever.


James Angus MacKinnon: That has nothing to do with this bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With deference to the minister, I do not agree because this affects the government's marketing policy on all feed grains; the marketing policy on feed grains affects the price of every other agricultural lommodity which is produced because the cost of feed grains enters into, the cost of everything else in the sphere of agriculture that is produced in Canada-cattle, hogs, poultry and so on. Not only have we been unable to obtain a statement with regard to the government's general agricultural policy, but we have been unable to. obtain from the Minister of Agriculture or from the Minister of Trade and Commerce a satisfactory explanation of the workings of this bill in regard to the wheat board.
It was stated this afternoon, and has not been denied, that under the government's present policy the wheat crop of this country has been sold to date for $280,000,000 less than would have been obtained had it been sold on the open market, and the allegation is made and has not been refuted that, had the open market procedure been adopted, the whole economy of Canada would have been made to underwrite this wheat agreement rather than the farmers themselves.
The Minister of Agriculture this afternoon in his reply to the leader of the opposition made some pretence of dealing with that question. He said that we in Canada were tying ourselves to Great Britain and that we adopted the policy that in this transitional period it was to our interests and in the interests of Great Britain for us to enter into an agreement with that country under the terms of which we would sell our wheat to Britain at less than the market price, in the hope that if, in the future, the world price dropped below the original price in the agreement the British government [DOT]would pay us a price in excess of the then prevailing world price by virtue of this agreement. As I understood him, he was going to explain how it was that the Canadian farmer was not being asked to underwrite the whole of the risk in that agreement. He said in effect that, if the agreement
panned out as the government hoped it would, and the price of wheat did not fall below $1.55 or $1.35, the farmer would not be taking any risk and there would be no loss involved, that neither the treasury nor the farmer would be called upon to take any loss. But he did not explain what he said he was setting out to explain, why the farmer himself was not being asked to underwrite the risk in this agreement. It has been adopted by the government of the day as the policy for Canada that, in view of the effort and sacrifices made by Great Britain, we should now assist her by making wheat, one of the basic commodities of the world, available to her at a low price, and we on this side are in accordance with that policy. We do not object to making our wheat available to Great Britain at less than the world price but w'e do not approve the policy of making the farmer underwrite the potential or actual cost of that policy. What we say is that if Canada as a country is adopting that policy, which we accept, Canada as a country should underwrite that policy, and it should not be expected that the wheat farmer and every other agricultural producer in the country should be called on to underwrite that policy.
The minister, in dealing with that question, purported this afternoon to say that the farmer was not being called upon to underwrite the risk. But he did not go on to explain what would happen if the world price in 1949 and 1950 fell below $1.35 or $1.55. He did admit that there was a possibility of that taking place. He did not deny that possibility. But what would happen if that did take place he neglected or omitted to say.


James Garfield Gardiner: You will find it is all in my speech. When you read it you will understand it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I listened to it carefully. The minister's statement was based on the assumption that the British government would somehow or other find itself with the financial ability and the sentimental inclination to pay Canada more than the world price of wheat in 1949 or 1950.


James Garfield Gardiner: On that point my hon. friend would like some explanation?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I listened to the minister this afternoon.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand from what my hon. friend is saying that he would like to satisfy his own mind on the question whether the farmer is underwriting this risk or whether someone else is underwriting it. To the extent that the $1.35 is paid, which is the
soo
Canadian Wheat Board Act

initial payment, it has been figured out by those who established the $1.35 figure that when the average amount of wheat disposed of in a j'ear was disposed of at the rate provided for, $1.55 for the first two years and a floor price of $1.25 for the third and a floor price of $1 for the fourth year, if the wheat were sold at the absolute minimum it would still be possible to pay $1.35.
On the other question as to the total amount that is paid, whether it be $1.35 or whatever it is, I did state this afternoon that there were two ways in which the government could get behind the farmer in a proposition of this kind and make certain that the farmer himself did not finance the whole project. One was to pay a subsidy to the farmer. The other was to lend money to the purchaser. In this case money has been lent to the British government, and the British government is buying food, among other things, from this country. If the British government is able to pay back the loan, then it will not be the government of Canada or the Canadian farmer who will finance the deal. It will be the British government who will finance the wheat that is purchased from us. If for any reason the British government is not in future able to finance the undertaking it has given, then it will be all the people of Canada who will have to underwrite the project, and not the farmers alone.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That last point is the very one on which I take issue with the minister. His whole statement, which, Mr. Chairman, has consumed some two minutes of my time, has been prefaced by the large word "if". "If" the British government is able to; "if" the world price of wheat does not go below $1.25 or $1; if this and if that.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it cannot go below $1; the agreement says so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am enjoying this duet, Mr. Chairman, but I am not sure that other hon. members are, and particularly the Hansard reporter, who must find it rather confusing.


William Henry Golding: I should like to remind hon. members of the committee that we are dealing with section 1.


James Arthur Ross: No.


William Henry Golding: I would remind hon. members that we are dealing with section 1 and that a debate took place on second reading of the bill. I must remark that the speeches which are now being made should have been made on second reading. If hon. members will turn to page 157 of
Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, second edition, they will find this specific rule:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
I do not wish to interfere with the hon. member or any other hon. member, but I wish to draw the committee's attention to the rule.


James Arthur Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, are we permitted to discuss anything we like on the preamble? We have not yet come to section 1.


William Henry Golding: We are on section 1. The preamble will be taken up at the end.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In paragraph (e) of subsection 2 of section 1 we find the following: "grain" includes wheat, oats, barley, rye and flaxseed.
This permits of a very wide realm of discussion. We are on the definition section.


William Henry Golding: Yes, it is the definition section.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A certain amount of general discussion has always been permitted under section- 1 of a bill. I have listened to the debate which has taken place on this section tonight. In addition to that, I must confess that I listened to the debate on second reading in the hope that I would be able to understand some of the policy of the government with respect to this bill and, as I said at the opening of my remarks, we did not hear any statement of policy from either of the ministers. In order to understand better the purport of the bill, I find it necessary-


William Henry Golding: The house gave unanimous consent to second reading of the bill. I do not want to interfere with the hon. member or with any other hon. member, but I do wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the rules.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, so far as your suggested ruling is concerned, my submission is that it is entirely at variance with the practice of committees of the house. We are going to be placed in the position of not being entitled to discuss the entire ambit of this bill if your suggested ruling is followed. That has not been the practice of the house in committee. During my time the practice has always been to permit a general discussion on the opening section, and I for one wish to raise the

______________ Canadian Wheat Board Act
strongest possible protest against any curtailment of the right of hon. members in committee to discuss fully the matter on section 1.


William Henry Golding: In reply to the hon. member I wish to say that during the war years there sprang, up in committee the custom of allowing the committee to wrander all over on section 1. Originally that was-not permitted. We deal with each section. If the hon. member will wait until we come to the specific section that he has in mind he will have an opportunity to deal with the matter on that section. I wish to remind hon. members that that is the rule.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman1, with regard to the subject under discussion at the moment. I think paragraph (e), which refers to wheat, oats, barley, rye and flax, is sufficiently wide to permit of the discussion. I was discussing wheat and wheat agreements. However, I must confess that paragraph (f) says that:
"minister" means the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
And not the Minister of Agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member was talking straight across at me and asking me a question. Do not ask me a question and I will not say a word.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Minister of Agriculture interrupted me and therefore I asked him a question. I was discussing wheat, Mr. Chairman. For some reason or another the Minister of Agriculture felt himself called upon to make certain comments, and with the courtesy that I feel all hon. members owe to a minister I permitted him to make his interruption. I am now dealing with that interruption. I forget the exact point at which we had arrived in our discussion.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I do not think we
had arrived anywhere.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have not noticed that the interruptions of the hon. member for Fraser Valley help us to arrive anywhere either.
In regard to the definition of "grain", the point we had arrived at was whether or not the farmer was being called upon to underwrite the risk which is incident to the wheat agreement. I pointed out that if the price of wheat remains stable, or if it rises, it is possible that the farmer is not being called upon to take the risk. But if the price of wheat falls, and if for any reason the British government-as it is entitled to do under the agreement-comes to Canada with a request for delivery of wheat at a lower price, then it 83166-51
is the farmer who loses all along the line, because he is being called upon to sell his wheat now at a price less than he could get for it in the open market, and he will be called upon later to sell the wheat at less than he could get for it if firm prices were fixed in this agreement, which is not done. Therefore all along the line the farmer is being called upon to take the risk. Under this agreement he is underwriting the risk, and not the treasury of Canada and it should be the treasury if it is the policy of the government to supply wheat to Great Britain at less than the world price. .
I have indicated that one of the ministers, either the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Agriculture, should have made a statement with regard to the question of agriculture as a whole at the time the bill was introduced, because the bill involves more than the mechanism of the grain exchange or the wheat board.
. Under paragraph (e) we find that "grain" includes wheat, oats, barley, rye and flaxseed, and we wish to know-


Mr. SENN:: Not rye.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Canadian Wheat Board Act

which I had received in which the producers of eggs in my constituency pointed out that, under the increased price which they are being called upon to pay for their feed, they are no longer able to produce eggs at the price which the government is willing to pay for them under the contract with Great Britain with respect to the delivery of eggs to that country.
I have a telegram here which points out that the increase in wheat prices without a reciprocal increase in egg prices threatens a drastic curtailment in egg production.
I have also a clipping from the Vancouver Daily Province of February 19 which calls attention to the same situation. It says that they are faced with $11 a ton increase in the price of wheat and that under those circumstances, "if we are going to fulfil our contract to Britain, we must have an increase of three cents a dozen or a dominion subsidy to hold the price of wheat at its former level."


James Angus MacKinnon: Mr. Chairman, I am
loath to interrupt the hon. member but-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is the minister speaking
to a point of order, or is he asking a question?


James Angus MacKinnon: I am speaking to a point of order. The point of order is that the hon. member is entirely out of order. He is speaking about something that has no reference whatsoever to the bill before the committee. The hon. member did call me yesterday; I made immediate inquiries and ascertained what I thought to be the case, which was that the price [DOT] of eggs in British Columbia has nothing whatsoever to do with this bill.


William Henry Golding: I think the hon. member is out of order in dealing with section 1 of this bill.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who, the minister?


William Henry Golding: No, the hon. member for Kamloops. If he waits until we reach section 2 he will find that the board is incorporated for the purpose of doing certain things. But section 1 is only the definition section, and I believe the question which the hon. member has brought out now is entirely out of order. I would just ask all hon. members to try to stick to the sections as we come to them; if they do that, I think they will then find an opportunity to bring out their facts.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate the desire
of the chairman and of the committee to remain within order, but I am introducing this in accordance with the line I took at the

opening of my remarks, that if the government had made a statement as to its agriculture policy, these questions would not have been necessary. Under section 1 we find a definition of "grain" which includes wheat, oats, barley, rye and flaxseed; that is, practically every grain which is grown in Canada.
I am speaking with regard to those grains and the price of them. I submit that the price of those grains enters into the feed cost of every other agricultural product in Canada. Therefore, in speaking with regard to these grains I submit that I am speaking entirely in order and within the meaning of this particular section.


William Henry Golding: No. I think the hon. member realizes as well as I do that this section contains only the definitions of the grains which are dealt with under the act.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is only the marketing of grain.


William Henry Golding: I think the hon. member is completely out of order on section 1.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I say that this will be my last remark on the point of order, and then I shall ask for your ruling, Mr. Chairman. Section 1 is the definition section, admittedly. But section 1, under the practice of this house as I have understood it since I have been here-and I have tried to understand it and follow it-is a general section on which, to some extent, general discussion is permitted. It is that general discussion which I am attempting to follow, and it is the only section under which I can do so. If a member is not prepared to speak to the principle of the bill, and I was not prepared to oppose this bill in principle, then I suggest that the only place where the member can bring in general discussion at all is on section 1; and it is that which I am attempting to do.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I rise to another point of order-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am speaking to a point of order, if the minister will permit me to do so.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the 'hon. member for Kamloops is speaking 'to a point of order. Let him state his point of order. He said he wouldi speak to the point of order andi when he was through he would ask for your ruling.
Mr. ILS'LEY: I am speaking on a different point.


William Earl Rowe: The minister may rise to a point of privilege, but he should allow the hon.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
member for Kamloops to finish his point of order. He has the same rights in this committee as the minister.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I was so nearly finished that I am sorry the minister thought it necessary to interrupt. I was merely saying that if a member does not wish to oppose the principle of the bill, then I feel that the only occasion on which he may make any general remarks is under section 1. That is why I did not speak on the principle of the bill but waited until section 1 was reached and sought to confine my remarks under this general section to paragraph (e), which gives the definition of "grain." That is about all I have to say. I submit that 'I am in order in speaking on this subject under this paragraph.


James Lorimer Ilsley: In order to explain what I wish to say, Mr. Chairman, may I ask if it is not a rule of this committee that, when the Chairman decides on a point of order, further discussion, and certainly protracted discussion, on the Chairman's ruling is itself out of order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Chairman has not decided the point of order.


William Henry Golding: I must say that we have allowed1 quite a wide discussion on this section, and other hon. members who have spoken have not been strictly in order. I do not want to draw the line too close, but I think the hon. member, in bringing up matters in connection with poultry, is not in order on the definition section of this bill. I would hope that he would) try to keep as close to the section as he can.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then I will leave the subject of poultry, and will try to find some other section under which I can bring it. I did want to indicate the general scope of this bill, which is far beyond the mere mechanical operation of the Canadian wheat board.
In the course of the debate in committee reference has been made to the effect of this bill and of the wheat agreement in Great Britain. Particular reference was made by the hon. member for Provencher to the far-sighted policy which the government is pursuing in concluding this agreement with Great Britain. The official opposition has sought to show that this agreement, far from being the culmination of a far-sighted policy was, on the contrary, the culmination of a policy which is completely at variance with the avowed) policy of Canada as expressed during the war and after the war in subscribing to the united nations agreement, namely, the policy of opening up so far as possible the channels 83166-51J
of multilateral trade. That is one of the grounds upon which we attack the terms of this agreement.
In order that we shall not be called to task by either the government or the members of the C.C.F. party in the house, may I repeat the position which was made so clear by the leader of the official opposition last night. We feel that Canada is committed to the terms of this agreement with Great Britain. That being so, we will not do anything to break the terms of that agreement except with the complete and unequivocal acceptance of the other party to the agreement, But that in itself does not prevent us from saying that this agreement is essentially a weak and undesirable agreement for Canada to have made. With reference to what the hon. member for Provencher has said, to the effect that this agreement will assure stabilization for agriculture and open up the vista of a far-reaching programme of stable prices for wheat, I should like to read to him what the Winnipeg Free Press, which is a paper published in the area from which he comes, has to say with regard to this same agreement, I read that, not simply because it happens to be the expression of opinion of one organ of the country with regard to this agreement, but because I feel that it does express the true state of facts with regard to the wheat agreement. The Free Press had this to say:
The government, by this deal-
That is, by the wheat agreement.
-has betrayed its allegiance to the principles which alone can liberate world trade.
The hon. member said that the whole purpose of government policy, and the policy of whatever group or party happened to form the government, should be to liberate the channels of world trade so that Canadian wheat might flow freely to markets in those countries which were in need of wheat to feed their people. The Free Press points out very truly that this particular agreement is doing more than anything else to make impossible the realization of that ideal. It continues:
The evidence on this point is overwhelming.
It comes from two sources-general statements-of policy which Canada has accepted as worthy of support, and statements of principle made by the government . . .
The most outspoken definition of Canada's loyalty to multilateral trade was made by Mr. Ilsley. He was explaining to parliament, on; November 12, ,1945, why he was removing- the tariff protection granted on certain items in the budget. He said:
"Some of these changes which increased duties have been widely interpreted as representing a change in the government's general approach to commercial policy and to efforts to liberalize and expand world trade.
Canadian Wheat Board Act

"The government is more concerned about this misinterpretation of its attitude than otherwise it might have been because within the last few days we have been given substantial ground for believing that the prospects of early international action for the reduction of tariffs and other barriers to world trade have considerably improved.
"The government has repeatedly expressed the view that in the interdependent world of today prosperity is indivisible, and that the prosperity of any nation cannot be long maintained without a restoration and expansion of international commerce."


René Jutras: If the hon. member will permit a question, does he fully agree with the stand of the Free Press with regard to that question of tariffs?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Which particular question of tariffs is the hon. member referring to?


René Jutras: Tire last part of it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Let me read it again so that we may have it quite clear.


René Jutras: Well, free trade, if you like.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This is what I read:
"The goverment has repeatedly expressed the view that in the interdependent world of today prosperity is indivisible, and that the prosperity of any nation cannot be long maintained without a restoration and expansion of international commerce."
My hon. friend is asking whether I would agree with that, and I say quite unequivocally: yes, I do.


René Jutras: With the attitude of the Free Press as a whole?


Edmund Davie Fulton: With the attitude of the Free Press as a whole I quite naturally do not agree.


James Arthur Ross: The attitude of the Free Press on what day?


Edmund Davie Fulton: As the hon, member says, it depends on what day you read the Free Press-, but with the attitude expressed in this particular editorial I quite agree.
On this question of free world trade I should like to refer to one phase of the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon, when he referred to the possibility of concluding agreements with other countries. The right hon. gentleman stated that, while he was at the international conference at Copenhagen recently, the governments of various countries approached him with regard to the possibility of concluding agreements similar to that concluded with the government of Great Britain. He went on to state that he told them if they wished to conclude similar agreements they were quite at liberty to do so.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; I told them they were quite at liberty to make propositions to the government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They were quite at liberty to make propositions to the government? Well, there is a subtle distinction which I do not quite understand. Either they were at liberty to make similar agreements, or they were at liberty to make similar propositions. Which is it? Would they not be allowed to conclude similar agreements?


James Garfield Gardiner: They would be considered when they made them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Made what?


James Garfield Gardiner: Made propositions.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When they made propositions for similar agreements, they would be considered? So we see the minister is not prepared to state that the government of any other country would be able to conclude a similar agreement; or will he state that is the case?


James Garfield Gardiner: They would have to make the proposition first.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They would have to make the proposition first? In other words, we are not willing unequivocally to extend to all the other countries of Europe the same terms we are prepared to extend to Great Britain.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That, I think, is a clear indication of the fact that, in spite of all its statements, this government is not prepared to take down the barriers against world trade, which in 1945 the minister of finance of that day said they were prepared to do; and I think that is one more indication of the conflict as to policy which exists within the cabinet on this question of multilateral trade agreements.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is a great deal more I can say and still confine myself to the rule which you have laid down. I should like, however, to refer to certain points in the address of the hon. member for Melfort, who, I see, is not in his place at the moment. He made reference to statements which he alleged were made by the British food minister during his recent visit to Canada. According to the hon. member, the British food minister said it would be a good thing if the official opposition in this country could go over there and hear what the official opposition in that country was saying about the wheat agreement. I wonder what the hon. member for Melfort would say to certain, of

Canadian Wheat Board Act
the clauses contained in legislation recently introduced by the Labour government in Great Britain under the terms of a bill-


William Henry Golding: Order. That has nothing to do with section 1.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Inasmuch as this bill has to do with the wheat agreement with Great Britain, it seems to me that some of the provisions which have been made in Great Britain with regard to agriculture and international trade are relevant to this discussion.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member is speaking now to the principle of the bill. We are on section 1, which has to do with definitions.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, of course, if certain
hon. members are to be permitted to discuss what has been said in England with regard to the bill, and other hon. members are not to be permitted to discuss the same matter because they must be kept within the rules, I shall bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman. But I do wish hon. members of the C.C.F. party, if they are going to refer in this house to what the British food minister said on one occasion, would refer also to what the British food minister and the British minister of agriculture introduced into the British house on another occasion. I would refer them particularly to sections 16 and 17-


William Henry Golding: Order.


James Sinclair: Read them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should be delighted to do so, but I have been ruled out of order.


James Sinclair: Read them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Since there seems to be a demand in the committee, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might be permitted to read them.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member for Lake Centre read them the other evening.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not the ones I want to read. The sections I desire to read are as follows-


James Lorimer Ilsley: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, really I think some little respect should be paid the ruling of the Chair. It has been made very clear that matters of this kind are not in order; I think the hon. gentleman pretty well knows that; yet he goes on. If we are to make any progress at all with this bill we must abide by the rules.


John George Diefenbaker: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we might as well find out
what the situation is; we might as well clear this up once and for all. We are in this position, as we have always been, that, as you said, not only during the period of the war but since that time, on section 1 a wide-open discussion has been permitted to take place, and we are not going to submit without objection of a ruling which puts us in the position that we cannot fully discuss this bill on section 1. We on this side of the house extend great consideration to the ministers from day to day as they appear before the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, I am glad our opposition is so successful that it results in derisive laughter at a statement such as that. We believe we are showing unusual consideration from day to day when the ministers rise in their places in this house and, before the orders of the day are called, read state-meats setting forth government policy, when there is no provision for such procedure being followed. During the period of the war that sort of thing was allowed, and we have continued to permit it since. We are asking for our rights fully to discuss a matter which affects all the people in this country. It affects agriculture, and everyone else. There is no other section on which a general discussion can take place.
You, sir, were in the chair, I believe, when the hon. member for Melfort discussed the matter at length. Other hon. members have done the same thing, and no objection has been raised. Now when we in this party come along in an endeavour fully to discuss the matter on section 1, the course that has been followed in the past is not followed, and you are endeavouring to restrict us, and to have our discussion limited to a particular section. I would ask you, sir, to reconsider this matter, because I know you wish to be entirely reasonable and fair. Surely' the rights that we have enjoyed in the past will not now be curtailed.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Speaking to the point of order: the hon. member who has just concluded his observations included in his protest what is virtually a threat to terminate permission to permit ministers to make statements of policy before the orders of the day are called. I would remind the hon. member and the committee that it was only today his colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver South, I believe it is, raised a question to be answered by the Minister of National Defence, and asked not only that the practice should be continued but that it should be extended, and that statements of policy for that department should be announced in the house rather

Canadian Wheat Board Act

than in the press, as they have been. There ought to be some consistency in the hon. member's objections.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Speaking to the point of order-


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Mr. HANSELL:: On the point of order, I cannot hear everything that is going on, but I fancy we are discussing a point of order, and the point of order is as to the latitude to be allowed in debate on the first section. I believe the Chairman's ruling might be the proper one, but I feel that in a bill of this kind it might be the course of wisdom to allow the widest possible latitude. I say that because agriculture is, unquestionably, the biggest industry in Canada. The bill deals with the purchase and distribution of wheat to the nations of the world. Furthermore, if for no other reason than that, there was a feeling in the house that the bill should have been sent to the committee on agriculture.


James Arthur Ross: Hear, hear.


Ernest George Hansell: Had it been sent to that committee, witnesses could have been called, even representatives from the British food ministry, if there happened to be one in the country. The whole thing could have been thrown wide open in that committee. That being so, I suggest that there is some justification for keeping the discussion open as widely as possible, or as any hon. member desires to have it.	*


Edmund Davie Fulton: On the point of order, I have only this to say, that frequently when a bill is before the house for second reading we are reminded by the Chair that hon. members are not permitted to ask questions of the ministry. For that reason hon. members on occasions do not speak on the general principle of a bill, and reserve their remarks for that time when the house will resolve itself into committee of the whole, at which time they may be allowed to make their observations and to ask questions of the ministry.
If your ruling, Mr. Chairman, is to the effect that you will limit general discussion on the bill in committee of the whole, then the only course open for hon. members is to make their remarks on second reading, and perhaps unduly to prolong the debate at that stage. I submit, with deference, that the result would not be as effective, and the house would not get down to the meat of the bill as quickly as it otherwise would. That was why I did not make my remarks on second reading, and reserved them to this committee stage. Admittedly if you rule that I am out of order at this time, then I have just missed an opportunity. But I do
fMr. Mutch.1
put it to you, that if you rule against the making of general remarks now it may perhaps result on other occasions in prolonging the debate on second reading. I believe that might be something the house would not desire.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Mr. Chairman, speaking to the point of order; ever since I have been a member of the House of Commons-and that is now a considerable number of years-hon. members have been allowed full discussion in committee.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I see my old Scottish friend over there laughing at me. I have great admiration for the old leader of the house. I can never help saying a good word to him, because the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) and I have been friends for so long.


James Arthur Ross: This is not oatmeal.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That is what has kept us going for such a long time. Ever since I have been a member we have always been allowed to speak generally on the first section of a bill. I do not see why we cannot have a full discussion on it. Section 1 states:
Section two of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, chapter 53 of the statutes of 1935, as amended-
And remember, I do not know anything about wheat. On the other hand I have a farm, and I know good wheat when I see it.	.
The section continues:
-as amended by section one of chapter 25 of the statutes of 1940, is repealed and the following substituted therefor.
That is a pretty big order. "Section two"- I don't care what the section is, but it gives a full opportunity for discussion. Then it goes on:
2. (il) In this act, unless the context otherwise requires (a) "actual producer" means a producer actually engaged in the production of grain.
It seems to me that anything pertaining to this act must affect the actual producer of grain. Therefore I submit that any discussion we are to have we should have at this time. No one should be curtailed in whatever he wants to say about it.
The next point is that there are too many things mixed up with the production and sale of wheat.


William Henry Golding: I would ask the hon. member to speak to the point of order.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I shall be brief and to the point. "Actual producer"-it seems to me that takes in a tremendous range and, speaking to the point of order, I suggest that you, Mr. Chairman, should allow the widest possible latitude in the discussion.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Speaking to the point of
order, I came to the house at the same time as the hon. member for Kamloops. I think we both need guidance as to what is included under this rule. As I understand it, on the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne we can wander all over the map and bring in sheep and lambs and goats and zebras if we want to. I understand that under the first item1 in the agricultural estimates we have a great deal of latitude. I understand also that we have another opportunity on the budget to discuss agriculture items. I think the hon. member is entirely out of order, and I think the hon. member for Lake Centre was out of order when he insisted in bringing in the crown companies of Saskatchewan which have nothing whatever to do with grain. I would suggest that we adhere to the rules of the house.


William Henry Golding: I think we had better get on with the business. In answer to the hon. member for Lake Centre, I would point out that the speeches which were made were not strictly relevant to section 1 of the bill. Some latitude has been allowed and I wished to allow a good deal of latitude to the hon. member for Kamloops. However, the reading of articles such as he was reading is entirely out of order. A line must be drawn somewhere.
In many cases the motion for second reading of a bill is agreed to and the bill goes immediately into committee. In that case the discussion on the bill is given the same latitude as would be given on second reading. In this case we had a resolution and we had a debate on_second reading. It is not what the Chairman says; it is what the rules say. If the house wishes to change the rule, that is a matter for the house to decide. As far as I am concerned, I should like to allow as much latitude as possible because I think this is an important matter. I do not want to curtail hon. members if I can avoid doing so, but I ask for their cooperation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the patience you have shown. In view of your ruling and your remarks, I shall not attempt to introduce anything which may be at all extraneous to the bill. Ma3r I thank the Minister of Justice
for the courtesy with which he has drawn the attention of the committee to the rules of the house. May I also thank the hon. member for Qu'Appelle for the courtesy with which she has drawn my attention to the rules. May I only ask her to draw the rules to the attend tion of her colleague, the hon. member for Melfort, with the same courtesy and force with which she has sought to draw them- to my attention. Since I have been ruled so far out of order, perhaps I should allow some other hon. member to carry on this debate.


Mr. ARGUE:: I think we shall agree that the hon. member for Kamloops has put on quite an exhibition which has taken the most of an hour. I appreciate the Chairman's ruling and his saying that he will allow some latitude, while asking hon. members to keep as nearly as possible within the confines of the bill before us.
There has been a great deal of criticism of the British-Canadian wheat agreement. I am not saying that I am particularly pleased with the various prices that appear in that agreement, but I think the principle of international wheat agreements is a good one. I think the Conservative party have overlooked the fact that by Great Britain undertaking to purchase 600,000,000 bushels of wheat over a four-year period at a guaranteed average price of SI.35| a bushel we have taken care of about one-half the wheat that Canada will have for export. I should be glad if the government could find another buyer of the size of Great Britain to sign a similar agreement. Then our worries as far as exporting wheat would be entirely over for the next four years.
I do not intend at this time to speak for the group; I intend to speak only for my constituency. We in this group believe in international wheat agreements and, because we believe in international wheat agreements, we want to make them operative. In order to make an international wheat agreement operative, the wheat board must be in a position to buy and sell all the Canadian production. There are only two ways to sell wheat; one is through the wheat board and the other is through the speculative market. We support the wheat board and we support the government to the extent that they are providing for a wheat board. The wheat board is a lever to keep the Winnipeg grain exchange closed as far as dealing in wheat futures is concerned.
It has been pointed out by members of this group that for the last thirty years farm organizations have advocated a wheat board, and they had1 good reason for advocating a wheat board. The last wheat board operated in 1919 and paid an initial price of S2.15 a

Canadian Wheat Board Act

bushel with a participation payment of forty-eight cents. At that time it was advocated in certain circles that the price of Canadian wheat should be $3 or $5 a bushel. It is similar to the demand we hear today. Some people say that the price of Canadian wheat should be $2.40 or $3 or more a bushel.
The government of the day in 1920 decided to market the crop through the ordinary channels of the Winnipeg grain exchange. In that year the average price paid for wheat was seventy-five cents a bushel less than the price paid in 1919. In the next year the price was eighty-one cents lower, or a total drop of $1.56 in the average price paid for wheat within two years. Certainly the farmers of western Canada do not wish to gamble on the grain exchange in an attempt to obtain a high price for a short time and then be faced with conditions that prevailed in 1920 and 1921.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: I think I should go on at this time because I do not want to delay the committee.


William Earl Rowe: You are out of order anyway.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is all right; everybody has been out of order tonight. When we are talking about the price of wheat in the United States and arguing that the Canadian price should be equal to the United States price we should realize that the opening of the Winnipeg grain exchange would not necessarily bring the United States price. History has shown that the Winnipeg grain exchange price did not always equal the Chicago grain exchange price. For instance, on February 2, 1943, the date when 400 western farmers came to Ottawa to demand $1 a bushel for their wheat, wheat was being traded at Chicago at $1.29. At the same time it was being sold on the Winnipeg grain exchange for seventy-eight cents a bushel, or fifty-one cents less to the Canadian farmer than was being paid at that time to the United States farmer.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Why?


Hazen Robert Argue: Ask the Winnipeg grain
exchange. Do not ask me.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: I would prefer to conclude
my remarks, but if the hon. member then wants to ask me a question I shall be glad to answer him.


James Arthur Ross: Where is the Winnipeg grain exchange mentioned in this bill?


William Henry Golding: Order. Members should not interrupt. If they desire to ask a question they should obtain permission of the hon. gentleman who has the floor.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I asked if
he would permit a question. He said no, and that ends it.


Hazen Robert Argue: In 1932 the price on the
Winnipeg grain exchange fell as low as thirty-eight cents a bushel. The farmers of western Canada feel that such a condition might come again if the Winnipeg grain exchange were open, and so the farmers say:	We do
not want speculation in Canada.


William Earl Rowe: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I should like to know what relationship there is between section 1 of the bill and the Winnipeg grain exchange. AVe in this party have been living up to the rules.


William Henry Golding: I think the hon. member must be allowed the same latitude -as other hon. members have been given. I would remind hon. members who insist on the enforcement of the rules that when the Chairman has allowed other hon. members a latitude which, under the rules, he possibly should not have allowed, similar latitude must be allowed to other hon. members. The hon. member can proceed.


Hazen Robert Argue: I shall be glad to get away from the Winnipeg grain exchange if that is out of order, Mr. Chairman. I will only say that when one mentions the Winnipeg grain exchange in this house he very soon finds out who the friends of the exchange are.
With regard to the definition of "grain'' as defined in section 1, the government is prepared to have the wheat board handle wheat under this bill but it does not say that the wheat board shall handle barley, oats or rye. That is left to a decision of the governor in council at some future date. Further on in the bill, it is provided that, if the government should decide that the wheat board shall handle barley, oats and rye, any profit made on the handling of those grains shall go into consolidated revenue, into the public treasury. I say that the wheat board should, first of all, handle barley, oats and rye and, if there is a profit made on the handling of these grains, it should be paid bank to the primary producers in participation certificates.
The Minister of Agriculture stated plainly that the farmers as a group would not be calling on the government to pay one nickel as a subsidy within the lifetime of this agree-

________ Canadian Wheat Board Act
ment. The reason for that is obvious. We are getting stability of a kind. We are getting stability for a period of five years, but that stability is based on an average world price. The members of this group say that the farmers' welfare should not be tied to the world price, whether it is for a five-year period or any other period, but rather that the farmer should each year receive for his wheat a price that is based on parity, a price that gives the farmer a fair share of the national income, a price that will provide him with a decent standard of living. I venture to say that if, after 1950, we get another agreement for a five-year period which gives the farmer the average world price for those five years it will still be far from sufficient to give the farmers of this country a decent standard of living.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce announced a few days ago that the price to millers was to be increased. That increased price, as has been pointed out, does not necessarily mean and probably does not mean that the farmers will get another cent a bushel for their wheat.
I attended about five farmers' conferences in my constituency last fall and at every one of them the farmers were objecting to the participation certificates being withheld until 1950. Many of the farmers in western Canada are up in years and I had farmer after farmer say to me, "What is the use of participation certificates being paid out after 1950 .when in all probability I shall not be here to benefit thereby". Certainly I cannot agree that the government is justified in withholding payment of participation certificates for such a long period of time.
The main part of this bill has to do with the price that is to be provided to the Canadian farmer for his wheat. As I said, I think the price should not be based on the average world price but should be based on parity. I do not think $1.35 is parity. In 1945 the net income of Canadian farmers was
51.061.400.000	for the agricultural population of
3.150.000	people-an average per capita income of $337. At the same time the average over-all per capita income in Canada was $840-$337 for the farmer as compared with $840 for the average Canadian. Surely that cannot be said to be parity! The farmer's income was only forty per cent approximately of the average Canadian income.
I have attempted to estimate what it costs the farmers to produce wheat and enjoy a decent standard of living in the area that I know best. It is the relatively dry area of Saskatchewan. It has the largest farms. The 83166-52
acreage there is large even if the yield is low, so that the farmers' total production of wheat will compare favourably with that of farmers in any other area. I shall not attempt to give all the details but I have calculated what it would cost the farmer to seed, summer-fallow and harvest his crop. If I take the average custom rates for custom work in the area and multiply that by three-quarters, thus allowing twenty-five per cent of the custom rate., for the farmer's labour and leaving seventy-five per cent as the actual cost of his operations, I find the total cost to be $459. The average farm in Saskatchewan is worth 86,000. It takes the average farmer a lifetime to pay for his farm. The average debt, if it takes a lifetime to pay for the farm would be $3,000. At six per cent interest, that would amount to $180. This average farm which totals 325 improved acres would, I estimate, have taxes of .about $130. I do not think that is an excessive amount to put down.
Let us assume this to be a fortunate farmer. He has an automobile which cost him $1,500, and he amortizes it over a period of ten years. But he says that half of the cost of the automobile goes into farm expenses and the other half is used on personal business, so that he uses half of that figure, or $75. The cost of running that automobile 3,000 miles in his farm operations at four cents a mile amounts to $120. The cost of repairs to the buildings amounts to $100; depreciation on buildings, $100.
I have said that a farmer should be entitled to own his land, because he needs to own his property if he is to engage in farming and if he is to make it a lifetime occupation. Property worth $6,000, the payment of which is spread over thirty years, would amount to $200 a year. Total expenses would amount then to $1,635. The average income of Saskatchewan for the year 1945; which is the second highest income in the past twenty years, was only $3,000 per farm, with expenses of $1,635. This leaves a remainder of $1,365, out of which the farmer must provide for himself and his family.
I think a farmer should have an income of $150 a month for himself and his family, or $1,800 a year. On every two farms in Saskatchewan on the average there is one man apart from the farm operator himself. If you allow him $100 a month, then the total income for the farmer and the other male, on the average one on two farms, the farmer -would need to have a total income of $2,400 apart from expenses of $1,635. Thus I believe that the present average income of $3,000 should be increased by at least $1,000.

Canadian Wheat Board Act

It should be increased by one-third. Because I think it should be increased one-third, the price of wheat should be increased by one-third. If wheat were increased by one-third it would bring it up to more than 81.70 a bushel. Estimating it another way I believe that the farmer should have an income of $4,000 at the present time. The average cash income for Saskatchewan farmers for the last three years is $428 million, with $365 million of that coming from field crops. Therefore, if you take the proportion that field crops is to cash income you find that the farmer must receive $3,419 for his field crops in order to get a total income of $4,000.
In Saskatchewan the average farmer has only 170 acres of land in crop each year. Too much has been said from time .to time about the big farmers in Saskatchewan. The average farmer is a small farmer with only 170 acres in crop. With 170 acres and an average yield of 15-6 bushels an acre, the average crop will be 2,652 bushels of wheat. In order to seed 170 acres of wheat, it would take at least a bushel and a quarter per acre, which makes a total of 213 bushels. The farmer then has 2,439 bushels of wheat to sell, for which he must obtain $3,419, if he is to enjoy a decent standard of living. I say this would mean a price of at least $1.60 a bushel.
Much has been said about what we think parity might be. This might be my definition of "parity" at the present time. In order to get the size of the income that I feel would give the farmer a decent standard of living, the price of wheat should be at least $1.60 a bushel.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What has that to do with parity? What is your definition?


Hazen Robert Argue: I would say that parity is a price which would provide a sufficient income to give the average farmer a decent standard of living.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Parity with
what?


Hazen Robert Argue: I define a decent standard of living at this time as being $1,800 a year to the farmer and his family. I do not think that is high.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am with you, but what do you mean by parity?


Hazen Robert Argue: Parity is a price which would give to the farmer a decent standard of living, a price for wheat and other products which will give him a net income of at least $1,800.
The bill which is before us at the present time provides a price of $1.35 a bushel. That is a stable price; it is stable until 1950, but
(Mr. Argue.]
the purchasing power is not necessarily stable. If other costs keep going up as they have gone up from time to time in the past the farmer is going to find himself in bad straits indeed.
In conclusion, I may say that I can agree with the principle of the bill. Wheat should be marketed through the wheat board. Wheat should be sold to importing countries on the basis of international agreements, but in Canada the farmer should be paid and guaranteed by the government a price which will give him a fair share of the national income and a decent standard of living which I define as "parity."


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Chairman, with respect, when I tried to ask the hon. member a question he asked me to wait until he had finished. Am I correct in that?


Hazen Robert Argue: That is correct.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The first question I wish to ask is this:	do you know
that the wdieat pools of western Canada have directors on the Winnipeg grain exchange?


Hazen Robert Argue: That is a leading question.


James Arthur Ross: That has been so for some time.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Leave me alone. My second question is, do you know that the wheat board about which we are talking has at least a membership of eight on the Winnipeg grain exchange?


Mr. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: Since it is eleven o'clock, I move the adjournment of the debate.


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I congratulate you on your intervention.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have been asked these questions and I think I should answer them.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, February 26, 1947