[Stage Direction]
Right Hen. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
t That the name of Mr. Sinclair (Vancouver North) be substituted for that of Mr. Cruick-shank on the special committee on redistribution.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That the name of Mr. Brooks be substituted for that of Mr. White (Hastings-Peterborough), on the special committee on canteen funds.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, at the request of the leader of the house, and on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent), I wish to give the names of the Canadian delegation to the fourth session of the economic and social council of the United Nations which is to meet in New Yrork on February 28.
83166-53i
The delegate will be Doctor George F. Davidson, Deputy Minister of National Health and Welfare. The alternate delegate will be Mr. R. G. Riddell, Department of External Affairs. They will be accompanied by the following advisers: Mr. A. C. Smith, Department of External Affairs; Mr. G. Ignatieff, Department of External Affairs; Colonel C. H. L. Sharman, Canadian member of the united nations commission on narcotic drugs; Mr. J. A. Blais, Department of National Health and Welfare' and Mr. J. G. H. Halstead, Department of External Affairs.


Mr. GRAYDON:: The government is not being represented.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Air. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance, or in his absence, his parliamentary assistant. Notice of the question was sent to the minister, and to you, Mr. Speaker, this morning. Is the minister aware that tenants occupying apartments and premises located at 15 Main street west, Smith's Falls, Ontario, are under notice to vacate on March 15 next, in order to make way for its use by the Theatre Holding Corporation, which is described by the wartime pi ices and trade board rentals administrator as piepared to make ''higher and better use of the land ? Is the minister also aware that the same corporation already owns a theatre in this relatively small town?


Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: Application was made to the rental administrator by the theatre holding company. At the time the application was made there were four stores in this property, two of which were occupied and two of which were vacant. Of the two that were occupied, one was occupied by a second-hand dealer who had a junk yard at the rear and who lived above the store. The second store was occupied by a plumber. The plans and specifications submitted by the theatre company intended to make use of the complete property. Therefore it would come under the policy of the government to see that it should be used to the greatest advantage.
The hon. member referred to the fact that the corporation operates another theatre in this town. That is a matter that would be entirely up to the mayor and aldermen of the city. The leader of the C.C.F. wrote to
Inquiries of the Ministry

the administrator and I might say that last night the administrator mailed him a full explanation of this whole transaction.



SASKATOON-USE OF ASSEMBLED PARTS SHIPPED FROM MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. KNIGHT (Saskatoon City):: I should like to ask the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply what action is being taken in regard to the urgent demand of Saskatoon labour to be allowed to work locally on wartime houses rather than have ready-made assembled parts shipped from Montreal?


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: The first wire received from the Saskatoon trades and labour council complained that the material being used was produced by non-union low paid Montreal firms, and the council protested such discrimination and demanded an immediate investigation. The matter was investigated, and I am informed that the company in question does have a labour agreement with its employees, and I have no information that the union, is not active or that the agreement is not in full operation. The trades and labour council were advised that this material was shipped to Saskatoon because of the inability of Wartime Housing to obtain similar material in that area, and that this millwork was being manufactured against standard price lists which were approved by the mill owners association. A high percentage of this millwork is manufactured from white pine, and in normal times the Saskatchewan mills import the lumber from the United States. As such imports are practically non-existent today it is necessary to use eastern pine or the equivalent, and in order to ensure a steady flow of the material to complete housing projects it has been necessary to farm out the required millwork among various eastern firms.
A further wire today protests that the eastern millwork is much inferior to local Saskatoon products and that the building inspectors have expressed disapproval to the Toronto office of Wartime Housing Limited. Further protest is made that the workmanship is inferior, that certain materials have arrived in smashed1 condition, and that the local carpenters union will not install millwork shipped from Montreal received after March 1. The wire also states that the report that the local mills cannot supply on time is false.
We are asking Mr. Russell, vice-president of Wartime Housing, who is now in Vancouver, to return by way of Saskatoon to investigate and attempt to adjust this situation.



CANADIAN DELEGATION TO INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE IN LONDON IN MARCH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce the delegation which the Canadian government is sending to the international conference on wheat, commencing in London on March 18. Mr. Norman A. Robertson, High Commissioner for Canada in the United Kingdom, will head the delegation. Doctor Charles F. Wilson, of my department, who has been participating in the Washington preparations for this conference, will serve as the alternate delegate.
The advisers to the delegation include Mr. R. V. Biddulph, European commissioner of the Canadian wheat board; Mr. J. J. Deutsch, Department of Finance, and Mr. A. M. Shaw, Department of Agriculture. The technical advisers to the delegation include Mr. R. C. Brown, a director of the United Grain Growers Limited; Mr. Paul Farnalls, Halkirk, Alberta, an independent grain grower; Mr. C. E. Huntting, formerly assistant chief commissioner of the Canadian wheat board; Mr. Ben S. Plumer, chairman of the Alberta wheat pool, and Mr. J. H. Wesson, president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I
should like to ask the Postmaster General when the Alexander Graham Bell memorial stamps will be placed in the post offices for general distribution.


Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General):: They will be offered for sale on March 3, in the morning.


Gordon Graydon: What time in the
morning?


Ernest Bertrand: Whenever the post offices open. Whenever a new stamp is issued great interest is shown by the philatelists, who try to find defects-.because a stamp is supposed to have more value if it has a little defect.


Gordon Graydon: Will these stamps show a right-handed telephone?


Ernest Bertrand: Yes, for lefthanded telephonists. Newspaper men a.re writing some articles criticizing these memorial stamps and immediately we receive orders from philatelists who want a certain number

Canadian Wheat Board Act
of them. I -want the public to know that we have absolutely nothing to do with these critics; they are working for themselves, not for the Post Office Department. We do the best we can and our stamps have a great value in the philatelists' market. Even if these criticisms enhance the value of the stamps, we do not benefit by it. We do not pay these men to act as press agents.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: I should like to ask an equally urgent question of the Postmaster General. Will there be a Barbara Ann Scott stamp issued?


Ernest Bertrand: That has not yet been decided.


Mr. FRASER:: Will the Bell stamps be issued only through the Brantford post office?


Ernest Bertrand: They will be first offered for sale at Brantford, but after that they will be on sale throughout Canada.



LABOUR CONDITIONS

[Stage Direction]
FARM LABOUR CAMPS On the order's of the day:
Mr. N. J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln):: Will the Minister of Labour at the earliest possible moment make a statement on the farm labour camp situation; so that the persons who are writing to me may know what the government policy is going to be? They are getting very anxious.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I shall be glad to take my hon.
friend's question under advisement. I may-say to him that the matter is continually under consideration.

CONTRACTS FOR SHIPMENTS TO BRITAIN Oil the orders of the day:


Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: On Monday last the leader of
the opposition asked a question which I stated I would answer at the earliest possible day. His question was:
In view of his statement on March 26 last that an extension of the British cheese contract for the season ending March 31, 1949, had been agreed upon, with prices to be fixed later and reviewed before January, 1947, has the minister any information to communicate to the house on the present status of the contract?
The present position is that the price which was in the contract for 1947-48, the year preceding the one about which the inquiry is made, was opened for discussion in the fall of 1946. Until the discussions with regard to that
are completed and an announcement made accordingly, there will be no further discussions with regard to 1949.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, February 26, consideration in committee of Bill No. 23, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935-Mr. MacKinnon-Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 2-Board to be an agent of His Majesty.
The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: I think hon. members will recall that yesterday afternoon when we were discussing section 2 the hon. member for Haldimand moved an amendment. Perhaps the minister wishes to make a statement on that amendment now.


James Angus MacKinnon: Mr. Chairman, the question has been raised whether or not the employees of the Canadian wheat board should come under the civil service commission. I am informed that this point was considered when the original act was drafted in 1935, and it was felt that the board would be unable to obtain the specialized skill and experience it required if its employees were placed under the Civil Service Act. That is still the feeling of the board and of the government. The wheat board, while a crown corporation, is engaged in a very large commercial undertaking and should be free to choose employees who have the necessary qualifications to carry out the duties required under the act.


Mr. MILLER:: The relevant section-of the original act, I take it, is section 5. So far I have not had a chance to check through to see if any change has been made in the wording of that original section. In the amendment now proposed, however, the words "notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act" are inserted in addition to .the words contained in section 5 of the original act. Were they in any previous amendment?


James Angus MacKinnon: Those words were not in the previous act.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Are they being put in now just for the purpose of making it more certain that they do not come under the Civil Service Act?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes, I would think so; to make it definite.


Mr. MacINNIS:: There is every possibility that this act, though perhaps not considered today as permanent legislation, will become

Canadian Wheat Board Act

such in future; and if it is permanent legislation then I think the staff engaged by the board should be recruited through the civil service commission. If this were a temporary department to carry on for only three or four or five years, a good case could be made out for not having the employees under the Civil Service Act; but when it is likely to become a permanent part of the operations of the government of Canada I can see no reason why this staff should not be engaged in the ordinary way. In his statement a moment ago the minister said this was very important work and that the board should be free to engage its staff any way it could, or words to that effect. I do not see that it is any more important than the Department of Justice, the Department of Finance, or any other department, and in my opinion there is no reason why the staff should not be recruited through the civil service commission.


Mr. SENN:: May I refer to one thing I mentioned yesterday; that is, that recently what is known as the Gordon report was brought down, making certain recommendations that in the near future technical and professional men be taken out from under the Civil Service Act. I can see why technical and professional men might have to be chosen by the board itself, but I can see very little reason why other officers, clerks and employees should not be chosen by the civil service commission.


James Angus MacKinnon: I am not sure that this point is in the mind of the mover of this amendment, or of any one in the committee, but I think it fair to make the statement that in the seven years during which I have been intimately connected with the board, in not a single case has there been the acceptance of a political recommendation as to personnel. I remember once getting a letter from a stenographer who had lived in Edmonton and who was out of work in Winnipeg. I wrote the Canadian wheat board asking them to have this stenographer interviewed and taken on if possible. They interviewed her, but they did not take her on, and I did not try it again. I am sure no one else has tried, either.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: You have no influence at all.


Mark Cecil Senn: I should like to mention one other feature. It may be possible that the wheat board will become a permanent institution. In that event how about the staff of the wheat board enjoying superannuation privileges, as they would under the Civil Service Act? It seems hardly fair that they should not have that privilege.
[Mr. MacInnis.J


James Angus MacKinnon: The matter of superannuation benefits for the staff has been considered, and I think something will have to be done about it. It is something that cannot be decided quickly; there are important considerations to be worked out, but the matter has been before the wheat committee of the cabinet, and it is a matter of concern to the wheat board.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I was interested in the statement of the minister that there had been no political influence in connection with appointments under this organic zation. As yet no one has suggested that there was any political influence; but on the other hand we have not heard any reason why the ordinary staff of this organization should not be treated in the same way as other members of the civil service. I quite agree as to the expert end of the picture. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver East. Either the civil service commission is worth while or it is not. If it is worth while it should have jurisdiction over this organization, just as it has over any other department of government; and I have yet to hear any reason from the minister as to why that statement is not correct.


James Angus MacKinnon: Employment under the Canadian wheat board varies a great deal through the crop year. There are large seasonal increases in staff, and that is one reason why I do not think it advisable to bring them under the civil service commission, particularly at this time.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: This question has been before the committee quite frequently. The statement made by the minister is not satisfactory. For example, the Department of Agriculture has a large number of personnel who are taken on a temporary basis during the crop season. If the salaries that prevail in the civil serive at the present time are not high enough to attract the type of person necessary to administer an organization such as the wheat board, then the whole scale of salaries in the civil service should be revised. It is important that the employees of the wheat board should be placed in exactly the same position as employees of all other departments of government. If necessaiy the minister should recommend an upward revision of salaries.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: This is an important principle. If I may make a comparison with another board, I have had many complaints from field inspectors of the old soldier settlement board. They have become almost a permanent board in the country. I have

_____	Canadian Wheat Board Act
known men who since the end of the first world war have given the best part of their lives to their duties as field inspectors for that board. Because of age and for other reasons many of them have had to leave their jobs, and they do not get the retirement benefits enjoyed by other civil servants. They do not get proper recognition. I can visualize this board becoming more or less permanent; the employees should be given the same recognition as other civil servants. They should be given more consideration than they have been heretofore.


Mr. CHARLTON:: The excuse given by the minister a moment ago with regard to temporary help was a lame one. There are few departments of government which have not a considerable number of temporary employees during certain periods of the year. If the civil service commission is to increase other wages in proportion to the increases given to higher civil servants in the past six months, surely we can obtain such advisers and experts to work for those salaries.


James Angus MacKinnon: All I can say at the moment is that it is the definite opinion of the officials of the Canadian wheat board, including those of us in touch with the board, that to turn over the selection of personnel to another body would not be satisfactory.


Arthur Leroy Smith: On what do they base that terribly weighty opinion? That is what we are trying to find out.


Mr. COOKERAM:: May we have a copy of the report?


Angus MacInnis: This is an important principle. The minister should provide the committee with a list of employees of the wheat board-


An hon. MEMBER:: With their length of service.


Angus MacInnis: With their length of service, if you wish, and their positions as well. If there are among them any number that the civil service commission would have difficulty in choosing, they could be exempt. I do not see why the civil service commission could not choose the ordinary employees of the board just as effectively as the board itself, and probably much better than the board can; because the commission has all the facilities for recruiting such a staff. I suggest that this paragraph be allowed to stand and that the minister bring down the information asked for?


Mr. IRVINE:: Is the paragraph to stand?


James Angus MacKinnon: I do not think it should stand.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member for Vancouver East has suggested that this paragraph stand for further consideration by the minister and that he should bring in a report of the number of employees and so forth. Is that acceptable to the committee?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


William Henry Golding: Paragraph (e) of section 2 stands.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Before we proceed will the minister now answer the questions which were asked yesterday by the hon. member for Lake Centre, as reported at page 817 of Hansardf


James Angus MacKinnon: In connection with the authorization?


Calvert Charlton Miller: No. Does the minister wish me to read them?


James Angus MacKinnon: Is that the legal
question?


Calvert Charlton Miller: The hon. member for Lake Centre asked whether the minister had had a report from the advisory committee in regard to the question of bilateral agreements; whether the w'heat board was asked its opinion in regard to the agreement with Britain, and whether an opinion wras secured in regard to the extent to which the wheat board should be an absolute government monopoly, its constitutionality, and so on.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Perhaps I should give an answer to one part of that question. I do not know anything about the advice received from the Canadian advisory committee; but the hon. member for Lake Centre did ask some questions about the constitutional bases of this legislation which perhaps should be answered at an early stage in the discussion.
The opinion of the law officers of the crown is that the bill as drafted is within the constitutional powers of the dominion parliament. Naturally that is so; otherwise the government would not have introduced it.
The bill is the exercise of the poiver of the dominion parliament to regulate interprovincial and export trade and commerce in wheat produced in designated areas. It is contemplated that interprovincial and export trade and commerce in wheat from that area shall be directed through one channel, namely, the Canadian wheat board. There may be other constitutional bases upon which the legislation can be set, but the main reliance for the
Canadian Wheat Board Act

constitutionality of the legislation is upon the trade and commerce power in section 91 of the British North America Act. It may also be authorized under power to legislate for the peace, order and good government of Canada, and so forth, but it will not be necessary for me to go into these other powers. We believe the power to regulate interprovincial and export trade and commerce is amply sufficient to enable this parliament to pass this legislation.
It should be understood that the producer will have the option of selling the wheat which he grows either into interprovincial or export markets through the Canadian wheat board, or, alternatively, into local markets in the provinces, which he may do himself, not through the Canadian wheat board.
The quota control is based upon our jurisdiction over elevators and mills designated as for the general advantage of Canada, and over railways. There may be other constitutional bases for that quota control, but certainly the fact that these mills and elevators have been designated as for the general advantage of Canada and that we have jurisdiction over railways, gives us jurisdiction over the quota control provided for by the act. These are the general observations that apply to the constitutional bases for the legislation.
The hon. member for Lake Centre yesterday seemed to be under the impression that the passage of this legislation was sought in the exercise of emergency powers, and he made some reference to certain decisions of the privy council in connection with emergency powers. But those are not the constitutional grounds for the legislation. What were the other questions?


Calvert Charlton Miller: The other questions referred to reports from the advisory committee to the board or to the government. Shall I read it? It is reported at page 817.


James Angus MacKinnon: The hon. member for Lake Centre asked whether a report had been received from the advisory committee in regard to the question of bilateral agreements. No. There was no report. A further question was whether the wheat board was asked its opinion in regard to the agreement with Britain. I thought the way in which the hon. member for Lake Centre asked the question yesterday was whether the advisory committee was asked its opinion in regard to the agreement with Britain, but I see in Hansard now that the question is whether the wheat board was asked its opinion in regard to that agreement. I am not sure at the moment whether the wheat board was asked its opinion, but I do remem-

ber the board giving us a lengthy confidential opinion on this point. Such an opinion passing between the wheat board and myself would be, I think, a privileged document.


Calvert Charlton Miller: I take it the minister will not agree to table that opinion or report from the wheat board to his department.


James Angus MacKinnon: That is right.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Can the minister give us any reasons, other than the general reason of its being confidential, why that report or recommendation should not be tabled?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is the hon. gentleman asking about a report from the advisory committee or from the wheat board?


Calvert Charlton Miller: I am asking about the report or recommendation from the wheat board which the minister himself mentioned.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have been a member of an informal committee of the cabinet which has existed for many years, called the wTheat committee or the wheat subcommittee of the cabinet. That committee meets frequently with the Canadian wheat board and discusses with the wheat board matters sometimes of policy and sometimes of administration. But certainly the understanding throughout the years has always been that those discussions with the wheat board are of the same nature as discussions with groups of departmental officials, and certainly it would be introducing an innovation to make public the recommendations that we get from the Canadian wheat board. I am afraid that the reports would lose some of their value to the government if it were expected that they were for the public, and the position we have always taken with regard to reports of that kind is that they are privileged and confidential communications.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Perhaps fools rush in where angels fear to tread, but it appears to me that after all the wheat board is or should be the servant of the people and of the house, and if the boprd made a recommendation with respect to the wheat agreement, prior to its execution by the government, the committee is entitled to know it. I think the minister should table that report of recommendation for the information of the committee.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Any report of that kind would really be a report from the members in their individual capacities.


Alan Cockeram: That is all the'more reason why we should have it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is not part of the functions of the wheat board under its legislation to give

Canadian Wheat Board Act
advice to the government on government policy. Any advice that the government might get from members of the wheat board would be similar to advice they would get from deputy ministers and other officials of the department, and documents of that kind could not be laid on the table of the house.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Will the minister indicate whether the advice of the wheat board was accepted?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is not this the situation? When the government enters into an. agreement of this kind, that agreement is of course public and everything the government does and takes responsibility for is public. It has to be, naturally, and the government has to defend its policy and justify it to the House of Commons and the public. If they act upon advice, or get advice, from those who are connected with the administration of the wheat board, either orally or in the form of a letter or a report-I do not remember this report myself-


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: The minister ought to remember.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not remember the report, and the minister says he does not remember the report.


Gordon Graydon: There might still be a report.


James Lorimer Ilsley: On general principles, however, if we asked the wheat board for an opinion as to whether it was a good thing to enter into a contract, and they told us. they would do so having, in their own minds the fact that they were giving a confidential opinion to the department.


Calvert Charlton Miller: I understood the Minister of Trade and Commerce to say that he did have a report, and that is why I asked the question.


James Angus MacKinnon: I was advised by the representatives of the wheat board in front of me-


Gordon Graydon: Be careful; it may be confidential.


James Angus MacKinnon: -that they did submit a report.


Calvert Charlton Miller: They did?


James Angus MacKinnon: They did submit a memorandum. I have no recollection of asking for that. I do not think I did, but if that report is in existence'-and I am satisfied that it is. because the chairman of the wheat board has told me-surely that is a matter that is wholly confidential as a report or 83166-54
advice from an official connected with the wheat board, an agency coming under the cabinet through the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I may say in this same connection that we have had to refuse in the past reports and minutes of meetings of the advisory committee to the wheat board on the same ground, and at that time I was personally told by members of the advisory committee that if their reports were to be made public they would cease to participate in the making of reports and that the value of their reports would be entirely destroyed if they were to be made public.


James Arthur Ross: Will the minister
give the names of the members of the advisory committee to the wheat board, and say whom they repx-esent? I certainly think their recommendations should be made available to the committee. Surely the minister can tell us who those members are.


James Angus MacKinnon: Certainly. I shall be
very glad to do that. I think I can do it from memory. The members are:	Mr. J. H.
Wesson, of the Saskatchewan wheat pool; Mr. A. C. Reid, of the Western Elevator Company; Mr. Paul Farnalls, farmer, Alberta; Mr. Lew Hutchison, formerly of the Alberta wheat pool; Mr. Robert C. Brown, of United Grain Growers of Manitoba; Mr. Douglas A. Campbell, of the Millers Association; Mr. F. Pettypiece, from Ontario; Mr. J. T. Roy, from Quebec; Mr. J. A. McCowan, from Saskatchewan and Mr. F. H. Clendenning, from Vancouver.


Mr. BRACKEN:: Did I understand the
minister to say that he has members on this advisory committee to the wheat board who are willing to advise him but who say to him, "If you make our recommendations public we will not give you any further advice?" Are we in the position, Mr. Chairman, where men are chosen who will say to this board, *'If our advice is to become known we shall not continue to advise you in the future"? Is that what the minister means to say?


James Angus MacKinnon: I think that is generallj- what I wanted to say and what I wanted to repeat. I think that a business man, giving recommendations along with other business men in a group, would not want all those recommendations made public; otherwise he would have to be more cautious, possibly, in the recommendations he might make.


James Arthur Ross: Surely they would
be cautious anyway.


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes, I think so.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


John Bracken: The minister may have
stated his view, but I do not think we on this side can accept that view. If persons advising the government on major matters of public importance, whether they are paid for their services or receive only their expenses, are going to express opinions that they are afraid to let the public know about, I think the minister should get up and say so.


James Angus MacKinnon: I have made my
statement.


James Garfield Gardiner: As Minister of Agriculture, and as a member from the west when this committee was set up, I think I ought to say a word or two with regard to the remarks *which have just been made. The old board, as it was prior to the coming into power of the government under the present Prime Minister, was one which was set up under the act, with certain advisers on it. It was a type of board with which some people were not entirely satisfied; and when the government came into power in 1935 and selected a new board of three, the chairman of that board refused to act if there was to be any advisory committee. He took the position conditional upon there being no advisory committee until he had completed the task which was assigned to him. Mr. Murray was then chairman of the board. When Mr. Murray had completed the task that was assigned to him, which was that of getting rid of the great surplus of wheat which had piled up under the board as it had been operated previously, he resigned from the board; then a new board was set up. An advisory committee was appointed at the request of the organized farmers of western Canada to begin with, and they insisted that there should be on that committee a majority representation of the farmers. The committee was set up with its present number, and for the first time including representatives from eastern Canada. Prior to that the advisory committee was composed of western men. I think I am right when I say this, although I am speaking entirely from memory: I do not think those men are paid any salary. They are men who are engaged in their own lines of business. Mr. Wesson is president of the Saskatchewan pool. Mr. Campbell is a miller; Mr. Smith is a grain dealer in the city of Winnipeg, but at one time was a member of the board and so on; one could go through the names of the group. These men come together from time to time, and they advise. I do not understand that they advise the government; I may be wrong about that. I understand that they advise the wheat board.

I do not know whether the act requires them to make a report to the government.


James Angus MacKinnon: No; it advises the board.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not think the act required them to make a report to the government. I am not sure that I am right in saying that they make a report to the board as such. They meet along with the board and discuss questions with respect to the marketing of wheat. They enter upon and discuss these matters very much in the same way as members of the government do. Their point of view is put down in the minutes of the meeting. By the time they are through discussing it they may all have changed their minds. They talk about what should be done with regard to this or that; and it is not a report in the ordinary sense of the term. What these men say individually with regard to the matter may have more to do with what the concern they represent really thinks about it; but they give the knowledge and information they have to the board, to be considered by the board when they are arriving at decisions with regard to the marketing of wheat.
I think that explanation in itself would indicate that the discussions are not the kind of thing that can be placed before the public. These men are there giving their point of view. They may have strong objections to that point of view being spread all over Canada, particularly if it is a point of view that was later reconsidered and a different decision arrived at. I think these men would be quite justified in saying that if everything they said in those meetings, for the consideration of the board, everything put down in the form of minutes, was to be given to the public, they -would not act in an advisory capacity; or if they did act, they would not express their views freely in the interests of the board itself or in the interests of the people of western Canada who are marketing wheat. I think it would be improper to have minutes of that kind published at all, either before the house or otherwise. I would point out that it is not the kind of committee some members seem to think it is. It is not a committee to advise the government. It is not a committee to advise anyone other than the wheat board.


Mr. BURTON:: How many times has this advisory committee met during the past year? Does the wheat board always accept its advice? If not, how many times during the past year did the wheat board not act on its advice?

Canadian Wheat Board Act


James Angus MacKinnon: I believe the advisory committee to the wheat board met four times during the last year. I am informed that the wheat board does not necessarily accept the advice of the advisory committee. As to the number of times they may or may not have accepted the advice given, I have no information.


Joseph William Burton: May I follow that up with one more question? In the years that this has been in operation, is it not a fact that the advisory committee has been of considerable assistance to the wheat board?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes, a great deal of assistance. These men have given of their time generously and without recompense.


William Henry Golding: 1	understand that paragraph (e) in section
2	(3) is to stand. I was wondering if, with that exception, the section might carry.


James Angus MacKinnon: Perhaps at this time I might answer some further questions asked by the hon. member for Lake Centre.


Joseph William Burton: Do they deal with this section?


James Angus MacKinnon: I believe they do, yes. I would like to say a few words in regard to a point which has been raised several times by the hon. member for Lake Centre. He has referred to the lack of information in regard to the operations of the Canadian wheat board. I would like to point out that since the outbreak of war four annual reports of the Canadian wheat board have been submitted to the committee on agriculture and colonization, and have been the subject of exhaustive study by that committee.
The report of the committee on agriculture and colonization dealing with the 1939-40 and 1940-41 annual reports of the Canadian wheat board, reads as follows:
The committee directed its attention to a review of the annual reports of the Canadian wheat board as referred to in the order of reference and matters arising therefrom. These reports contained detailed information as to the amount of wheat (actual and under future contracts) handled by the board and its operations in the marketing of same.
Your committee was impressed, during its enquiry, with the capacity and ability of the members and officials of the Canadian wheat board and desires to record its opinion that the marketing of Canada's wheat is being carried out by them in an efficient and business-like manner.
The annual report for the crop year 1941-42 was also referred to the committee on agriculture and colonization and became the subject of an exhaustive examination. Particular attention was given to orders in council which 83166-54i
became effective during that particular crop year. In its report, dated July 20, 1943, the committee on agriculture and colonization stated:
The committee commends the officers of the Canadian wheat board for the comprehensive, detailed and lucid manner of presenting reports and accounts.
In its report at that time the committee on agriculture and colonization made certain recommendations in regard to the Canadian wheat board and government policy in regard to the handling of grain.
The report of the Canadian wheat board for 1942-43 was submitted to the committee on agriculture and colonization in June and July, 1944. After studying wheat board operations, the committee reported on July 7, 1944. Among other points dealt with in the report of the committee were the following:
The committee again commends the officers of the Canadian wheat board for the comprehensive and lucid manner of presenting the reports and accounts.
The committee was gratified to learn that four of the recommendations of last year's report concerning policy with respect to further reduction in grain storage charges, to the marketing of flax seed, to the allocation of cars, and the referring of the annual report of the Canadian wheat board to a committee of the house, have been given effect.
The hon. member for Lake Centre has referred to the fact that certain information in regard to board operations was not made available to the committee.
I want to point out that as far as the Canadian wheat board is concerned, all information has been available to the committee on agriculture and colonization. If the committee decided at any time that it was not in the public interest to disclose certain information, the responsibility for that decision rested upon a committee of this house and not upon the Canadian wheat board.
Owing to the pressure of other work the standing committee on agriculture and colonization did not meet in 1945 or in 1946. As I stated the other day, it is the intention of the government to refer other annual reports of the board to the committee during the present session.


James Arthur Ross: With respect to the statement the minister has just made, may I say that I too have copies of the reports of those committees. May I say something to substantiate what was said by the hon. member for Lake Centre about not receiving information. The minister has made a true statement of fact. But the hon. member for Lake Centre and other members in the committee did move that certain information be
Canadian Wheat Board Act

brought down. As the committee knows, the government had a majority of members on that committee, and the hon. member's motion was voted down on May 14, 1942 by a vote of 20 to 12. At that time he was asking about certain brokerage fees to which I made reference yesterday.
The hon. member for Melfort has said that generally he received from those committees the information he required. I would point out however that he was one of the twelve who voted to ask for information at that time, and that that information was never received. The government members on the committee voted that it was not in the public interest to disclose the names of about 90 brokers in futures trading and another 20 who were operating on cash transactions. We were not able to get that information.
True enough, the representatives of the board are not to blame if the committee refused the information and voted that we should not obtain it. But that was the situation in 1942. Then, from 1944 we had not had a committee on agriculture until just the other day. There is a great deal of information we are unable to get by going over the annual report of the Canadian wheat board. The committee decides whether we shall or shall not have that information. So the hon. member for Lake Centre was right in the statement he made.


John Bracken: A few minutes ago, and for reasons which no doubt he deemed sufficient, the minister did not feel he could disclose certain memoranda or reports or letters -or whatever they may be-from the advisory committee or the wheat board to the government or to the board. Then only a moment ago he read portions from reports of the committee on agriculture and colonization.


James Angus MacKinnon: Reports of committees on agriculture and colonization are public documents.


John Bracken: He read from those
reports certain sections commending the services of the members of the wheat board. Well, I have heard nothing criticizing those members, or their administration.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member for Lake Centre did.


John Bracken: He is not here today.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, he did.


John Bracken: I have heard no criticism of members of the board.


James Angus MacKinnon: Then the leader of the opposition could not have been in the house at the time. I believe it happened about a week ago today.


John Bracken: The record will speak for itself. In any event, I have never made any such criticism. And in the very statement the minister has just made, in which he read from the report, he said the board was willing to make available all information it had. Since he declines today to give us certain memoranda from the board, and since his statement commending the board has been made, may I ask the minister now if the wheat board or any members of it made any recommendation to the government against any feature of the British wheat agreement. If the minister is not willing to give us their report, and if he has such a high degree of confidence in the board, will he now say whether the board has ever made any representations against any features of the British wheat agreement.


James Angus MacKinnon: I would not consider I had any right to divulge or to make public any such information which might have been given to me either verbally or by letter.


John Bracken: The minister does not say, then, that the board has not made such a recommendation to the government?


James Angus MacKinnon: What recommendation does the hon. member mean?


John Bracken: In opposition to certain particulars of the British wheat agreement. Did they or did they not make such a recommendation?


James Angus MacKinnon: I have no recollection whatever of receiving objections, either by letter or orally, to any specific portions of the United Kingdom agreement.


John Bracken: If the minister will be positive about that, that is all I wished to ask. We were led to believe that certain reports had been made pointing out objections to certain features of the British wheat agreement.


James Angus MacKinnon: I have no recollection.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Admittedly the minister has no recollection of it, but after consultation with his officers he was convinced that he had received some memorandum. My original question was whether he would produce that memorandum. Now, without being able to recollect what is in it or anything else, the minister does not appear to want to produce it.


James Angus MacKinnon: That is right.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Surely the minister should look into it and see if there is anything that comes within the four cornel's of the question asked by the leader of the opposition.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Mr. WRIGHT:: If there are official reports by the advisory committee to the wheat board or to the government I think we should be entitled to them, but I do not think we are entitled to have the minutes of meetings where men met with the board and discussed certain matters. We just will not have free discussion if that is done; we could not have proper consideration given to these matters if such minutes were to be made available to the House of Commons. But if there are official memoranda or reports made by this committee to the government or to the board, then I think we are entitled to them.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Or by the board to the government.


Percy Ellis Wright: By the advisory committee either to the government or to the wheat board.


Calvert Charlton Miller: What about recommendations by the wheat board to the government?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The advisory committee hold meetings and a report of the proceedings is made to the Canadian wheat board and to the minister. This question has been up year after year and these have not been produced. They are reports of proceedings, and that is the wording used in the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Motions have been moved that they be laid on the table, but they have never been laid on the table. The understanding has grown up that they are free to say what they like and to express their various points of view. I cannot remember anything specific in those proceedings, but the impression I have is that they were very free indeed and statements were made during the course of the proceedings which they certainly did not intend to have made public. If we are to institute a new' rule about it they should have some advance notice; otherwise we would not get a full and frank expression of opinion from that advisory committee.


Calvert Charlton Miller: What does the Minister of Justice say about that particular memorandum from the wheat board?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have been talking about something else, the proceedings and duties of the advisory committee. I have no recollection of the memorandum of the wheat board, but perhaps I would not have because it is not in my department. If the wheat board had been asked what they thought of this plan and had written a letter outlining their views,
I am sure that the whole spirit of that letter would be much as if the Minister of Finance asked the deputy minister of finance what he thought about a certain export loan to a foreign country. The Department of Finance is full of those memoranda. Sometimes they recommend against, sometimes they recommend for; sometimes they say that some of the features of the proposal are bad, and sometimes they say that some of the features are good. Then they may recommend changes in the proposal. The ministers do not bring those forward and make them public, because that advice is given simply because the advice is wanted or is sought in order to help the ministers make up their minds. When the ministers once make up their minds then they give reasons to parliament and they defend themselves against the attacks that are made. The merits of the thing are discussed at that level. The advice that they get from their officials is something that is not made public. I think the phrase used is intra-departmental memoranda, and if such memoranda were producible I think the value of those memoranda would disappear.


John Bracken: The minister has been most complimentary to the members of the wheat board, and I agree with what he has said in that regard. This board is marketing one of the biggest agricultural commodities we have in Canada, and we were led to believe that the board had some objections to certain features of the British wheat agreement. Our question of the minister was: Did the board make such a recommendation? In view of the fact that he does not want to table the document I ask him now if the board did make such a recommendation. He says he has no recollection.


James Angus MacKinnon: That is right.


John Bracken: The minister has in front of him the chairman of the board. I suggest he could find out right now whether any such recommendation was made.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think I am the only member of the wheat committee of the council who has been on it since it was set up. One of the conditions under which I became a member of the government of Canada was that such a committee would be established. There has been one ever since, and I have been on it for almost twelve years. The leader of the opposition knows that while he was leading the government in Manitoba he would not have permitted anyone to take the attitude which he has been adopting. At these meetings which have been spoken of, members of the board meet with the members' of the committee of council. They may say, "If you do so and so, such and such will be the result; if you do so and that is the result, we will be opposed to it." Then some
Canadian Wheat Board Act

one else says, "If you do something different, such and such will be the result." But the final outcome of discussion of that kind is a decision, and that decision has always been agreed to finally by all the members of the committee and by all the members of the wheat board. They would not remain in the wheat board if that were not so. They have carried on as a board in agreement with the government and with the government in agreement with them.
When the final decision was reached to have an agreement with Great Britain for the marketing of wheat, every member of the wheat board and every member of the government agreed that it was right. It could not have been any other way. If a member of this committee who has been a leader of a government means to suggest that it could be any other way, then I know he is suggesting something that he would not have permitted as a leader of a government. To suggest that the wheat board which is going to administer the policy of the government does not agree that it is a proper thing for the government to do is to suggest that there are members on the wheat board who do not agree with the thing they are being asked to do and which they are receiving very high pay from the people of Canada to do.
I do not think any such thing could happen or would happen. I would pay just as great compliments to the members of the board as the minister in charge has paid to them, having worked along with them during all the time they have been on the board. But I am quite sure members of the committee will realize that discussions of that kind, simply brought before the house in uncompleted form, do not mean anything at all to those outside the committees where the discussions were held; that the thing the house is interested in, the thing the people of Canada are interested in, is that these men sat down and discussed all aspects of a policy and arrived at a conclusion. I personally raised all kinds of objections to a certain type of contract with Britain that hight have been entered into. So did every other member of the wheat committee; so did every member of the wheat board. But after we had discussed the whole matter and arrived at a conclusion as to what we were going to do, we might not all have agreed . on every detail of the policy entered into, but looking at the policy as a whole we did agree with it and finally announced it to the country and brought it before this house.
That is what the country is interested in. The people are not interested in any small differences of opinion there might have been

between either members of the government or members of the board. Nor are they interested in the small differences of opinion that existed between the members of the advisory committee. What they are interested in is that a group of some twenty men, working together over a period) of time, finally arrived at a conclusion and submitted that conclusion to this house. So far as I can find out from listening to the discussion, that conclusion has almost one hundred per cent support in this house; so why should we not get on with the legislation?


John Bracken: The Minister of Agriculture has completely avoided the question I asked. I was not asking about minutes of meetings, or anything of the kind.	The
minister and other hon. members have expounded upon the extraordinary capacity of members of the board in connection with the marketing of wheat. I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether that board, in which hon. gentlemen opposite have so much confidence, made any recommendation against some features of the British wheat agreement. That was all I asked. I have had no answer. If that is the way the government wishes to leave it, all right.


James Angus MacKinnon: I think I can say this, that if they had done so I would treat that communication in exactly the same way that I would treat a written communication; that is, confidentially.


Mr. McMASTER:: Just before the adjournment last evening the Minister of Justice was dealing with the question of the powers of this board, and suggested he would give consideration to how far the government might go in making the board as responsible and as liable as an individual. I wonder if he has given the matter that consideration, and whether he will be able to amend: the act to bring about that result. If not I should like to say something about the extent to which this act is deficient in giving the people wdth whom the board deals adequate remedies against it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have given the point some consideration, though perhaps not enough; perhaps more consideration is necessary, but the conclusion I have reached1 is that the clause declaring the board to be an agent of the crown should remain in the act; first, because it appears to be a statement of reality, of the substantial facts of the case. One very important part of this measure is being enacted to enable a contract with Great Britain to be carried out, a con-

Canadian Wheat Board Act
tract which was made between the government of Canada and the government of Great Britain. In essence and in substance the board which carries out that contract, through which all the wheat from a designated area going into interprovincial and export markets must be channeled, is acting for the government which made the contract. So I think it is wise to recognize the facts and realities of the situation and say they are the agents of the crown. In the second place the act contains provisions making the board subject to the directions of the governor in council, and I think it would be anomalous to set up a board subject to the directions of the governor in council, carrying out regulations passed by the governor in council, and carrying out the policy of the government, unless it were regarded as an agency of the government. In the only ease that has come before the courts where the matter was in issue it has been held, even without this statement, that the board is an agent of the crown in fact, and I think it is pretty hard to get away from that. I cannot see any advantage in saying it is not an agent of the crown, and I believe that is what we would have to do if we were to go on the other theory.
I think what I said last evening, without too much consideration, in regard to certain advantages was not very strong. I do not believe it had too much substance in it. That is. while it is true that as agent for the crown the board does not need to pay local taxes or provincial taxes, I do not believe that is a very important point. Possibly the board would want to pay municipal taxes on real estate occupied by its offices. I do not know about that, but it wrnuld be a very small factor in the situation. On the wheat owned by the board I doubt whether there ever would be any municipal or provincial taxation. So while my statement with regard to taxation was true, in my judgment that is not an important matter. There might be provincial statutes, such as licensing statutes, which would embarrass the board in its operations if it were not set up as an agency of the crown. That consideration might become important, but I doubt it. The other consideration I mentioned, that the farmers would not be exempt from garnishee proceedings if the board were not set up as an agency of the crown is somewhat doubtful, in the light of other provisions in the act which were brought to my attention after I made the statement last evening. Under those provisions the participation certificates are not assignable, and if they are not assignable perhaps participation payments are not subject to garnishment proceedings anyway, so I do not think those arguments are very strong.
Personally I believe proceedings should be in the Exchequer Court of Canada rather than in magistrate's courts or district courts or county courts or trial divisions of superior courts in the various provinces, and I believe that result is obtained by having the board set up as an agency of the crown. One reason the Exchequer Court of Canada is the appropriate tribunal for the settlement of suits against the Canadian wheat board is that if actions were brought in perhaps several or many of these other courts such as magistrate's courts, county courts, district courts and the other courts I have mentioned with respect to small matters-and the board has had a bit of experience in that regard already-the natural reaction would be that the board would have to hold up distribution until the matter went through the various courts and was settled. It might delay considerably the distribution of the money. I realize that the same might be true if it were in the Exchequer Court of Canada, but at any rate you do not have the danger of the diversity of judgments in inferior courts that you would have if actions could be brought in the various courts. Therefore for these reasons I think that that section should remain. That is the best consideration I have been able to give it so far. It may be that there are other considerations which should be taken into account.


William Alexander McMaster: Section 1, subsection 1, as it is in the original act, reads:
The board shall be a body corporate having capacity to contract and to sue and be sued in the name of the board.
Subsection 2 of section 2 which the minister is submitting to the committee for approval reads:
The board is, for all purposes, an agent of His Majesty in right of Canada, and its powers under this act may be exercised by it only as an agent of His Majesty in the said right.
That is like giving the answer yes and no to the same question. Is the board responsible in contract? Is it responsible in tort? You cannot overlook the effect of the Interpretation Act of the dominion which says:
No provision or enactment in any act shall affect, in any manner whatsoever, the rights of His Majesty, his heirs or successors, unless it is expressly stated therein that His Majesty shall be bound thereby.
This bill in clause 2 says in effect that His Majesty will not be bound by it, by saying that the board is in effect a servant of His Majesty. Yet in the prior section it says that they can sue and be sued. I believe it has
Canadian Wheat Board Act

been decided in the highest court of Ontario that the words "sue and be sued" apply only to contracts. It does not apply to any action in tort. It does not apply perhaps to a crime. I would say that this subsection should be widened to cover every kind of liability, and if subsection 2 is made for the purpose which the minister has stated, it should have the words tacked on to the front of it that it is subject to the provisions of subsection 1.
So far as magistrates courts are concerned, if there are such courts in the provinces they would deal only with small matters or with criminal matters. So far as any other small courts are concerned they can deal only with matters of small moment and their judgment would not be binding on any other court. There will be judgments of the highest courts which will be binding on the lower courts. I would submit that where the board is going to spend millions of dollars there should be some redress on the part of those who deal with it. They should not have to get a fiat; they should not have to come to Ottawa and have the case tried before the exchequer court. I do not think the exchequer court was ever intended to decide cases such as this. The exchequer court was first brought into existence for a very different purpose, and long before these crown companies were so numerous and so important as they are now. I respectfully submit that the minister should take into consideration the widening of subsection 1 and the insertion before subsection 2 of the words:
That, subject to the provisions of subsection 1 of this section . . .
Only in this tvay can they do justice to the people who are to deal with the wheat board.
Mr.-ILSLEY: The hon. gentleman does not say that they could be sued only on contracts, does he?


William Alexander McMaster: I say that is the effect of past decisions on clauses exactly the same as this one; and I could give the minister the citations, if he wishes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Does the hon. gentleman suggest any action for a tort or wrong that anyone might want to bring against the board?


William Alexander McMaster: Well, I will go further than that. This section would not allow suit to be brought against the wheat board in regard to the wrongful act of an agent. If somebody was injured by an agent of the board in the course of his duties it would not allow action to be brought against the board. There may be many torts. I do not know whether I can think of an operation where

damage might be inflicted on somebody, but it could easily happen, and that would be a tort. I should like to offer an amendment first of all to subsection 2 and then later to subsection 1.


Mr. JAENICKE:: Can the hon. member tell us of the decision he has spoken of?


William Alexander McMaster: The most recent case is that of Gooderham and Worts, which is reported in 1939, 4 Dominion Law Reports. There was another case against the Niagara Falls Parks Commission.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Does the hon. member mean that there was a section like this which prevented a crown company from being sued in tort?


William Alexander McMaster: That is what the court of appeal decided.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If the hon. member will suggest his amendment, I shall give it consideration.


William Alexander McMaster: I shall deal first with subsection 2, because it is before the committee. I suggest that at the beginning of the section the following words should appear:
That, subject to the provisions of subsection 1 of this section . . .
This subsection is put in for an entirely different reason from that of subsection 1. I do not think that the intention was to restrict subsection 1, but they have overlooked the fact that subsection 1 is there. By the addition of this subsection they may unwittingly destroy the whole effect of subsection 1. If my suggested amendment is accepted the subsection will then read:
Subject to the provisions of subsection 1 of this section the board is, for all purposes . . .
And so on.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall have to ask that the subsection be allowed to stand.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Will the minister also give consideration to revising his opinion that all actions should be brought in the exchequer court? Unless some provision to the contrary is added, that is where the actions will have to be brought. Let us take the example of an automobile accident. One of the agents of the board may involve the board in a damage action. Why should a man from Saskatchewan or Manitoba have to bring his action to recover in the exchequer court? In the first place it would cost too much. If I remember correctly you have to put up security for costs and so on. The amount involved may be only $400 or $500. It would cost more than that to get to the exchequer court. Why should a

Canadian Wheat Board Act
man be deprived of his right to go to court, the court of king's bench or the superior court in any province and bring his action there? Should not provision be made to bring action in these other courts? I believe the War Assets Corporation is in the same position.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


William Alexander McMaster: I cannot see why the government should not accept my suggested amendment.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We will allow the subsection to stand in order that I may give consideration to the amendment.


Mr. SINNOTT:: Would it not be correct to say that a man working for the Canadian wheat board would be protected by the same compensation laws as a workman in any other line of employment?


William Alexander McMaster: I am thinking of the man who is injured by an employee of the wheat board.
I should like to move an amendment to subsection 1 for the minister's consideration:
That the following words be added to the end of subsection 1 of section 4:
"and shall be legally liable for all acts of itself and its servants and agents in the case of a body corporate which is owned, controlled or composed of private persons, and the fact that it represents His Majesty in the right of Canada shall not in any way change the legal results arising out of business or contractual operations of the board, and shall not be pleaded as a defence in any court in Canada."


William Henry Golding: We have amendments moved, one by Mr. Senn and two by Mr. McMaster, and it is suggested now that we allow section 2 to stand until further consideration can be given to the amendments by the minister. We will therefore go on with section 3.
Section stands.
On section 3-Sale and disposal of grain.


Percy Ellis Wright: Subsection 1 reads:
Subject to regulations, the board shall sell and dispose of grain acquired by it pursuant to its operations under this act for such prices as it considers reasonable with the object or promoting the sale of grain produced in Canada in world markets.
This, I presume, deals with the sale of coarse grains. At the present time the sale of coarse grains to the United States is done through export permits, and equalization certificates which the exporter must buy, but there is also quite a large amount of coarse grains going to Europe. Are these coarse grains being sold to the European buyers at the United States price and payments being
made on equalization certificates, or are they being sold by the board at the selling price of coarse grains in Canada?


James Angus MacKinnon: The clause deals with all grains; they are sold at a price approximating the United States price, and any surplus goes to the benefit of the participation certificate fund.


Percy Ellis Wright: Subsection 2 reads:
Profits, if any realized by the board from its operations under this act during any crop year, other than from its operations under part III, with respect to the disposition of which no provision is made elsew'here in this act, shall be paid to the receiver general for the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
At present we do not get participation certificates on coarse grains but ten cents on oats and fifteen cents on barley, and that is the final payment. Do I understand that participation certificates are still issued on coarse grains and that oats and barley payments will be made on the 1945 and 1946 crops of coarse grains?


James Angus MacKinnon: This section deals with the period beyond July 31, 1947, policy in connection with which has not yet been determined. Another section of the act provides for the payment of any surplus there is that has accrued during this crop year.


Percy Ellis Wright: What section of the act is that?


James Angus MacKinnon: The payments are to be made under the western grain regulations and they are continued by section 6 on page 17-payments if any.


Percy Ellis Wright: It is the intention then, that further payments will be made on coarse grains of the 1945 and 1946 crop where any profit is realized through their sale, over and above the ten cents and fifteen cents at present paid?


James Angus MacKinnon: That is correct.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: If that is the case, why put this in? If profits are all to be paid the farmer, why have a provision to have it paid into the consolidated revenue fund?


James Angus MacKinnon: Power is being given to the board to buy grain if they are directed by the government. Any surplus from the handling of wheat will go into the pool, but there may be grain that is handled from others than the actual producer, and the term "actual producer" is a very wide and inclusive one. But there may be some wheat that will go to the board and the profit or loss on that will be credited to or charged against the
Canadian Wheat Board Act

consolidated revenue fund. In any such case it would be an extremely small matter. It might be a case of some grain being taken over from persons other than the producers, possibly under tax seizure, or it might be grain from outside the designated areas. But it would be a very small matter.


Percy Ellis Wright: Then it seems to me that for a small matter like that you are giving the board a great deal of authority to take funds which, I maintain, belong to the producer and to pay them into the consolidated revenue. I suggest that any profits made by the board in dealing with grain should come back to the producer after the board's expenses have been paid. I see no reason why, after those expenses have been paid, anything should go into the consolidated revenue fund out of the handling of grain, either coarse grains or wheat.


James Angus MacKinnon: It is contemplated that the profits from all grain taken from all producers will go into the pool; but there may be minor cases where grain is taken from other than producers and on which participation certificates are not issued. The loss or profit in that case would go to the charge or credit of the general fund.


Percy Ellis Wright: I think the definition of "producer" is wide enough to cover all grain. I cannot see how the grain can come from any other body than the producers. If this amount is so small, I would suggest that it be paid to the producers anyway, and that we delete this section. Otherwise the board would be left a good deal of leeway with regard to the disposal of the producers' grain.


James Angus MacKinnon: There may be losses.


James Arthur Ross: I wish to support the hon. member for Melfort in his contention. I also think this is an unnecessary clause. Even with what the minister has said about these small exigencies which might occur, I think he is quite certain there will not be any profit. This measure is supposed to be for the handling of the producers' grain. I think this clause is not necessary; it should not state that profits should go into the consolidated revenue fund and it should be stricken out.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: The minister mentioned cash tickets. How are they handled? Would they not go into the permit book of the producer, or would not the participation certificates be issued to the producer although the cash ticket would go to the municipality or the sheriff, whoever makes the seizure? Oi-does the producer lose his interest in that grain if it is taken by the sheriff or the municipal tax collector?


Percy Ellis Wright: My understanding is that no grain can be marketed in the designated area except through the permit book and it is marked by the producer. It does not matter whether it is seized by the sheriff. It must be marketed through the permit book.


Mr. CASE:: As I read the section now under discussion, provision is made for the profits to be paid to the receiver general for the consolidated revenue fund of Canada; there is also provision for losses being paid out of moneys provided by parliament. The section is not very clear, inasmuch as if this pool is handling the farmers' grain, anticipating a profit, it would seem from the fact that it is to be paid into the consolidated revenue fund, it might not necessarily be intended that it remain there. That is what I would be anxious about. But what I am more particularly concerned about is whether this is the only medium through which the farmer can market the grain designated in the bill: wheat, oats, barley and flax. Does it have to go through the grain board?


James Angus MacKinnon: It must go only to the Canadian wheat board for interprovincial or export sale. The producer can market locally.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Could I buy a carload of grain from a farmer in the west and have it shipped to Ontario?


James Angus MacKinnon: No.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: That would be interprovincial?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: What is to be done with the surplus grain? Will the board take all the grain the farmer produces?


James Angus MacKinnon: We shall come to that point later.


Percy Ellis Wright: Subsection 2 states:
The profits, if any, realized by the board from its operations under this act during any crop year, other than from its operations under part III-
And so on. Then it goes on to say they shall be paid into the consolidated revenue fund. There is another part of the bill which gives permission to the board to invest funds. Would this cover any losses or profits which might be made out of the investment of such funds by the board?


James Angus MacKinnon: No. The profits on any investments would accrue to the benefit of the producer in the pool.


Mr. QUELCH:: Have any profits been paid into the general revenue fund in the past; and, if so, approximately what was the amount?

Canadian Wheat Board Act


James Angus MacKinnon: I am informed that there have been none.


Victor Quelch: What will be the difference in the situation in the future from that prevailing in the past? Why do you contemplate there will be profits which might be paid into the general revenue fund in the future when that has not been the case in the past?


James Angus MacKinnon: I am informed that every year the board requires to buy small quantities of wheat that has gone out of the hands of the producer entirely and possibly outside the designated area; it is to cover those cases that this authority is being asked for.


Victor Quelch: What has been done with the profits on those transactions in the past? Have they been given back to the producers, or have they been put in the general revenue fund? The minister just now said there have been no profits paid into the general revenue fund in the past. Where did they go? Did they go to the producer? If they went to the producer in the past, why should they not go to the producer in the future?


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Has there in past years been any grain marketed, say by the sheriff or the bailiff, where the producer did not get the benefit of participation?


James Angus MacKinnon: I do not think so.


Percy Ellis Wright: What amount of grain has been bought by the board during the last year other than from producers? I think we should have that information before we pass this section.


James Angus MacKinnon: I think I can have that information for the hon. member tomorrow.


John Bracken: From the discussion I gather that the amounts involved here, which the government is planning to put into the consolidated revenue fund, are not very large?


James Angus MacKinnon: That is right.


John Bracken: I respectfully urge that the suggestions put forward ought to be sympathetically considered. The expenses of this board are being charged back against the farmer. Why, then, should not any of these little benefits arising from the operations of the board go to his credit and be divided up with the other balances that are paid out in participation certificates?


Percy Ellis Wright: I would ask the minister to give serious consideration to deleting subsection 2 of the section under consideration. It refers to only small quantities of grain. I do not see why it should be retained. I would ask the minister to delete the part concerned
with the paying of the amounts into the consolidated revenue fund. If the section is necessary to give the board power to buy those small amounts of grain that may appear here and there-and I cannot see how they can appear unless there is a black market of some kind in operation in regard to the pool-then it is all right. But I do not see why any profit made with respect to this operation should not be paid out to the producers as a whole, because the producers as a whole are paying the expenses as a whole.


James Lorimer Ilsley: As I understand the situation, the profits talked of here are not profits on the grain of the producers who have participation certificates. There may be some profits, or there may be losses from the handling of other grain; and the question is whether those profits are to go in with and those losses taken out of the money before it is distributed among the producers of other grain or whether the transactions are to be for the account of the consolidated revenue fund, the government taking the small profit or loss as the case may be. I do not think it is a matter of great consequence to the government, but it would appear to me that the fairness of the case is as expressed in the statute, that what the farmer is entitled to is a division of the profits on his grain; and that to charge up against him losses if they are losses, and credit him with profits, if there are profits, on somebody else's grain, is mixing two things.


Percy Ellis Wright: I do not think the board has power to buy grain grown outside the designated area.


James Angus MacKinnon: It has taken that power. The suggestion is made that that power be given to the board.


Percy Ellis Wright: Well, the minister should give some consideration to the matter. I should like to see the amounts involved in this during the last year, and where they came from, so that we can deal intelligently with it. I do not think we can, without knowing what is involved.


John Alpheus Charlton: In reading over this section, I should like to ask the minister to explain what is meant by:
Profits, if any, realized by the board from its operations under this act during any crop year, other than from its operations under part III, with respect to the disposition of which no provision is made elsewhere in this act.
And then:
Losses, if any, sustained by the board (a) from its operations under part III.
One part contains the expression "other than from its operations under part III", and the
Canadian Wheat Board Act

other contains the expression "losses, if any, sustained by the board from its operations under part III".


James Lorimer Ilsley: I believe I can explain that. Losses, under the second part of the section, whether they are under the producers' account or not, are charged to the consolidated revenue fund. In the earlier part of the section, profits, if made not on the producers' account, go into the consolidated' revenue fund. The change that has been suggested is that the profits on certain grain be distributed among the producers of other grain. Certainly, if that change were to be made, in fairness the second part of the last section should come out, too, and the losses should be charged to those producers-if there are losses. But in any event the government would have to bear the losses from its operations under part III, and they would have to be careful there were not losses, through fixing their prices at proper levels, and so on. But if there are losses the government would have to bear them.


John Alpheus Charlton: Do I understand that the government is guaranteeing to the farmer $1.35 regardless of what is left in the fund at the end' of 1950?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Indubitably.


Joseph William Burton: The explanation given a moment ago by the Minister of Justice may be all right, if it applies only to the small amounts of grain which may be picked up here and there. Then possibly it might be allowed to come in. But what is in the minds of most producers is that the board may be operating in coarse grains. That is not what the board is set up to do .under section 3. In dealing in those coarse grains it could have the profits from the operation on coarse grains going into the consolidated revenue fund, or the losses charged to that fund. I think that is really where the sticker comes in.
We feel that if the board is going to handle coarse grains-and we contend that it should^-a separate pool should be set up so that the profits and losses in connection therewith can be handled in that way. If there is only a small amount of grain involved, then I believe, if an answer is given to the hon. member for Melfort as to how much, and where from, we can get over the section easily.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I understand the hon.
member to say that the only exception to the rule that profits go into the consolidated revenue fund, in the provision as drawn, is profits from the operations under part III

which is confined to wheat alone. He says, if a pool were set up for the handling of coarse grains, and a profit were made, even though the regulations setting up that pool contemplated the division of the profit among the farmers-and the losses, if there were any, taken from the consolidated revenue fund- that, even so, those regulations could be overruled or overridden by the express provision of the section, that the profits could not be paid back to the farmer in dealing with coarse grains, and that the government is depriving itself of the power to set up a pool along the same lines as the wheat pool. Is that the hon. member's position?


Joseph William Burton: Yes; that is the way it
looks to many of us.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I doubt whether operations
of that kind were contemplated for coarse grains. However I think there is enough in the fears expressed by the hon. member to warrant further consideration. It was never intended to arrive at that result. That was not the intention of the section at all. It was assumed that if there were pools in coarse grains in the future they should be operated in the same way as the wheat pool, so far as the division of profits, so-called, are concerned.
That is something in the future; there has not been that kind of pool in the past, nor have there been participation certificates, in the ordinary sense, in dealing in coarse grains.-
The hon. member is visualizing a situation which does not exist at all, and is expressing a fear that possibly the section prevents our doing something which he thinks might possibly be desirable in the future.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is why I said earlier that I thought we should know the government's policy as regards coarse grains. We do not know what its policy will be with regard to coarse grains, and that is why we are not prepared to let this section pass in its present form. Either provision should be made for the pooling of coarse grains, if that is to be the government's intention under the bill or some other provision should be made. That is why we thought we should be told the government's policy with respect to coarse grains, so that we might know exactly what this section means.


Mr. ARGUE:: I should like to ask a
hypothetical question. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said that the board would likely be providing an alternative marketing method for coarse grains. Supposing for the 1947 crop the board bought from the farmers

Canadian Wheat Board Act
10,000,000 bushels of barley and made ten cents a bushel on it, or SI million; what would be the general method of distributing that money?


Percy Ellis Wright: We have had no assurance from the government until today, as I understand it, that there would be further payment on coarse grains for last year, if a profit were made. We do not know what the government's policy with regard to coarse grains is to be in 1947. If it is to be what it is today, with the ceiling and floor prices remaining as they are, and if the government sells large quantities of coarse grain into the export market at the export price, and farmers receive only the payments on certificates that they are receiving today, namely, ten cents on oats and fifteen cents on barley, large sums of money will be accruing to the government as a result of these sales of coarse grains. We want to know whether the farmers are to get it or whether it is to be paid into consolidated revenue fund. Under this provision it could be paid into the fund.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If a pool were operated on the same basis as the pool in wheat, that would never do. That was never contemplated.


Percy Ellis Wright: It is possible under the section as it stands.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think we shall have to look at that part of the section to see whether it does prevent a pool being set up. It might be desirable in the future some time, but it has not happened in the past.


Percy Ellis Wright: I do not think it is the intention of the government to take the profits made out of coarse grains and put them into the consolidated revenue fund. It would be foolish of the government to consider doing that. I think we should know definitely what this section covers before we pass it, and I would suggest that it stand.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Might we have that part of it stand?


Joseph William Burton: Further down on the page is a subsection dealing with investments and I should like to make a few remarks on that. We realize that if the government are determined to have the long-term pool they are setting up here they will need to have some means of investing the money they will have on hand. At the same time I think the government should know' that this is one part of the bill about which the majority of the farmers of western Canada are somewhat hesitant. This board will have in its possession for a considerable length of time large amounts of money wdiich really belong to the farmer. There was a long period prior to the so-called
wartime prosperity; we are entering a period about which many of us are not too optimistic and there would be a considerable amount of money tied up in this fund.
I realize that I may be on the borderline of discussing detail and principle, but I cannot let this section pass without suggesting to the minister that he and his colleagues should give serious consideration to adopting another principle, that the farmer should be entitled to parity prices for his products, and have the participation certificates bring those prices up in one way or another. The government is going to operate a five-year pool and the greater part of that time is before us. Funds will accumulate, and I just want to warn the government that it is going to be difficult to sell the farmers on this idea.


Percy Ellis Wright: I W'ould support w'hat the hon. member for Humboldt has said. During the next year or tw'o there will be millions of dollars available for investment. No doubt that money will be invested in dominion government securities, but does the board intend to invest that money in securities which are guaranteed against loss, or will it be invested in securities on which losses may be sustained? There is a government security being issued now which is 100 per cent guaranteed.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That w'ould not be eligible for this type of investment. Canada savings bonds are limited to individuals, with a maximum investment of S2,000.


Percy Ellis Wright: The producers should bs guaranteed against loss on the investment of their funds. Government bonds are above par and they may stay above par, but in case of serious world conditions and deflation it is quite possible that those bonds would drop considerably below par. This money belong? to the growers; the government is just holding it in trust and there should be no risk involved.


James Lorimer Ilsley: This is a trust fund and the trustees could buy certain securities. While there is some chance of profit and some chance of loss, he is protected if there is a loss and of course he accounts for the profit. To do it another way would mean the creating of a new type of security with no chance of appreciation and no chance of depreciation.


Percy Ellis Wright: And with a nominal rate of interest.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That would require some special legislation, although there may be some power to do it under order in council. I do not know whether this proposal would meet with the approval of the members of the house, or whether it would be agreeable to

Canadian Wheat Board Act

the government. I do not think anyone has thought of creating a new type of security for these moneys and fixing an appropriate rate of interest. Is that what the hon. member is suggesting?


Percy Ellis Wright: That is what I am suggesting. Large sums of money are involved and, since this is really a deferred payment, the growers should not have to take any risk. I think the government would be well advised to give consideration to the proposal the minister has outlined. I think that would be more satisfactory to the producers than the present arrangement. The present arrangement may be all right, but I think the producers would be better satisfied with the minister's suggestion.


James Lorimer Ilsley: An appropriate rate of
interest for a short-term loan to the government would be pretty low if it were based on ordinary principles.


Percy Ellis Wright: I do not think the producers would be worried so much about the rate of interest; they are more worried about the security. I can assure the government that, if the bonds in which this money was invested should go down, they will leave themselves open to a tremendous amount of criticism from the producers. For their own protection I think they would be well advised to do as the minister has suggested.


Joseph William Burton: Further in that connection, no doubt the board must have considerable advances, in one way or another, in handling the year's business, and I should like to know what rate of interest the board has paid for the use of the money so advanced during past years. If you have a considerable sum of money tied up in securities for a considerable time, in the first place you may cause the producers to pay interest on money borrowed for the current year's operations; then at the end of the period of time, when your pool is being settled up, you may find it necessary to dispose of the securities in which you have invested your money at a loss. Then the producer is paying from both ends. As a result, it is all the more necessary, as mentioned by the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Melfort, that the producers should at least have an assurance that there will be no loss on the securities. Otherwise it will be very difficult to put this over with the farmers.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is any question being asked?


Joseph William Burton: How much does the board require in the line of credit during the course of a year to finance its operations, and what interest does it pay on that money?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The amounts vary with the size of the crop, the rate at which the producers deliver the crop, and the rate at which it is sold. The interest paid is three per cent.


Victor Quelch: To get over the difficulty of finding a safe investment for this money, why should the government not pay that money to those entitled to it at the end of two or three years? I am not suggesting that the government should pay out the surplus every year, but I do not understand why they should not pay out the money at the end of two or three years, let us say. As the Minister of Agriculture pointed out the other daj% we are about three years behind now. Why should not payment be made at the end of three years instead of waiting for the five-year period? In that way you -would overcome some of your difficulty in finding a safe investment for this money.


Percy Ellis Wright: Of course that would
involve a change in the government's policy with regard to the payment of participation certificates. Whether or not they are prepared to do that, I do not know.


Victor Quelch: That is what I am asking.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is it suggested that we pay out some of this money before we know how we are coming out on the pool?


Victor Quelch: Before the end of the five-year period.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Who knows whether we will break even until we are near the end of the five-year period, at any rate?


Victor Quelch: On the other hand, the farmers know very well that today they are suffering a loss of fifty or seventy-five cents a bushel under the agreement with Great Britain. Surely the government should be prepared to take some risk of a loss, in view of the fact that they are asking the farmers to stand that loss today.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know whether I should get into this controversy too deeply, because no doubt this matter has been debated a great deal. The principles of this contract are, I think, these; for the protection of floors throughout the later years of the contract, the part of the contract beyond the period we can foresee; for the protection of the United Kingdom government's agreement to have regard to the fact that in the early years of the contract less than world market prices were paid; in return for the protection of those two factors the farmer is accepting less in the earlier year or years of

Canadian Wheat Board Act
the contract than the world market price. Arguments can be advanced both ways as to whether that is a paying bargain for the government to make on behalf of the farmers, but at least the farmers get the advantage of a considerable degree of stability, and I believe a good many consider it less speculative from the viewpoint of the farmer than if he were to take all he could get at the moment with the chance of getting very little during the latter part of the contract.
Then it has been very fairly said by the hon. member for Melfort, who spoke the other night, that he does not think this plan should be set up on a basis of loss to the government or, I should think, of any substantial risk of loss to the government. The view has been expressed that a policy which is put on the basis of the taxpayers' contribution to the wheat grower is not a good policy. The government therefore must make a payment low enough to obviate the danger of any substantia! risk of loss, and therefore it should not make a payment out of this pool too early in the course of the pool and run the risk of loss later on. I do not know the answer to that. The hon. member for Acadia says the farmer is taking less for his wheat nowT than he could get if there were no contract and that therefore the government should take some risk of loss. But the farmer is taking less than he could get for his wheat at the present time because he is assured of a certainty in the latter part of the period. I do not believe that imposes any obligation upon the taxpayers of Canada, through the government, to take any substantial risk of loss by a premature payment out of the pool.


Victor Quelch: I am merely suggesting that probably at the end of three years the board will have accumulated a fairly large sum of money. We have a guarantee that a certain amount will be received in the last two years. By the end of three years we should have some idea as to the position, and it should be possible then to make a payment. I am not suggesting that the total amount of money on hand should be paid out, but by the end of three years you should be in a safe position to make a payment.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, w'e shall see about that. Perhaps that might be the case, and there might have to be new legislation or something of the kind which would be justified under those conditions. But of course a great many factors would have to be taken into account. For instance, if you had an enormous crop the last year at frightfully low
prices, that would upset your calculations tremendously, as the hon. gentleman can understand.


Victor Quelch: Perhaps the minister would go a step farther. He said that we might have a tremendous crop in the last year, and in that case no doubt the elevators would be plugged. Would the Minister of Trade and Commerce still propose to accept for delivery, in that case, the grain that could not be taken by the elevators by July 31, 1950?


James Angus MacKinnon: According to the statement I made, we propose to take all the wheat for which we can find space. We will take all the wheat produced to the extent of the available elevator capacity.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: What is to be the determining factor?


James Angus MacKinnon: We come to that later. It comes under another section.


James Lorimer Ilsley: As I understand it, we are on section 3 of the bill, and I understood that section 5 of the act, subsections 2 and 3 stood. Is that right?
We are now on 5A (1)?


William Henry Golding: Yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is that carried?


James Arthur Ross: I wish to ask a
question before it carries. Subsection 5 of this section, which is found on page 5 of the bill, reads:
The board shall make all purchases and sales of securities authorized by this section through the agency of the Bank of Canada.
There will be no commissions paid on these securities? They will not be purchased through a broker or agent?


James Angus MacKinnon: No.


Percy Ellis Wright: I should like to refer to
subsection 5 of section 3 which refers to the accounts of the board. The hon. member for Souris read from the records of the agriculture committee dealing with the reports of the board which had been tabled and placed before that committee. When the minister was replying he also read from the findings of the agriculture committee on the reports of the board which had been submitted to it. One of the clauses which he read stated that the agriculture committee had commended the government for having had the annual statements placed each year before the agriculture committee. Immediately we commended the government for that action, they stopped submitting reports of the board to the committee.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


James Angus MacKinnon: Not for that reason.


Percy Ellis Wright: Probably not for that
reason, but we have not had one since. I do not think they should use the reason which was suggested, namely, that we were so busy that the agriculture committee could not be set up by the government, if the government had seen fit to do so. The reports of the board could have been dealt with each year. I wish to say as strongly as I can that I think that should be done. We should not allow the board's reports to get behind two or three years. Such an action does not give the committee a fair chance to deal with them in a manner in which they could be dealt with. I may say that it does not need to come under this section but in a later section of the bill which provides for reports of the board being tabled. In that particular section, provision should be made which will make it mandatory on the government to submit the board's reports to some committee of the house, either the agriculture committee, the public accounts committee or some special committee, and it should be done annually.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Have we disposed of section 5B under section 3?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


Calvert Charlton Miller: That is what I understood
the hon. member for Melfort was dealing with.


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes, it is in that section.


Calvert Charlton Miller: I am in accord with that,
and I believe other hon. members of this group agree with me. We believe that something should be written into section 5B perhaps paragraph (b), to make it compulsory that these reports, when laid upon the table of the house, be referred to the agriculture and colonization committee or some other committee. The suggestion made by the hon. member for Melfort was a good one, and 1 concur in it.


Percy Ellis Wright: I had not noticed that it came under this section; I thought it came under a later section. Section 5B (2) is the section which deals with this. It reads:
The minister shall lay a copy of each report of the board made under paragraph (e) of subsection 1 of this section before parliament within fifteen days after the receipt thereof by him if parliament is then sitting . . .
There should be an amendment to this subsection stating that the report should be submitted annually to some committee of the house, I would suggest to the agriculture committee.


William Henry Golding: Order. The hon. member suggested that what he had in mind might come under some other section, and we carried this section.


Percy Ellis Wright: It was my mistake. I did not realize that it actually came under this section.


William Henry Golding: Section 5 (2) under section 3 of the bill is carried. We are now dealing with section 5 (3).


Percy Ellis Wright: Section 5B (2) on page 5 of the bill is the one which I should like to see amended, so that the report would go annually before a committee of the house.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think I am correct in saying that there is no such provision in any legislation relating to the Canadian National Railways, and yet every year a committee is set up and the report of the railway is referred to that committee. The House of Commons does that itself each year. We are quite willing as a government to give assurance that we shall facilitate similar procedure here and refer it each year; but we do not wish to introduce into the House of Commons legislation by which this parliament tells another parliament or another House of Commons what to do. The report will be on the table and they can do exactly wThat they wish about the report. They have as much right to deal with that report as we have. So long as we say as a government that, so far as we are concerned, we shall move that the report be referred to the agriculture committee, which we are quite prepared to do each year, to facilitate its consideration in every way possible, and put in here that it must be laid on the table, that should be sufficient. I think we have to trust future Houses of Commons to refer it to the committee, if they wish to do so.


Percy Ellis Wright: I have not the exact reference here, but I am certain that I asked in 1&45 that the report be placed before the agriculture committee. The present government were in power and they did not do so.


Calvert Charlton Miller: If the minister gives the assurance he suggests we of this group would be content with that assurance.


James Angus MacKinnon: The assurance the hon. member asks for is that the report of the Canadian wheat board be tabled annually as early as possible and that it be referred to the agriculture and colonization committee. We give that assurance.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Calvert Charlton Miller: The minister will have that done if the government happens to be in power.


James Angus MacKinnon: That is right.


James Arthur Ross: There is one point that the Minister of Justice can clear up for me. Is it a fact that any member of a standing committee of the house can ask that it be called?


James Garfield Gardiner: Any hon. member can move to have it called.


James Arthur Ross: That does not necessarily mean that it wall be called.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is in the hands of the house.


Angus MacInnis: I agree with the position taken by the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but I am surprised at the lack of faith of the hon. gentlemen to my right when they ask that this government give assurance that they will see that the report does come before parliament when it is laid on the table. Suppose this government is not in office-and I presume that is what hon. members to my right hope- what is the value of the assurance which the ministers give?
Section 3 stands.
On section 4-Governor in council to direct the board.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Subsection 4 of this bill repeals sections 7 and 8 of the old act and implements a new section 7 under which the governor in council is given certain powers to direct the board as to the manner in which any of its operations, powers and duties under this act shall be conducted, exercised or performed. I suppose a certain amount of power is handed to the governor in council in most of these eases, but subsection 2 states:
Except as directed by the governor in council, the board shall not buy grain, other than wheat.
It seems to me that this subsection defeats to a large extent the purpose of the bill. If the purpose of the bill is to arrange for orderly marketing, or compulsory marketing, of you wish to use that term, but I say organized marketing-


Mr. MUTCH:: It does not say that.


George Hugh Castleden: I think it is generally understood that the purpose of this bill is to establish orderly marketing.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I cannot agree with the hon. member.


George Hugh Castleden: The hon. member may have his own opinion.
This section leaves the handling of coarse grains, rye and flax seed by the board entirely as a matter of discretion with the governor in council. We are opposed to the excepting of these grains from the operation of the act and we object to the way in which it is done here. We think parliament should decide whether or not the board should handle coarse grains and grains other than wheat. If the principle of orderly marketing is accepted, and we are putting a bill through to arrange for that; if it is accepted as a principle in the handling of wheat, why should it not be equally valuable in the handling of coarse grains and rye and flax? If it is good for one it should apply to the other.
So far as our long-term agreements and contracts with other countries are concerned, if we are to have the policy of long-term agreements, under which alone we can have security for the farmer, then the organized marketing of grain will become essential ; and if we are to have long-term agreements with regard to deliveries of meat, bacon, hogs, cattle and beef, then for the same reason we shall have to have orderly marketing of coarse grains. The two things are closely linked together and, if the grain exchange system of handling grains lies in the balance, subject to the whims of order in council, the whims of the government, it is not a healthy condition either for the government or for the board of grain commissioners or for the wheat board.
If we are to make a job of trying out this method that is proposed, why not make a good job of it? If it is a measure we are to try for a few years, it is only right that powers for the handling of other grains should be included in the act.
I am sure that would have the support of hon. members to my right, because if they will look at section 14 of the original act they wili find that it reads:
The governor in council may approve of the provisions of this act being made applicable to oats, barley, rye or flax produced in the provinces of Manitoba. Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, if the board recommends that such approval be given, whereupon the provisions of this act shall mutaiis mutandis apply to such kind of grain as they apply to wheat.
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. McKay):
That subsection 2 of section 7 under section 4 of this bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
The provisions of this act shall be made applicable to oats, barley, rye and flax, and shall, mutatis mutandis apply to such kind of grain as they apply to wheat.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


James Arthur Ross: I think the minister should give an explanation of these two sections 7 and 8 under section 4 of the bill. I am bound to say that, without further information, I am rather opposed to this section because it gives altogether too much power to the government by order in council. Today our producers have no idea how their coarse grains may be handled during this coming crop year, and with that power there they may plant their grain and by order in council the price can be set, or they may have to market the grain for next to nothing at all. There is no provision there by statute, and at this date, so long after the termination of the war, it is a very bad piece of legislation. I hope the minister will give a further explanation as to why these sections are inserted. We should have that explanation before discussing the amendment.


Mr. McKAY:: With reference to this section, I suggest that if the handling of wheat is sound and acceptable generally to the farmers it is proper for the board to have authority from this house to handle all grains, including coarse grains such as rye, oats and barley, together with flax. This should be written into the act and that is the purpose of the amendment. If there are serious objections to the speculative handling of wheat, the same objections should hold with regard to the speculative handling of coarse grains and flax. I submit that it is essential to the economic well-being of producers of coarse grains that these grains be included in the operations of the board in order that a sound price relationship be established between the price of wheat and prices of coarse grains and flax. If a proper price relationship had existed between the prices of barley and wheat, it would not, in my opinion, be necessary to suggest that a bonus be paid in order to have increased production of barley.
There is still an improper relationship between the price of wheat and the price of rye. Trading in rye is being permitted on the exchange, and the amount of rye on paper last fall far outstripped the actual quantity of rye in existence for marketing purposes. Speculation was rife; the price of rye reaching heights which threw it out of all balance with wheat. The changing price relationship between wheat and rye is best illustrated by a study of the bulletin issued by the Department of Agriculture, statistics branch, in Saskatchewan. They show that in 1935 the price paid in Saskatchewan for wheat was sixty cents a bushel and for rye, twenty-five cents, whereas in 1946 the situation was reversed, wheat selling at SI.14 a bushel and rye at SI.96.

Either the price relationship in 1935 was wrong, or the relationship in 1946 was definitely out of balance. I suggest that the relationship in 1946 was definitely out of balance in comparison with that of 1935. It is not a sound price relationship, and in order to avoid such a situation being perpetuated, coarse grains and flax should be definitely included with wheat in the operations of the board. Therefore I support the amendment.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to say a word with regard to the amendment that has been moved, and what I am going to say, I say as a result of considerable discussion with those who are interested. There is one member who I am sorry is not here because he has been more closely associated with those who have been dealing with the matter recently than most other members of the house. I refer to the hon. member for Swift Current. If the question involved is to be dealt with at all, I do not think it can be considered on as broad a basis as suggested by the hon. member for Yorkton.
The amendment, as I understand it, is intended to make this act apply to oats and barley and other grains in exactly the same way as it is now made to apply to wheat. I am quite certain that neither the farm organization nor the farmers generally would want the act to go quite that far, either those who agree with the government or those who disagree with the government. Wheat, as we grow it in w'estern Canada, is grown intentionally for the purpose of feeding human beings and is not utilized to any great extent by farmers as a feed, unless we grow a lower quality of it than we expect to, we intend to sell it largely outside the area in which it is grown. Therefore we set down a certain method of marketing it. Oats and barley, on the other hand-although this is not so true of rye-are grains which are grown largely for the purpose of feeding them on the farms where they are growm or of selling them from one farmer to another, or from one feeder to another within the area in which they are grown, which raises altogether different questions with regard to the marketing of the product.
If it were the desire of the committee to pass a provision such as the one suggested, that is if the committee decided that marketing of coarse grains could not be provided for by order in council, but that we must make this act apply in all ways to oats and barley, the same as it applies to wheat, you would be creating an undesirable situation. I do not think the farmers would want you to say that. Therefore I would suggest that this is not an amend-

Canadian Wheat Board Act
ment that ought to be passed in the words that have been suggested. The whole question would have to be given more consideration than we have given it before the committee should be prepared to accept the suggestion that coarse grains should be marketed in that way.
I have discussed the matter-and I do not think those with whom I have discussed it would object to my saying so-with those who market a considerable part of the grain of western Canada and have been very much interested in this type of legislation. I have never heard any of them suggest that oats and barley ought to be handled, even if the wheat board handles them, in the same manner as wheat is being handled. There would have to be a different system set up in order to have coarse grains handled by the board. What this does provide is that, if the government is convinced that coarse grains should be marketed under the wheat board, they may be so marketed. I may say that they are being marketed under the wheat board to a much greater degree than most of the discussion in this house has indicated; while the wheat board have not been handling coarse grains in just the same way as they have been handling wheat, there has not been very much done in the way of coarse grains in the last three or four years that has not been done pretty much under the control of the wheat board, and that may be the case for some time to come.
Someone passed a remark about participation. There has really been participation payment on oats and barley over the last two or three years made under the direction of the wheat board. The whole position in relation to coarse grains is so different from that in relation to wheat that I do not think you can deal with it by an amendment such as the one suggested. I would hope that the committee would accept the proposals in the bill as being in the best interests of Canada as a whole. We must remember a great deal of this coarse grain is shipped from western Canada to eastern Canada and to simply say that we are dealing only with this particular area which is covered by this bill would not be acceptable to the farmers of Canada. We should have to start all over again in drafting a bill dealing with the question if we are to have oats and barley marketed in anything like the same manner as we are proposing to handle wheat under this bill.


Percy Ellis Wright: I think the minister was setting up straw men and knocking them down. He suggested that, if the amendment
of the hon. member for Yorkton carried, it would prevent local trading in coarse grains within the province.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I did not suggest that.


Percy Ellis Wright: That was the inference I took from it.


James Garfield Gardiner: No. What I am suggesting is that this bill in dealing with wheat applies to a certain designated area and the marketing of wheat from that designated area. You cannot purchase it in other than the designated areas. But it is largely marketed into other countries. As a matter of fact, the bill sets up that anywhere from one-third to one-half of the wheat going to market shall be marketed in Britain. I do not think you can apply that provision to oats and barley. Oats and barley are largely going to be fed in the area where they are grown and what is not fed there will largely be fed in the other parts of Canada. The farmers themselves would want a different method of handling grain for that purpose.


John Bracken: As I understand it, the main purpose of this bill is to take control of the marketing of wheat. Section 7, subsection 2, reads:
Except as directed by the governor in council, the board shall not buy grain, other than wheat.
The amendment which has been proposed would take that out and would leave the board with jurisdiction over those crops. As I understand it, what the government wants, with this amendment in there, is to be given the option of bringing those other crops under administration by the board. I think that is the intent of the legislation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not compulsorily.


John Bracken: No; to be given permission to bring them under the administration of the board.


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


John Bracken: Members of the house and the country generally would like to have from the government, if they can get it, a statement as to what is seen in the future with respect to the taking over of the marketing of oats, barley, rye and flax. The government is now asking for power to take it over if they want to. Will they give us a full and frank statement as to the position they find themselves in, under what circumstances they might want to take it over, and what they might do.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Joseph William Burton: Mr. Chairman, shortly
before six o'clock, while speaking to the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Yorkton, the Minister of Agriculture made reference to the absence of my desk-mate and colleague, the hon. member for Swift Current. I, too, regret his unavoidable absence, but I would remind the minister that there are others of us who have had a considerable amount of experience in connection with farm organizations.
For the past twelve years or so I have not been allowed to be actively connected in an official position with these farm organizations because, as I have often said, in many of those farm organizations we lean over backwards to keep out of politics. It is for that reason I have not been able to take as active a part as I had been used to. I assure the minister, however, that I believe I can still speak from the experience I had during those earlier years.
Incidentally I may add that the years I spent in active participation in the activities of farm organizations were years to which I shall always look back as those spent among people who, whether they spoke English, French, German, Ukrainian or any other language, still spoke the same language because all of us were dealing with problems with which we were all familiar.
Speaking from that experience, and having assisted in the formation of some of the policies and programmes of farm organizations, I can say that throughout the years we have been opposed to speculations entering into the marketing of the products we produce on our farms. So that while the minister has referred to my desk-mate and colleague-and I along with the minister wish he were here tonight-I know that throughout the years when I sat in on the councils of our farm organizataions we laid down the policies, while others went out to inform our membership with respect to those policies.
I hold in my hand the 21st annual report of the Saskatchewan Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited. When the Minister of Agriculture was speaking to the amendment of the hon. member for Yorkton. if I remember correctly he made the statement that no farm organization had taken a definite stand with respect to having coarse grains brought in under the operations of the wheat board, to be handled in the same way as wheat is handled.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was not my statement. But go on with your argument, and I shall clear the matter up later.
 .


Joseph William Burton: If the minister remembers the wording of his statement I should prefer to have him state it now.


James Garfield Gardiner: I hope I was not understood to have said that farm organizations are not in favour of having oats, barley and all other grains marketed under the wheat board. That is their definite view, and I believe they stated it in Winnipeg either yesterday or the day before, when they said that they want coarse grains handled by the wheat board. But my suggestion was that they do not want coarse grains handled by the wheat board in exactly the same way as that board is handling wheat.


Joseph William Burton: That is right, but with this exception, that while sitting here listening to the minister, I believe I was not the on!}' one who gained the impression from what he said that farm organizations had not made a definite statement along that line.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was not attempting to say that, if I did.


Joseph William Burton: Along the lines of what the minister has just said, to the effect that they do not want to have coarse grains handled in identically the same way that wheat is handled by the wheat board, may I draw to his attention that that, I am sure, was not the intention of the hon. member for Yorkton when he moved the amendment. It will be recalled that our various types of grains come under the operations of the Canada Grain Act. We have different set-ups for different kinds of grain, and yet we have oats, barley and rye coming under that act, just as we have wheat, but have different regulations applying to the different kinds of grain.
Before the minister interrupted what I was saying, I was going to draw to his attention what is contained in the directors' report which appears in the 21st annual report of the Saskatchewan Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited. They state this:
For the post-war period your board believes (1) that the Canadian wheat board should continue to function as the sole marketing agency not only for wheat and flax as at present, but also for oats, barley and rye.
I hold in my hand a booklet entitled "U.F.C. Information," the official publication of the United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan section, dated April, 1946. This is one of the resolutions appearing in this publication:
Resolved that until producer organizations are in a position to take control of domestic and export marketing, we request that all grain be brought under the control of the Canadian wheat board, and that the name of said board be

Canadian Wheat Board Act
changed to the Canadian grain board, and that the board will be the sole marketing agency for all commercial grain;
Resolved that we are unalterably opposed to the reopening of any grain exchange in Canada.
Here is another quotation of a still later date from the same U.F.C. publication. This is dated October, 1946. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture is familiar with this, because it is a list of the proposals submitted to the government. Number 10 in the list is as follows:
The immediate abolition of the Winnipeg grain exchange.
I contend that when organized farmers see part of their grain used as a means for manipulative speculation, it has a detrimental effect on production and marketing. Consequently the reason I have risen is to correct any wrong impression which may have gone out from the minister's statement, and to reassure him and members of the committee that farmers want to have their grain marketed under the wheat board, or the grain board, whatever it may be called, without any manipulation from a speculative element.
I assure the minister that that is the view expressed not only in the resolutions and statements to which I have just referred but, from my personal experience, in every letter I get from my constituency in which the grain question is discussed, and in every resolution I receive from local farm organizations. All ask me to do everything I can to make it impossible for speculation again to become rampant in this country. I believe that is the wish of the great majority of producers in western Canada.
While my colleague, the hon. member for Yorkton, has offered an amendment to the section, may I point out that, so far as I am concerned, so long as the principle of that amendment is incorporated in the operations of the wheat board, I fully realize that we must have separate and somewhat different regulations from those pertaining to wheat.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I think the committee as a whole is indebted to the hon. member for Yorkton for moving the amendment he did this afternoon, because it brings into clear focus a question which has been disturbing my mind and, I am quite sure, the minds of many non-socialistic people in the Dominjon of Canada. I am bound to say in complete frankness that I do not like the legislation, but I am realist enough to know I cannot rise in my place and stop it. For a minute or two I intend to deal with the point raised by the amendment and, in fairness to myself, offer the opinion which I hold, and I believe this
to be the opinion of many liberal-minded people in this country, despite the oratory we have heard to the contrary.
The government which is sponsoring this bill has the opportunity to say whether the bill is in point of fact that which it purports to be, an expedient to permit the government to carry out the wheat contract which it has made, or whether it is, as the hon. member for Yorkton has suggested he hopes it is and as he has indicated he believes it to be, a declaration of faith in the socialist conception of marketing.


George Hugh Castleden: I never mentioned the socialist form of marketing.
Mr. MUTCH; I accept the hon. gentleman's correction with the best of grace. Two of them are honest about it, but the majority of the party which he represents never call it socialism. I do not care whether it is proposed by my hon. friend or by those in the government which I support, it is socialism and I do not like it any more on that account.


George Hugh Castleden: It is legislation brought in by your government.
Mr. MUTCH; Yes, and I do not like it any more than if you had brought it in, and for the same reason-it is socialist legislation. A little later on, when the proper section is reached I shall attempt to demonstrate that not only is it socialism in our time, it is socialism for ever. I do not want to be called to order and I shall leave that.
The preamble of the bill states that the purpose of the act is to enable the government to carry out an agreement with the United Kingdom. If that is the purpose, then why has the government provided in the bill the opportunity to take power to include coarse grains? The hon. member for Selkirk and others are against that which they always describe as a gamble, the free marketing of this or any other commodity. Is this in point of fact the beginning of what my hon. friends obviously hope it is, an era of marketing on the socialist principle? I should- like an answer to that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What is the question? Was it whether this is a declaration of faith in socialism, or something?
Mr. MUTCH; I did not ask whether it was a declaration of faith in socialism; I stated that it was a principle of socialism as I see it. I should like some reason advanced for the inclusion of power to control coarse grains. I admit you are not taking that power and I expect that you will perhaps say you do not propose to take it, but I should like to know
Canadian Wheat Board Act

under what conditions you might conceivably take it and in what manner that can be reconciled with the declaration in the preamble that the purpose of the legislation is to carry out the wheat agreement.


James Lorimer Ilsley: 1 do not think the preamble says that that is the sole reason for the legislation. Apart altogether from what the preamble says, it may be desirable to support the coarse grains market as the Canadian wheat board has supported the w-heat market in the past. I hope every hon. member understands by this time that there is no power in this bill to compel anybody to deliver coarse grains to the Canadian wheat board at any time. The statements that have been made to the effect that there is power in this bill to extend the operations of the Canadian wheat board to coarse grains in the same way as it is to cover wheat during the next five years are incorrect. There is no power given to the Canadian wheat board to do anything except to buy coarse grains. There is no power conferred by this bill on the Canadian wheat board to compel anybody at any time to sell coarse grains to the government. That being the case, the suggestion of socialist principles in connection with the coarse grains feature of this bill is pretty far-fetched.
I am not interested in the argument, but it may be argued that when you pass an act by which all wheat going into interprovincial and export trade must be channeled through the Canadian wheat board you are putting the government in business in a very substantial way. People can apply any label they like to that departure, but there is no ground for placing the particular label that has been referred to on the provisions of this bill that deal with coarse grains. It does enable the Canadian wheat board to offer a fixed price, to put a floor under coarse grains; it does enable them to do that.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I had hoped that the information given would clarify the point as to whether there was that power in this legislation, power to take the exclusive purchase of coarse grains. I understand that that is not the case.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is not so and the
purpose of the amendment, as I understand it, is to put it there.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: That is the answer I hoped to get.


James Arthur Ross: I still am not clear
about this matter. As this section is drawn, it leaves it wide open for the government to take that power by order in council.


James Lorimer Ilsley: To take what power?


James Arthur Ross: The power to handle coarse grains.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That was the cause of the interchange between the leader of the opposition and myself just before six o'clock. I thought he had the idea in his mind that the governor in council was taking power to compel every producer of coarse grains in Canada to sell his coarse grains through the wheat board for the purpose of interprovincial and export trade. We are not talcing that power. That is not contained anywhere in the bill.


James Arthur Ross: I listened closely to what the Minister of Agriculture said before the dinner recess. I think he might have told us much more than he did. I appreciate that this bill is brought forth to provide for the carrying out of the wheat agreement with Great Britain, but we must not forget that we have other commitments with Great Britain and I am thinking mainly of the bacon agreement. That bacon agreement can be carried out only if some provision is made in connection with certain feed grains. That is not provided for in this bill. I do not want to prophesy or anything of that sort, but I think the Minister of Agriculture has something definite in his mind. It may not be according to the procedure of the committee, but if he would tell us what he has in mind it would be most helpful.
Provision must be made somehow for the production and sale of these coarse grains if we are to carry out to some degree that bacon contract. In the face of that, and because of the confusion that now exists in the minds of some of us in connection with these two clauses, I am going to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he will let them stand for the time being until we get more information.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What are the grounds for asking that they stand? There is no confusion in anybody's mind except in the minds of a few members of the opposition. We are not taking the power to have a monopoly on coarse grains.


James Arthur Ross: Will the Minister of Justice tell me what power they are taking? Subsection 2 of the new section 7 reads:
Except as directed by the governor in council, the board shall not buy grain, other than wheat.
Except by order in council.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


James Arthur Ross: Does it not say that by order in council you may purchase these grains?

Canadian Wheat Board Act


James Lorimer Ilsley: Exactly. This whole bill envisages the possibility that there may be an order in council authorizing the Canadian wheat board to buy coarse grains, but never compelling the delivery of grain, other than wheat, to the Canadian wheat board. In wheat, be it understood, the purpose of this legislation is that all wheat going into interprovincial and export markets must be channeled through the Canadian wheat board, but with regard to coarse grains no such power is contemplated or authorized by this bill. The only thing that can be done with regard to coarse grains under this bill is that the Canadian wheat board may be authorized by the governor in council to purchase coarse grains.


James Arthur Ross: Would the Minister of Agriculture care to say anything further which might enlighten us in this connection? I know he has something further in mind in order to carry out other agreements, and while it might not be in order under the procedure we are following, it would be helpful because these things are all tied together.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have been looking for an opportunity to say something without being out of order in doing so. All I can say at the moment is that I think it is quite proper for us to take the position that, before we can say anything more with regard to coarse grains or other farm products, as at least a matter of courtesy we ought to hear the Canadian Federation of Agriculture tomorrow. Before they held their annual meeting in Winnipeg they asked for a date when they might meet the government to present their views on the question of coarse grains and other farm products. No day could be set earlier than February 28, which is tomorrow, for the federation to meet the government. Tomorrow they are coming to present their case. After they have done so and we have heard their argument, we shall announce the policy in relation to feed grains, just as soon as we can have it evolved as a result of hearing what they have to say. But tonight I would hesitate even to forecast what might be the result of that consideration and those discussions tomorrow.


James Arthur Ross: That might be a good reason for letting this section stand. I do not believe we can complete this bill tonight.


James Garfield Gardiner: I hardly believe this would affect it.


William Henry Golding: In view of the discussion that has taken place, I wonder if the hon. member would care to withdraw his amendment?


George Hugh Castleden: That is about the last thing I would do. It is my intention to carry on.


Percy Ellis Wright: I should like to say a few words on the amendment. The hon. member for Winnipeg South should have accepted the invitation extended to members of this house to sit in and listen to the discussions taking place at the meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at the Chateau Laurier yesterday, with regard to the marketing of farm products. If he had done so he might have had a different point of view from that which he seems to have today. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture by no means can be called a socialistic organization; yet in their discussions yesterday not one man raised any objection to the controlled marketing of farm products, and when I say "controlled marketing" I mean compulsory marketing, where over fifty per cent, or a given percentage of the producers of the agricultural product in question want it marketed by a board. As the minister has stated, they are going to present a brief to the government with respect to the orderly marketing of farm products, and I expect coarse grains will be included. After listening to the discussions yesterday, I shall be very much surprised if they do not recommend that the government take over the marketing of all coarse grains, if not under this act, then under similar legislation.
Just before the dinner recess, the Minister of Agriculture was building up straw men and knocking them down, as to what the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yorkton might do with regard to the marketing of coarse grains within a province. The wheat board does not interfere with the marketing, within a province, of wheat for seed or feed. That can be carried on quite freely, and the same would apply to coarse grains. I suggest, too, that the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Justice should get together, because we have had from them two quite different statements. Before the dinner recess, the Minister of Agriculture stated1 that coarse grain marketing in this country was controlled by the wheat board to a far greater extent than many hon. members seemed to realize. Then after the dinner recess, the Minister of Justice said that it was not proposed to control the marketing of coarse grains to the extent that the marketing of wheat is controlled.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is no contradiction whatever.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Percy Ellis Wright: There may not be, but at least the impression of a contradiction was left in my mind. I am quite sure that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yorkton would meet with the approval of the great majority of the farmers in the designated areas under this bill. As the hon. member for Humboldt stated, their organizations have persistently and consistently, over the last number of years, asked that coarse grains should be controlled and marketed in a manner similar to that under which wheat is marketed by the wheat board. No one says that this should be done in exactly the same way; the amendment moved does not suggest that. Special circumstances that might arise in connection with the marketing of those grains could be dealt with by regulation. I am quite sure it could be done. Therefore we do not intend to withdraw this amendment. We believe it is the right thing to do, and we intend to see that a vote is taken on it.


James Garfield Gardiner: The leader of the opposition asked a question earlier in the day, or asked a question yesterday which was answered today. He put the direct question to the Minister of Justice as to whether we had consulted the legal authorities and what their opinion was as to whether this legislation was intra vires. This afternoon the Minister of Justice read the reply, to the effect that the government considered the legislation intra vires or it would not have been introduced in the house. This question is involved in the advice which was received, and I am sure anyone who is an authority on the question will agree that if we were to attempt to force the handling of coarse grains, as they are and must be marketed in Canada, to be under the same terms that we have provided for wheat in this bill, we would be endangering the whole measure, not only as it relates to coarse grains, but as it relates to wheat and everything else in it. I think everyone would agree to that.
As a matter of fact quite accidentally I had an opportunity, since speaking here this afternoon, to talk with those who are in authority in connection with the farm movement in western Canada. That came about because they called me, not because I called them. I want to repeat what I said before the dinner recc-ss, that I have discussed this question with representatives of the organizations in western Canada on many occasions, and on no occasion have they ever maintained that coarse grains held the same relationship to the authority of this house in dealing with legislation of this kind as does wheat. And while they have passed resolution after resolution-and passed a resolution no later than 
this week-asking this government to try to find some way to have all grains placed under the wheat board, they realize, as everyone who has made a study of this question does, that there is a difference.
We have had that difference indicated in many other farm products. I do not object at all to the hon. member for Melfort, or any other hon. member, who believes in the idea of having coarse grains handled exactly as wheat is handled, presenting his point of view to the committee; but I am afraid that before the committee would be in a position to put coarse grains, as they must be marketed in Canada, in exactly the same position as wheat, under the wheat board, it would be necessary for us to have an amendment to the constitution. I am not saying that we should not have such an amendment; probably we should, but up to the present we do not have it; and, not having it, I am afraid that if we were to introduce into this legislation the suggestion that is made in the amendment we would be endangering the legislation as a whole.
There may be some hon. members who would say that that is the quickest way to get rid of the whole thing, but I hope that is not the position taken by those who want this type of marketing to have a fair trial. If the committee wishes to take a vote on the legislation as it is I would suggest that hon. members take that into consideration when they are voting.
The appeal that I made before the dinner recess was not to ask the hon. member for Yorkton to refrain from moving his amendment; the appeal I made to him was to check the amendment which I have not before me but which I understand meant what I thought it meant. The amendment has now been placed in my hands and it reads as follows:
Moved by Mr. Castleden, seconded by Mr. McKay, that subsection 2 of section 7 of this bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:	"The provisions of this act shall be
made applicable to oats, barley, rye and flax, and mutatis mutandis apply to such kind of grain as they apply to wheat.
As I said before the dinner recess, this amendment has as its objective that all grains be handled under the wheat board in the same way that we have suggested in this bill wheat should be handled. I submit again that to do that would place the legislation in danger of being declared ultra vires. To carry out the idea that the hon. member for Yorkton has in mind, I think it would be much better to leave the bill in its present form. There is nothing in the bill as it now stands to prevent farm organizations from coming and saying that oats and barley should be brought

___________ Canadian Wheat Board Act
under the wheat board, not by compulsion, but by the board saying that they are prepared to pay more for oats and barley than anyone else is prepared to pay under the conditions which exist, and thereby get control of oats and barley in order to utilize it for any purpose such as a greater production of hogs or anything else that we may have in mind. There is nothing in the bill as it now stands to prevent that from being done; there is nothing in the bill to prevent farm organizations from asking us to do that and insisting on our doing that, but I do wish to say-


Joseph William Burton: The minister says that there is nothing in the bill to prevent certain things from happening. Under the terms of the bill, there is nothing to prevent the minister by order in council from authorizing the purchase of some of these commodities on the Winnipeg grain exchange.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sure that the hon. member for Humboldt will agree with me when I say that if we wanted to make it absolutely certain that we would have no authority to do it we would not put it in the bill at all. That is all we would need to have done to place our position before the committee as being that of not desiring to have anything whatever to do with the marketing of oats and barley. We could have left this provision entirely out of the bill, but we have placed in the bill a provision which does empower the government to handle oats and barley and any other grain if they desire to do so. I think that is as far as the committee should ask us to go at this time. We shall have experience with this legislation and we may have occasion to do certain things with the constitution as we go along, but for the time being, because of the constitution as it is, and because of the representations which have been made to us at the present time, we are going in this bill as far as we can be expected to go.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: I wish to reply to some of the remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture with regard to the constitutional question. When I listened to the Minister of Justice this afternoon explaining his position and the position of the government on the constitutional question I wholly agreed with him. I believe the government is absolutely within its rights in having this bill passed. The board is incorporated with the object of marketing in an orderly manner, in interprovincial and export trade, grain grown in Canada. According to the definition of the bill, "grain" means oats, barley, rye, flax and flaxseed. If the contention of the Minister of Agriculture is right and if we try to buy and 83166-55
sell coarse grains under this legislation it would be ultra vires. It is ultra vires already and what the minister told us this afternoon is not so, if the Minister of Agriculture is right, although I am of the opinion that the Minister of Justice's interpretation of the law which he gave this afternoon is correct. I cannot see in the bill anything which would make it unconstitutional if the amendment were adopted.
Subsection 2 of the proposed section 7 makes it optional for the governor in council to deal in grains other than wheat. All that the motion of the hon. member for Yorkton does is to make it compulsory, so to speak, if you wish to use that word. So far as the constitutional question is concerned, I cannot see anything in the explanation of the Minister of Agriculture.


George Hugh Castleden: So far as this group
is concerned, the last thing we would wish to do would be to jeopardize in any possible way the bill in relation to its handling of wheat. Just as quickly as the government can show us how it is affected constitutionally, and under what grounds, we shall have to come to terms; but I should like to point out to the Minister of Justice that there must have been some change in the constitution since 1935. I should like to refer him to section 14 of the original act which was passed in 1934 and which reads as follows:
The governor in council may approve of the provisions of this act being made applicable to oats, barley, rye or flax produced in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, if the board recommends that such approval be given, whereupon the provisions of this act shall mutatis mutandis apply to such kind of grain as they apply to wheat.
The wording is almost identical with the amendment now before the committee.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My hon. friend must surely
see that the act was a voluntary act. That was an act under which the government were not compelling anybody to sell anything to them. They were offering to buy wheat, and they were then providing that they might offer to buy coarse grains as well. But now we are doing a new type of thing in the legislation which is before the committee. In fact we are endeavouring to enact provisions under which the wheat which is produced in this designated area, if it goes into interprovincial and export trade, must go through the Canadian wheat board. That is a matter of compulsion, and we have to be sure of the constitutionality of such a move. For the reasons which I gave this afternoon, wheat being mainly an export commodity, largely an export commodity, pre-

Canadian Wheat Board Act

dominantly an export commodity, we think we keep within the confines of our constitutional powers when we deal with wheat. But the law officers tell me that the situation would be much more doubtful when you are dealing with commodities which are predominantly sold in Canada. Take a commodity three-quarters of which is sold in Canada or within the provinces-where will you stop your operations in that case?


Percy Ellis Wright: When it reaches the point where it goes outside the province.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Will your operations be
effective if you deal with a quarter of the commodity in that way, and what quarter will you deal with?


Percy Ellis Wright: You will deal with more
than a quarter of the coarse grains in western Canada. I think you will find that a larger percentage than a quarter goes into trade other than within the province. I do not know what the figures are, but the amendment offered by the hon. member for Yorkton deals with coarse grains the same as wheat and in the bill you deal only with wheat that is used between the provinces or for export. His amendment would simply mean that the coarse grains which were sold extra-provincially or outside Canada for export would come under the act the same as wheat. I have never yet seen in the constitution anything that declared that, so far as the dominion government is concerned, it is unconstitutional for it to handle a product of which seventy five per cent remains in the province and twenty-five per cent goes out. No percentages are mentioned in the British North America Act which would make it either constitutional or unconstitutional for the product to be handled on the basis of the amount that goes into export or the amount that remains in the province, and I cannot see how it will affect the constitutionality of the act. I can see how it might affect the effectiveness of handling coarse grains if too small a percentage were controlled by the board, but in the case of grains from designated areas, there is I believe a sufficient amount of these going into the trade outside the provinces to justify their being placed under the act.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am afraid I cannot argue the point very well. All I can say is, I am told that the constitutional objections in the case of commodities which are not mainly export commodities, largely export commodities or commodities moving into interprovincial trade, are very much more serious than in the case of wheat. There are, I am told, cases in con-

nection with wheat as mainly export trade. But you cannot be too mathematical about the matter, because the courts will look at the real pith and substance of what you are trying to do, and if you try to reach out and control that which is essentially a domestic commodity, or a commodity a large proportion of the transactions of which are in the province, you are getting outside your field. That is what I am told. I am sorry I cannot make a better or more convincing argument on it but that is my information. Apart altogether from that, however, I may say that personally I doubt whether it would be wise to do it, though that is for other people than myself to say.


Calvert Charlton Miller: It seems to me, from the statements we have had from two ministers-


An hon. MEMBER:: Three ministers.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Two anyway. From the statements we have had from them, it seems that no one knows whether we are in the barley business or the coarse grain business or whether we shall ever be, and that is why the members of this party, myself in particular, would like to have a statement from the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I suggest that he take tonight to think it over so that he can tell us tomorrow what the government will do with barley, what they can do with it, what they intend to do with it, or whether they are going to do anything at all with it. They say it is unconstitutional. It may be, but the department, through the regulations, has been handling coarse grains to a large extent and is doing so at the present time.


James Garfield Gardiner: Under the War Measures Act.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Under the War Measures Act and under the regulations passed by virtue of that act. They have been doing it, and the objection to putting in the act an authority such as this which is asked for in section 7, subsection 2, so far as I can make out, is this. We do not know what system is to be followed in handling it. The Minister of Justice says they are taking authority to buy, but if you take authority to buy you must intend to sell. We do not know and we have no way of finding out. From any of the statements made up to date we have not been able to get any light on the subject. If you take over barley, how will you do it? Will you give participation certificates, or what will you do? Before we are asked to give the power to handle coarse grains, the committee should be told what the government have in mind. If they have nothing in mind, then leave it out and change the definition of "grain". But surely, when they cannot tell us what they are

Canadian Wheat Board Act
going to do, when they do not know what powers they have to do it, they cannot ask us to give them the power to do something in such a nebulous form, and by order in council. That is one of the objections I have.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would judge from what has just been said that the hon. member is not in favour of the amendment. That is what is before the committee. Is he in favour of it or not?


Calvert Charlton Miller: I am not prepared to say at the moment, because apparently three ministers who should know more than I do-and I am a new member-cannot make up their minds what they will do.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not correct. Three ministers have definitely stated that they are against it.


Calvert Charlton Miller: What we should like to know from the Minister of Trade and Commerce is his intended plan of handling barley and coarse-grains if he does handle them. Surely to goodness he can tell us that, and if he cannot tell us tonight, then we suggest that the amendment stand and that consideration of the amendment moved by the member for York-ton should also stand, and tomorrow the minister can tell us where the government stands.
Mr. MaeINNIS: If this amendment comes to a vote I shall have to vote on it. Consequently I should like to know where I stand before I do that. As the hon. member for Yorkton has said, the last thing we want to do is to jeopardize this legislation. The amendment seeks, if I understand it correctly, to bring buying and selling of coarse grains under the wheat board. I believe that is the purpose of it. Subsection 2 of section 7 on page 6 of the bill states that the governor in council may authorize the board to buy grain other than wheat. I should like the Minister of Justice to tell me in what way that differs from the power that is asked by the amendment. If it is illegal under the amendment; if the amendment and this section mean exactly the same thing, that is, the buying and selling of grain by the wheat board, then it seems strange to me that it should be ultra vires when it is done by a section in the act and intra vires when it is done by order in council. It does not seem real, but perhaps I am not seeing it correctly and I should like an explanation by the minister.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The difference is this. Under the act the Canadian wheat board may be empowered, if the necessary order in council is passed, to buy and sell grain. There cannot be anything ultra vires about that. That is simply a Canadian corporation being 83166-55i
empowered to buy and sell a particular commodity. There is no compulsion exercised upon the seller of the commodity to sell it. But what is proposed by the amendment is that there be a compulsion upon every seller of coarse grains, who is selling into interprovincial or export trade, to sell it to the Canadian wheat board. When you undertake to do that-and we have undertaken to do it and are doing it in this bill with reference to wheat-you must be very careful that you do not trespass upon the field of property and civil rights. When you exercise compulsion upon a man, prima facie his civil rights are being affected, and you must be sure you have power to do that.


Gordon Graydon: What is the difference between the rights of a wheat grower and the rights of an oat grower?


James Lorimer Ilsley: If we were to put the government into the business of compelling growers of coarse grains to deliver their coarse grain to the wheat board, you would have either effective control or ineffective control. It may be possible for the wheat board to operate in a careful, ineffective manner in commodities such as coarse grains and yet operate constitutionally. But if they were to handle substantially the whole, or a very large proportion of the volume of coarse grain-which, I suppose, they would have to do if the operations were to be effective-I am told that their acts would likely be unconstitutional.


William Henry Golding: As chairman of the committee I think I have a responsibility to draw to the attention of the members the question of the validity of this amendment. It is a well known rule that no private member can move an amendment which would involve the expenditure of money. This is a point I was hoping some hon. member would speak on in order that I could get the opinion of the committee. I think the amendment is out of order.


Percy Ellis Wright: You have not as yet, Mr. Chairman, ruled the amendment out of order.


Gordon Graydon: He is just creeping up on it.


Percy Ellis Wright: In regard to the matter of constitutionality, I should like to say, as has been stated before, that we do not wish to endanger the bill. However, if there is anything in the constitution of this country which prevents the farmers, through their organizations, from marketing their products to the best advantage, then I say it is time we changed the constitution. I believe this committee would approve that, and I would sug-
Canadian Wheat Board Act

gest to the government that any changes that are necessary should be instituted at this session of parliament. The organized farmers today realize that orderly marketing of their products is absolutely essential. We all remember the experience after the last war with regard to agricultural products and what happened in connection with the speculative market. If the constitution of this country is such that the people cannot do as they want to do, we ought to change it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I just wish to say a word because I want to make myself plain. Speaking quite personally, I am opposed to the amendment, whether it be in order or out of order. The reason this bill is brought forward now with its compulsory features in connection with wheat is as a result of the agreement with Britain, and let me say that I support it for the reason that our government, elected by our people, signed the document and we are going to see to it that it is carried out. I do not like the agreement, but that is water over the dam or under the bridge,- or wherever water goes. But I want to make it plain that I am totally opposed, except for the agreement with Britain, to this government forcing the farmer to sell his goods to A, B, C, or D, whether you call it the wheat board or whether you do not.
There is another thing I wish to ask the government, and I think it has been fairly put to them by my hon. friends to my immediate left. I think the government should be as frank as I am. Do they favour the compulsory handling of coarse grain by a wheat board? I have heard the ministers talk all around or over the question.
Mr. ILSLEY I cannot speak on behalf of the government, but I will say that, personally, I am not.


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I say that I heard the answer of the Minister of Justice with the greatest of delight. I was sure he would say that. Now that we are holding this evangelistic meeting, there are two more ministers for us to hear from.


James Garfield Gardiner: Even in a revival meeting I do not usually go very far beyond the present time. I wish to say that I am opposed to putting the compulsory clause as related to coarse grains into this bill, which is what we are dealing with at the present time. I am opposed to that, and I think that is about as far as one needs to go at the moment.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I have listened to the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture, and am inclined to think he

is not a convert. He is only beginning his moral rearmament. WThat his answer means is that tonight he is not in favour. He twitted me the other evening about being unable to make up my mind on a certain matter, but I cannot discuss that because that section does not come in here. It seems to me that the Minister of Agriculture of the Dominion of Canada should be able to tell this committee w'hether or not he is in favour of the compulsory marketing of coarse grains through a wheat board, and as yet he has failed to do that. So that we now turn to the last sinner who may repent, the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have known him so long that I appreciate those eloquent silences of his very much. He, like the Minister of Agricu-ture, may want to change his mind after the session ends when we have no chance to say anything to him.
Coming to the legal aspect of it, may I say that I am not much of a lawyer, and I know that-


James Angus MacKinnon: Oh, yes, you are.
Mr. SMITH (Calgary West)but I agree with my barber shop lawyer friends to my left that you cannot make a distinction between twenty-five per cent being exported and seventy-five per cent being exported. I know of no legal principle-although there are many of those principles which I do not know -which will support any other position. So I conclude by saying that I support the principle of this bill, because I know the wheat to meet our obligations cannot be obtained unless some control is exercised over it; but I give my support only because of that agreement. I am unalterably opposed to that authority being extended to the handling of any other farm product. Somebody is going to say that I represent a city constituency. I have in my constituency about one hundred polls, of -which about forty are ih the country. I hope the papers publish what I have said, because I am anxious to meet my farmer friends on exactly the basis I have suggested to this committee tonight.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: The hon. member for Calgaty West made the statement, "I am not in favour of the compulsory marketing of grain". When he made that statement there was a good deal of applause not only from this side of the house, but from the other side as well.
I want to tell hon. members of this House of Commons, no matter what party they are in, that I heard farmers from all parts of Canada speak in the Chateau Laurier yesterday, and I was surprised to hear some of the representatives of farmers in that meeting

__________ Canadian Wheat Board Act
say that they were not afraid of compulsion, that they had tried a voluntary system of marketing for years, that it had been a failure, and that today they were going out asking for compulsory marketing not only of wheat, not only of coarse grains, but of potatoes, apples and all the other farm products of Canada. And if the present members in the House of Commons are not alive enough to see the trend that is going across Canada today, they will soon be replaced by different members.


Victor Quelch: I am not satisfied that it will be in the interests of western farmers to place coarse grains in this bill. I have in mind, of course, especially Alberta. I cannot speak for the farmers of Saskatchewan. The difficulty we of this group are in at the present time is that we do not know what the government's coarse grains policy is. For the last three weeks we have been asking the government to declare its policy with respect to coarse grains. So far, that policy has not been declared, and therefore we do not know what the situation is.
On the other hand, we do know that the situation as between wheat and coarse grains is entirely different. Wheat is on an export market basis, and to a large extent coarse grains are on a domestic market. In our part of the country one of our main difficulties has been, not to sell coarse grains but to obtain enough coarse grains to feed the stock we have. But there is danger that if coarse grains are put in the wheat board bill coarse grains can be drained out of the province and we would be short. We should like to have provincial control of coarse grains because we seldom have enough.
So far as the price of coarse grains is concerned, it is my experience that, so long as the wheat price is maintained at a high level, the price of coarse grains will stay up. When the price of wheat goes up the farmers no longer feed wheat, but feed coarse grains instead, and that helps coarse grains to stay up in price. Therefore I do not believe it will pay to put coarse grains under this bill, so long as we are on a domestic market basis.
But if in future we produce coarse grains to the extent that we export a large volume, then the situation might be different, and it might pay to put them under the bill.


John Alpheus Charlton: I have listened to the hon. member for Melfort and again to the hon. member for The Battlefords tonight say that they attended the meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in Ottawa yesterday. I also attended that meeting yesterday. Although my interpretation of what the
farmers in this country want may be wrong- and I have been wrong before, and I expect I may be wrong again-it was my interpretation of what they want; and although it may be wishful thinking on the part of our hon. friends to the left, it is not government control of marketing that they want, but enabling legislation by which they can control their own markets.


Percy Ellis Wright: Having listened to the hon. member for Brant, may I say I think he will find, when the recommendations are presented to the government, that he will be wrong once more, because the matter was thoroughly discussed at that meeting, and the opinion of the meeting was apparently unanimous that, while farmers now had the right themselves to control the marketing of farm products within a province, that was not enough. They want the government to have an act passed setting up a dominion marketing board, with members appointed by the government.
The draft bill which the farmers had before them yesterday-and I have a copy of it with me now-stated, with regard to the appointment of a marketing board, that the board shall consist of such number of persons as the governor in council may from time to time determine, and each member shall hold office during pleasure and receive such remuneration as the governor in council may determine.
That is the government board. Certainly that is what they are asking for, because this is the draft bill they had before them yesterday.


John Alpheus Charlton: Does the hon. member suggest that the board that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is asking for would consist of government employees and government men, not producers?


Percy Ellis Wright: I read the section from the draft bill. It is quite clear, and if the hon. member cannot understand it I cannot do anything for him.


Mrs. STRUM:: I, too, was at the meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture yesterday. I, too, have a copy of the bill, and it has the purpose and intention as stated. I can say the federation of agriculture represents not only wheat, but cheese, asparagus, potatoes, sugar beets-the whole ambit of agricultural commodities. The provincial act merely covers the production of grain and marketing within the province. The thing they want is that the government should step in and take the other segment-interprovincial and export trade- and pass legislation which would integrate all marketing for the whole of the Dominion of Canada.
Canadian Wheat Board Act

That is the purport and intent set out in the bill.
The purpose and intent is to provide, in respect of interprovincial trade in Canada and in export trade, for the improvement of the methods and practices of marketing of natural products, and for the promotion, control, regulation or prohibition of the marketing of natural products, in any or all respects and in whole or in part.
And the delegates said that again and again and again. While the opinion expressed in one part of the house was expressed at that meeting, I think it was a Tory opinion, and it had the usual flavour of opposing something that is good for the majority. Again and again these organizations got up and said that ninety per cent of the growers wanted something but that ten per cent went out and spoiled the whole picture for the ninety per cent. They went out and made contracts which simply ruined the whole price structure-just played it with deuces wild, and spoiled the whole thing.
Again and again they expressed the futility of voluntary organization. After all, there is a principle of democracy involved here. If the people of this country have a chance to elect a government on a principle, a chance to defeat a government, it is not undemocratic for that government to pass a law enabling the majority of producers to handle their product, and to make it compulsory. After all, are not our traffic laws compulsory? Is not taxation compulsory? Is not education compulsory? I may not keep my children out of school, because the people of this country realize that we cannot afford ignorance. And we cannot afford ignorance in marketing, either.


Mr. FERGUSON:: During the last dominion election we heard all these things advocated, controls of everything, but let me say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Henry Golding: I hope hon. members will not interrupt the hon. member when he is speaking. They are supposed to be gentlemen and I hope they will act accordingly.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Members of the C.C.F. to my left advocated controls during the last election; but, speaking for the county of Simcoe, which I represent, let me say that they were told in no uncertain terms by the people that they did not want controls.


Mr. ROBINSON:: My hon. friend represents only a part of the county of Simcoe.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: My hon. friend is quite correct, but I repeat that Simcoe county

declared itself regarding government controls even if it did elect one Liberal. The men responsible for producing the finest oats in North America and the finest apples in Canada live in Simcoe county. The farmers and other citizens of Simcoe county do not want controls, on grain or any other commodity.


Mr. WARREN:: I should like to say one word in connection with the argument between the hon. member for Brant and the hon. member for Melfort. The hon. member for Melfort should be well acquainted with Renfrew North because he campaigned there.
I suggest to the hon. member that if he comes into Renfrew North and advocates that the marketing of farm products should be compulsory he will meet with as little success as he did in the 1945 election campaign in that constituency.


William Henry Golding: In my opinion this amendment is so clearly out of order that I feel it my duty and obligation to rule it out of order. It is well known that no private member can move an amendment which will involve expenditures and, as I see it, this amendment contravenes the well known rule of parliament that no charge against the people can be entertained without the previous recommendation of the governor general. If the Minister of Agriculture brings in a bill later he will do that on his own responsibility as a minister of the crown. The present amendment has been moved by a private member and since, in my opinion, it will involve expenditures, I must rule it out of order.


George Hugh Castleden: Speaking to the point of order, I submit that the amendment will not cost the government anything, nor will it necessitate the expenditure of funds. The wheat board act states clearly that as soon as the boards-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Henry Golding: I have given my ruling. It is the best I can do, but I think I am right.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: May I submit that, before a ruling is handed down, an opportunity should be given to those who believe it is in order to discuss the amendment.


William Henry Golding: I do not think the hon. member was in the chamber when I raised that point in the hope that someone would speak to it. No one spoke to it and I feel it my duty and responsibility as chairman to rule the amendmentout of order.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
On section 5.
Leslie Alexander Mutch: When I spoke a few minutes ago I indicated that when we came to section 5 I would have something more to say. This section introduces a new part II into the bill to replace sections 12 to 18 of the previous act which are to be repealed. A few moments ago I said that, in my opinion, the bill represented socialism in our time and that on another clause I would suggest that it perpetuated that condition. The stated purpose of part II is to apportion elevator and transportation facilities equitably amongst producers, but it goes far beyond that. As I understand it, if the board wishes to exercise its power it may control the whole grain industry in a fashion even more absolute than that which is provided for in part IV, which merely forbids private export or interprovincial trade for a limited time.
The new section 13, which is part of section 5, indicates that power is taken to forbid the movement of grain, the delivery of grain and the use of facilities for the movement of grain except with the permission of the board. The explanatory note reads:
The purpose of the control is to apportion the use of elevator and transportation facilities equitably amongst producers.
The provisions of the new section 13 and the subsequent sections-these must all be considered together-especially subsection 4 of section 15, effectively give the board the power absolutely to control the grain industry in a designated area. In part IV we have an expression of the intention of the bill, that it is to permit the fulfilment of the wheat agreement. In that part there is a limitation placed upon the powers which are to be exercised.
I wish to point out what I meant when I said that this is permanent socialism, if you accept my definition for that. As I understand it, there is no provision for the termination of the powers granted by part II of this bill, whatever the intent of the sponsors of the bill may be. As I read it, the meaning is that power is taken to do all that part IV does, at a time when part IV shall have lapsed, unless the government is prepared to agree that the limitation clause, which is section 29 of part IV, shall be applied to the powers taken under part II. It is literally true that part II gives control over the industry which is not even attempted in part IV. We recognize the constitutional limitations in part IV, the part of the bill designed to carry out the wheat agreement, but in part II we forget about those limitations and, under the guise of controlling elevator and transportation facilities, we control in minute detail what
has been, and what conceivably may be again, at such time as section 29 becomes operative, private enterprise in this country.
When I was on my feet previously I said I had no expectation of being able to convert either the government or those who support them so loyally on this bill, and I am not hypocrite enough to suggest that I am leading a crusade for a forlorn hope. I am sincere, however, in desiring to point out to this committee that, whatever may be the intention if part II of the bill is carried in its present form there is danger that we may give to the board power, under another guise, to do the very things this bill proposes the board shall renounce, under part IV, at the expiration of this agreement with England. Consequently I should like an expression from the government as to whether or not they would be willing to consider introducing into part II the limiting section of part IV, in whatever terms that section may finally be accepted by the house, and so terminating the powers being taken to oontrol the industry through the control of elevator and transportation facilities and even of deliveries to mill, because by definition mills are included in the act. I should like to know whether the government will consider such a limitation in part II. If they will not consider such a limitation, then I should like an explanation as to why these powers are considered necessary. I have not consulted any of the gentlemen concerned, but in view of the experience they have had I would be surprised if the wheat board itself either expected or needs the perpetuation of the powers granted in part II.
I foresee a time when we may be back in the position of having both private trade and a wheat board in existence in Canada. The Minister of Agriculture indicated the other day, I think, that he did not look forward to such a dual position, with the wheat board left holding the bag in tough times and the trade carrying on and getting most of the business in normal times. That is beside the point, perhaps, but I cannot envisage such a situation arising provided these limitations are put in part II. If part II remains as it is, however, I can see where in law it might be possible to return to private enterprise the marketing of farm products, and at the same time have the wheat board continue to carry on with power to control elevators and transportation, which would permit the wheat board, if it so desired, to make the legal situation, in fact, completely ridiculous and ineffective. I am not suggesting that the present wheat board is likely to exercise those powers in future, but I should like to know
Canadian Wheat Board Act

first why they are considered necessary, and, second, if we may not expect the same limitation on these extraordinary powers in part II which the bill itself proposes to impose in part IV.


Percy Ellis Wright: If I understood what the hon. member for Winnipeg South was driving at, it was that these powers given to the board should end at a given date, approximating the end of the British agreement?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Not later than that.


Percy Ellis Wright: But we are already negotiating other agreements. The British agreement is just a step in the direction the organized farmers of this country want to go in the marketing and exporting of their products. Today in another part of the world we have a meeting of people who are trying to draft an international agreement to make this multilateral, and the suggestion is that it go on for five years from 1947. That would take it into 1952, and any action on the part of this government to curtail this act to 1950, in the face of the negotiations going on, I think would be a means of destroying those negotiations, which the organized farmers and wheat growers of western Canada have been fighting for during the past ten years.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Is the hon. gentleman
announcing government policy?


Percy Ellis Wright: No; I am giving the policy of - this party, and thank goodness the hon. gentleman's party has seen fit to adopt some of it.


William Henry Golding: I wonder if we would not make more progress now in dealing with section 5 if we take these subclauses as they come. We are dealing with section 12 of section 5. Shall section 12 carry?
Section 5 (section 12) agreed to.
On section 5 (section 13)-Conditions for delivery of grain to elevator.


Mr. BRYCE:: I should like to ask the minister about deliveries to elevators, and I have taken this matter up previously with both the wheat board and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. If you deliver grain to a town where there are five or six elevators you have the privilege of delivering to any elevator you wish. If you live where there is only one elevator you may only deliver to that elevator, although there may be another one three miles away. I think that is very unfair, because if you are at a small point where there is only one elevator, you may have some difficulty or there may be some bad feeling between you and the elevator agent.

If you live where there are six elevators you can overcome that difficulty; you can drive past his door and go to the next elevator, which is quite legal under the act. I am not going to move any amendlment, but in fairness to the western farmer I say he should have the right to go to the next elevator if he wants to.


James Angus MacKinnon: He has that right.


William Scottie Bryce: No, he has not.


James Angus MacKinnon: I am informed that if the producer in question writes to the Canadian wheat board at Winnipeg, pointing out that situation, he will be given that right to change his delivery point.


William Scottie Bryce: Perhaps I have not made myself quite clear. If there are six elevators alongside each other at Dauphin or at some other point, a farmer's permit book allows him to go to any of those elevators at any time. He does not need to sign up for any particular elevator. But if he has a point like Millbrook with one elevator, and he signs for that elevator, he cannot go anywhere else. If there is an elevator at Dugald and the farmer goes there, he cannot come back to the other elevator. He has not the privilege of going to two elevators.


Mr. EULTON:: That is compulsion. That is what you want, is it not?


William Scottie Bryce: No; we only want a square deal.


James Angus MacKinnon: I am advised that the Canadian wheat board will give any producer that right at any time, upon application.


William Scottie Bryce: But he cannot use two; he can only use one.


James Angus MacKinnon: Oh, no, he cannot have two delivery points.


William Scottie Bryce: Then why give him six if there are that many elevators in a town? If he delivers to a point where there are six elevators he can go to any one he likes with his permit book. When he has a choice between two points, each having one elevator, he must swear allegiance to either one or the other for that season.


James Angus MacKinnon: Or some other elevator close by.


William Scottie Bryce: No; he can go to only one.


Mr. HARKNESS:: I am very glad to find that the hon. member for Selkirk is a little bit individualistic and anti-socialist as far as the delivery of his own grain is concerned. I think that shows a little hope that the C.C.F. party may progress toward reasonable ways of thinking.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
However, actually I wanted to ask a question about paragraph (c) of this section. The first part of this section states:
Except with the permission of the board, no person shall deliver grain to an elevator, and no manager or operator thereof shall receive delivery of grain unless
(c) the grain was produced in the crop year in which delivery is made on the lands described in the permit book or in any other crop year on any lands whatsoever.
The first part of paragraph (c) seems to say that only grain will be delivered which was grown on the land described in the permit book in that particular year. The second part of it seems to say just the reverse. Will the minister explain exactly what the paragraph means? As it stands, I am not able to make any sense out of it.


William Scottie Bryce: Mr. Chairman, will you permit me to answer the hon. member very quickly? He is talking about my selling grain. Since I have come to this country, I have learned never to market grain except through hogs or cattle. I have not been the victim of the speculators.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am glad the hon. member has compassion for his friends.


James Angus MacKinnon: This paragraph deals with a person who moves from one piece of land which he is farming to another. If he brings any grain with him from the land which he was first on he may also market that grain.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This paragraph says: "... or in any other crop year on any lands whatsoever." Did I understand the minister to say that this applies only to a farmer who has moved from his original holding to another holding? If so, it should be so specified in the paragraph. If it means something else I should like to know it.


James Angus MacKinnon: I am told that it applies to the farmer who has moved.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would suggest that it be definitely specified in the paragraph.


Victor Quelch: I should like to follow up the remarks of the hon. member for Selkirk. In certain parts of the prairie provinces there are small towns with only one elevator each. We may have a number of towns in line, and each one may have only one elevator. Therefore, when you limit the farmer to one point of delivery you are tying him down to one elevator. If there were two or three points of delivery, then he would have the benefit of two or three elevators. If a farmer happens to live near a large town where there are six elevators he has the chance to deliver to any one of these six elevators and thereby get the
benefit of competition. But when you pin him down to deliver where there is only one elevator, even though you permit him to change that point of delivery he will still have only one elevator to which he can deliver. I have received complaints from farmers who have not been allowed to deliver to two or three points. Very often a farmer may have a large farm, and I am thinking now of the drought areas where farms often consist of two or three thousand acres. The farm may be situated halfway between two towns. Naturally that farmer wants two points of delivery. One end of the farm will be delivered at one point of delivery and the other end of the farm will be delivered at the other end. Therefore the farmer should have the right of delivery of at least two points where there are only one or two elevators at either of these points.


James Angus MacKinnon: I am informed that where the farmer has two pieces of land, one near one delivery point and the other near another delivery point, he can have two points of delivery.


Victor Quelch: I am not talking about separate farms; I am talking about one farm situated halfway between two points. The minister is ignoring the point that the farmer is allowed only one point of delivery except where he has two farms. The point I am raising is that the farmer should be allowed to have two points of delivery where the towns are small and there is only one elevator at each point.


William Scottie Bryce: If a farmer comes to an
elevator and the elevator owner is in a bad mood-he may have lost a game of cribbage to the farmer the night before and has some umbrage against him-he may say to the farmer, "I am filled up, you will have to take your load back home." If he knows that the farmer has the right to go to an elevator three miles away he will not turn him down so readily. Many farmers have had to haul their grain home because they were told there was no room at the elevator, yet there was plenty of room in the elevator three miles away. I hope the minister will look into that.


James Angus MacKinnon: Naturally, I am not
familiar with these matters in a practical way, but I am sympathetic to the questions asked. I am informed that if the purchaser names a point of delivery which is granted to him and if he is not satisfied with that and writes in to the board and asks for another point of delivery to be granted to him it will be granted.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Victor Quelch: Why not allow him to
have both points of delivery so that he can change from one point to the other and thereby create competition?


James Angus MacKinnon: In that case he is
running into competition with farmers who are tributary to the other elevator, and they look upon that as their delivery point.


John Horne Blackmore: What difference could it possibly make?


James Angus MacKinnon: In time of congestion
it would certainly make quite a bit of difference.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There must not be any competition in a socialistic measure such as this.


Victor Quelch: The elevator may be only half-full.


Calvert Charlton Miller: On the prairies last fall
a condition arose through which some elevators were not full and at which delivery quotas could well have been raised. For some reason the board granted permission to individual growers or producers to deliver in some instances large quantities of grain. There was no general lifting of the quotas in these particular elevators, but some farmers found out about it and by simply writing or telephoning to the board they obtained permission in some instances to deliver several thousand extra bushels of grain over and above their quota, while other people did not know that it could be done.


James Angus MacKinnon: Was it under the
regulations?


Calvert Charlton Miller: Yes. Other people did not know that it was possible even to get permission. The result was that there were some farmers who had grain on the ground because they thought they could not deliver beyond their quota. Other farmers just a few miles away got extra thousands of bushels of grain into the elevators. Since the board is taking the right to restrict deliveries in the future, what safeguard will there be to ensure equality of delivery so that other farmers in the district will know when additional bushels may be delivered to any particular elevator? Are these quotas to be lifted for one person and not for the other? Is that a general condition? If it is, is it to be changed?


James Angus MacKinnon: I am quite satisfied
that the wheat board are ready to agree that there should be equal rights for all producers of grain so far as deliveries are concerned. Personally I have never heard of a case of

discrimination such as that mentioned by the hon. member. If discrimination such as that indicated were reported to the Canadian wheat board they would rectify it immediately.


Calvert Charlton Miller: I understand that the
wheat board gave permission for the extra deliveries.


Mr. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: I wish to support the remarks of the hon. member for Selkirk. I do not think that the minister clearly understands yet that there is a certain discrimination here. If I may be pardoned, I should like to offer my own case as an example. It is quite in point. I live between two towns and, while I have no bad friends in elevators at either place, the fact is that in my case the road to one town is often more suitable. This is quite unsatisfactory, owing to the fact that I have to have a special permit, and I have never seen fit to do so because ordinarily I would not haul my grain to that town. The result is that I have had to get a special permit at the end of the crop year in order to haul my grain to that specific town. Here is a case in point where, in my opinion, there is discrimination. As the hon. member for Selkirk pointed out, if there is a town in which you have a group of elevators you have a choice in the matter, but in the smaller towns there is only one elevator you are forced either to take your grain there or to change your town. It is discriminatory and should be changed for that reason.
Section 5 (section 13) agreed to.
Section 5 (section 14) agreed to.
On section 5 (section 15)-Right of producer to issue of permit book.


Mr. FAIR:: On page 8 in subsection 3, regarding limitation, there is this provision:
Not more than one permit book shall be issued in respect of land comprising any farm or group of farms operated as a unit.
I know of several cases where farmers have farms ten, fifteen, twenty or even fifty miles apart and it seems foolish that a man should be compelled to haul his grain a distance of fifty miles in such a case. There should be provision so that a farmer may have a permit to deliver grain to the town nearest his farm should he have two or three or half a dozen farms adjacent to other towns.


James Angus MacKinnon: I am told that the wheat board will give permission in a case of that sort to deliver to both towns.
Section 5 (section 15) agreed to.
Section 5 (section 16) agreed to.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
On section 5 (section 17)-Powers of administration of the board.


Douglas Scott Harkness: One of the things I have been wondering about as I have read this bill is the cost to the wheat board and, therefore, to the farmer of the rather unwieldy administrative machinery which is set up. This particular section deals with permit books and so forth, and I should like to know what the actual cost of the permit books, and the machinery in connection with them, is to the wheat board, and how much extra the farmers are required to pay because of this particular system.


James Angus MacKinnon: The cost of the quota system, permit books and so forth is paid by the government and not charged against the farmer.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What is the cost to the farmer or to the taxpayer of the country in connection with these permit books?


James Angus MacKinnon: It is in the annual report each year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Surely the minister can give us that figure. He must be familiar with it, or his officials must know.


James Angus MacKinnon: I can assure my hon. friend I am not familiar with it but it can be obtained in a different place.


Mr. GREEN:: The minister should answer these questions.


James Angus MacKinnon: I have answered them.


Howard Charles Green: He has his officers in front of him this evening and, if he cannot get the information now, he should have it tomorrow. For him to say, "You can get it somewhere else" is not good enough, and when a proper question is asked such as this I submit that the answer should be given. The minister should not simply laugh it off.


James Angus MacKinnon: I certainly was not trying to laugh it off.


Howard Charles Green: I would ask the minister to bring that information tomorrow.


James Angus MacKinnon: I shall be very glad to.


Howard Charles Green: Thank you very much.


Percy Ellis Wright: This is the provision of the act, in subsection 2, which the minister stated the other day he would be prepared to delete. It is a subsection under which there may be a limitation on the deliveries of grain. It provides:
The board shall, in exercising the powers conferred by this section to fix quotas for delivery of wheat by producers, fix such quotas in such manner as will ensure that the final quota for delivery from lands described in any permit 83166-56J
book in any crop year prior to or ending on the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty, shall be not less than 14 bushels in respect of each acre of the specified number of acres in respect of which the quota is fixed or an equivalent amount if the quota is expressed otherwise than as a quantity of wheat that may be delivered from a specified number of acres...
Yesterday the minister stated that he was prepared to delete this provision and that the government, through the board, would be ready to take delivery of all grain grown before August 1, 1950. I should like to know if the minister is prepared to take such delivery.


Victor Quelch: The minister said, when he made his statement on second reading, that he would remove subsection 2 in order to do away with any uncertainty that people might have regarding the intentions of the government. By stipulating that they would take a minimum of fourteen bushels to the acre they gave the impression that they would take only fourteen. Unfortunately, if the government strikes out subsection 2, it will make the situation worse, because under subsection 2 they guarantee that they will take a minimum of fourteen bushels. If you strike out that subsection you do not guarantee to take even fourteen. Therefore nothing would be gained by the deletion of subsection 2. The minister said, as reported at page 786 of Hansard:
Under the circumstances, with the possibility of the grain storage facilities in Canada being practically empty prior to the harvesting of the 1947 crop, the government feels that no limitation on marketings of wheat if necessary.
Merely striking out the subsection does not guarantee that the government will take delivery of all wheat produced and offered for sale prior to August 1, 1950. The mere statement that the minister made in the house does not change the wording of the act and, therefore, if he proposes to move an amendment to strike out subsection 2 of section 17, he should put something there to take its place which will give us an assurance that they will take delivery of all wheat. I think it would be better to leave subsection 2 in and add a clause stating definitely that the government is prepared to take delivery of all wheat produced and offered for sale prior to August 1, 1950. I therefore move, seconded by the member for Peace River (Mr. Low):
That subsection 2 of section 17 be amended by adding the following words:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this act, the board shall purchase all wheat produced and offered for sale prior to July 31, 11950."
This amendment merely puts into the act what the minister has stated the government are prepared to do. If the government are
Canadian Wheat Board Act

prepared to take delivery of all wheat produced and offered for sale prior to July 31, 1950, they should have no objection to having this inserted in the act so that there may be no misunderstanding in the future.


James Garfield Gardiner: Does the hon. member think it ought to be stated in the act that every farmer must, if the government requires, deliver all his grain before July 31, 1950?


Victor Quelch: This does not say that the farmer has to sell all his wheat before that date. That is not in the amendment at all. It says: Notwithstanding the above, the board shall purchase all wheat. They can only purchase it if the farmer offers it for sale. If the farmer does not offer it for sale, then it will not be purchased.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand the suggestion made is that the government should put a provision in the bill that all the wheat that is produced-


Victor Quelch: And offered for sale.


James Garfield Gardiner: -and offered for sale in the five-year period to July 31, 1950, must be taken, but that they are not required to take anything that is not offered for sale-


Victor Quelch: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: -and that is still on the farm. That is not going quite as far as my hon. friend went the other day.


Victor Quelch: I think we had better make this quite clear. I believe the minister knows what I have in mind. Speaking this afternoon, the Minister of Justice stated that we did not know what might happen in the later years of this agreement. We might have very large crops. The elevators might become flooded.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did not say that.


Victor Quelch: Well, the minister said words to that effect.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did not. Those are my hon. friend's words. That is what he stated immediately after I sat down.


Victor Quelch: The minister said we might have difficulty in taking delivery.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did not say anything about taking delivery at all. I was talking about price entirely and the reason there would be for making prior payment.


Victor Quelch: In the event of the price falling.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Victor Quelch: I think the minister had that in mind. The only danger there would be of the price falling would be if there was
[Mr. Quelch.l
large production and a large surplus. Then the price would fall. The two usually go together. What I had in mind was that if you had a large production of wheat and the elevators became flooded so that the government could not take delivery of all the wheat by July 31, 1950, owing to storage conditions, then that wheat might not be sold at $1.35, because there would be no guarantee that the price of $1.35 would be continued after July 31, 1950. The situation is that under this agreement the farmers are today losing anywhere from fifty to seventy-five cents a bushel; and in compensation for that the government is guaranteeing to pay $1.35 a bushel up to July 31, 1950. Therefore, in all fairness I think the minister must admit that, if the farmers are being called upon to sacrifice anywhere from fifty to seventy-five cents a bushel on all the wheat produced today and offered for sale, surely the compensating feature should apply to all wheat produced and offered for sale in the future within that pool period. Just because the elevators might become flooded should not be considered any reason why the farmers should be denied that price. The minister may ask how the government is to take delivery if the elevators are full. Provided that a system of government-approved storage were established on the farm, there would be no difficulty. The government could buy the wheat in the granaries on the farm, paying a small amount down, and the wheat could be delivered at a future day. The act already provides for paying storage.


James Garfield Gardiner: On a point of order, might I suggest, without offering any opinion as to the pros and cons of the argument, that I do not think this is the place to discuss the matter. This section we are dealing with has to do with quotas. The other day the minister made the proposal that we would take out subsection 2 which speaks about fourteen bushels to the acre. But even if it were taken out there, it does not affect the matter of quotas. Sections 20 and 21 really deal with the matter that is now under discussion, and I think that question should be discussed there because there are some things I would want to say about it, if I were arguing the question, which I cannot say under this section.


Victor Quelch: But the minister knows very well that section 21 will be governed by section 17, by the quota.


William Henry Golding: Order. The amendment, as I have it now, reads:
Notwithstanding anything contained in this act, the board shall purchase all wheat produced and offered for sale prior to July 31, 1950.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
In my opinion this is an amendment which should be made by a minister of the crown. I think there is a suggestion that the minister give an undertaking to put the principle of this amendment into effect, but it would have to be done by a minister of the crown.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: Would the minister give us that assurance now?


Victor Quelch: May I reply to the Minister of Agriculture by saying that section 21 to which he refers cannot cover the situation entirely, because section 17 governs the question of quotas; and section 21 says that the government will buy all wheat produced in the designated area, offered by a producer for sale and delivery, but it will take only what wheat the government agrees to take. If the government has a quota in effect, it will take only the amount designated in the quota. Section 17, even though you strike out subsection 2, still allows the government to set a quota.


Charles Edward Johnston: Will the minister give the assurance that he will put the effect of the amendlment into the bill?


Percy Ellis Wright: I do not think, as the hon. member for Acadia stated, that the striking out of this subsection is going to give to us the assurance we want with respect to the 1949 crop of wheat. What we are asking the minister now is whether the government will be prepared to take all wheat grown in 1949, even though it may not be delivered on the date of August 1, 1950, because of lack of storage space; if it was grown in 1949, will they still take it at the $1.35 initial payment or whatever the payment is for that wheat? That is the point I think we want to get cleared up.


James Garfield Gardiner: The point of order I raised is-and although I may be wrong, it is the opinion I hold from reading the bill through-that I do not think this is the place to decide that point. That is, the question of quotas which is being decided in section 17 has to do with something which I think farmers generally are fairly well convinced we want in the act. In so far as the quota of fourteen bushels is concerned, it does not matter very much whether it is in the act or not. The difficulty our hon. friends have in Portage, for example, is that the railways are all converging on the city of Winnipeg; in numbers of places there is only one elevator; and they are concerned with the quota from one point of view. The same thing would be true near Calgary and near all the large centres.
My hon. friend may think I should have mentioned Edmonton too. They are all close

to elevators. The farmer at a distance from elevators wants the quota for this reason. He. says, "If I am living five or ten miles oul from town, I want the same opportunity to get my grain in the elevator as the fellow has who lives two miles out. I want the same space reserved for me." That is what is provided for in section 17. Over in sections 20 and 21 there are provisions made which have to do with the taking of delivery of grain which is offered for sale. I think that is where this question should be discussed. I do not think members should expect ministers or members of the committee to commit themselves, when they are discussing section 17, as to what they are going to do when we come to sections 20 and 21. I hope that we shall be able to convince members of the committee that what is being proposed by hon. members on the other side is not at all necessary in order to accomplish what is desired. If, when we come to the point of arguing it, we are not able to do that, then consideration might be given to the other suggestions that are being made. But I think it can be shown that it is not necessary to put in at any place in the act the provision which is proposed. In any event, I think this is the wrong place to discuss the matter, and it should be discussed under sections 20 and 21.


Victor Quelch: I should like to assure the minister that I am not opposing the idea of the quota. I quite realize that the quota system is absolutely necessary in western Canada, and for that reason I have no desire to see subsection 2 taken out of the act. All I want is to have the government definitely state that it will take delivery of all wheat offered for sale up to July 31, 1950.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Would the minister agree to letting this section stand. As it now reads, it is unsatisfactory. It states-
... fix such quotas in such manner as will ensure that the final quota for delivery from lands described in any permit book in any crop year prior to or ending on the 31st day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty, shall be not less than fourteen bushels . . .
And so on. I wonder if this section could be allowed to stand until we come to section 21.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Perhaps we could come back to this in a minute or two. I should like either to move or to suggest that an amendment be made to section 17 (1) at page 8 of the bill. The amendment I would move is:
That the words "Notwithstanding any other statute or law but" be inserted between the words "may" and "subject" in the first line of section 17 (1).
Canadian Wheat Board Act

I am told that there may possibly be some conflict between some of the provisions in section 17 (1) and some provisions in the Canada Grain Act.


John Horne Blackmore: How would the section read as amended?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The section as amended would read:
17. (1) The board may, notwithstanding any other statute or law, but subject to directions, if any, contained in any order of the governor in council, by order . . .
And so on. Then it would continue in its present form.	.


John Horne Blackmore: What difference would it make?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It means that in any conflict between the provisions of this section and those of the Canada Grain Act, this section would prevail.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: The suggested amendment gives me an opportunity to make a few observations. A few minutes ago I objected to the continuing, nature of some of the powers in this section. I refer specifically to those in section 17 (1), paragraphs (a) to (1):	I
would draw attention specifically to paragraphs (i) and (k). Paragraph (i) reads:
(i) Require any kind of grain, or any grade or quality thereof, in any elevator to be delivered into railway cars or lake vessels.
And paragraph (k) reads:
(k) Provide for the allocation of railway cars available for the shipment of grain at any delivery point, other than ears placed pursuant to a car order book, to any elevator, loading platform or person at such delivery point.
My question is this:	Does the minister
consider, and if so why, that these extraordinary powers, which are understandable in terms of carrying out the wheat agreement, should be continued past the period of August, 1050?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is the hon. member talking about section 17 (1) ?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Yes, and I have referred specifically to paragraphs (i) and (k) as examples. These are extraordinary powers which are understandable under the terms of carrying out the wheat agreement. But my understanding is that these powers do not cease in 1050, in the bill as it is now drafted. I foresee a strangle-hold on any potential independent trade after that period. I should like to know the purpose of it, beyond that period.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Let us examine these paragraphs one by one.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I referred to paragraphs
(i) and (k) as examples of those for which I cannot see the reason for perpetuation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am informed that the
board of grain commissioners has this power now. When grain is in elevators somebody has to have power to move it forward and order it out. Therefore the section is necessary in this form to give power to require any kind of grain, or any quality thereof, to be delivered.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I can understand its present application, and I could understand it up to 1950. But am I correct in assuming that this bill perpetuates that power for eternity?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am informed that a
similar power is in the Canada Grain Act, and has been there for a long time; and that even after the termination of the contract it will be necessary for the wheat board to have power to order grain forward, out of the elevators.


Arthur Leroy Smith: If that
power already exists under the Canada Grain Act, why duplicate it here?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Because the wheat board,
rather than somebody else, will be marketing it. They will be marketing all the wheat that goes into interprovincial and export trade during the currency of the contract. They may be marketing grain which they acquire after that, although this does not provide for any compulsory acquisition of grain after that.


William Henry Golding: The committee has heard the amendment read by the minister with respect to section 17 (1).


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I make a suggestion, first. Put briefly, the amendment is that, notwithstanding anything contained in any other statute, so-and-so shall prevail. I am suggesting that tills is a very broad phrase which may mean a great deal. I do not think the committee is in position at the moment to appreciate the ramifications of such a clause. Broadly speaking, I am in agreement with it because I see that they need the power. We are not going to finish this bill tonight, so that I wonder if this could not stand. No one knows better than the Minister of Justice that when you amend a bill by reference to other statutes you do not always know just where you are going without examining those other statutes. I do not think it would do any harm to let this stand. I am in favour of the principle, but I should like to know where we are going to end up when we bring in things like this, "notwithstanding any other statute".

Canadian Wheat Board Act


James Lorimer Ilsley: I would be willing to change it to "notwithstanding anything in the Canada Grain Act," because that is the only statute that has been suggested. Would the hon. gentleman's objection still apply?


Arthur Leroy Smith: That would be much better, because I have a trifling familiarity with the Canada Grain Act. Do you not think my suggestion is a good one? We have to be careful about clauses as sweeping as that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will do whatever the committee wants done, but I think this is too small a point to warrant holding this up. Would it satisfy the hon. member if we changed it to "notwithstanding anything in the Canada Grain Act"?


Arthur Leroy Smith: That satisfies me.


James Arthur Ross: I followed the argument a short time ago between the hon. member for Acadia and the Minister of Agriculture, but I want to be clear as to the powers conferred by subsection 2 of this section, which provides:
. . . shall be not less than fourteen bushels in respect of each acre of the specified number of acres.
I remember when the quota system was introduced in this country under which the government could receive and settle for only
280,000,000 bushels. I want to be clear that this provision is in this clause only to provide for the orderly delivery of grain, that there is not going to be a specified acreage set forth and that the board will take all the grain grown.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that the minister intends to have his colleague move that this be taken out altogether. Someone on the other side said that they were not insisting on that, but I do not think it changes our intention to take out subsection 2.


Robert Fair: Does that deprive the wheat board of the power to set quotas early in the season?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


John Horne Blackmore: I gathered that the Minister of Agriculture has the idea that by the time we got through sections 20 and 21 we would be able to see what would happen to the wheat and would be reassured that all the wheat that was produced and offered for sale would be accepted before the end of July, 1950. I wonder if it would not be wise to let section 17 stand until we have discussed sections 20 and 21? The minister will be able to make a definite statement on those
sections. Before accepting section 17, I should like to see what sections 20 and 21 will do for us.
As the hon. member for Acadia pointed out, we are greatly concerned that there shall not be a considerable amount of wheat left in the hands of the farmers at the end of July, 1950, because, if there is, it will constitute a betrayal of the farmers' interests in the light of what is going on at the present time. We want to be sure we are making provision while there is yet time.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In view of the fact that the minister has stated that it is the intention of the government to accept all the wheat grown during that period I wonder if this clause should not be-


James Angus MacKinnon: All the grain that can be accepted for which there is space.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I think it is important that this should stand until we deal with section 21, until we understand what the govern^ ment policy is to be. We cannot be satisfied with letting the government decide by order in council whether they will accept fourteen or fifteen bushels to the acre.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I state my contention again? It was that if we are to put in a provision such as has been suggested! by hon. members opposite, we would not put it in under section 17. If that provision were to be put in it would be put in under section 21. When we come to section 21, so far as I am concerned personally, and I think this applies to other members of the government, we will argue that it is not necessary to put that in at all, that it should not be in the bill. There are real reasons why. But nothing would be gained by letting this stand because you would not go back and put it in. It would be put in under section 21 if it were put in at all.


Alan Cockeram: I have listened to this debate and I wonder whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce is in charge or whether there is a triumvirate?


John Horne Blackmore: The difficulty lies in the expression used by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I gathered that he said "all the grain the government will be able to accept." That does not mean very much. I am informed that many of the annexes that were built to accommodate the grain which was being banked up, so to speak, during the war years are now being taken down in different parts of the west. I am informed that it is intended to take many more of them down. If that sort of thing goes on and we have crops of any considerable size during the next few years, will the government do
Canadian Wheat Board Act

exactly what the Minister of Trade and Commerce says they will, accept all the grain that they will be able to and then leave the farmers seriously betrayed on the whole situation? What we wish to have is some sort of definite commitment that such a thing will not occur.
For example, if we are not going to have room in the elevators or in the annexes, then some provision must be made for assistance to farmers to provide adequate storage on the farm. We shall then be sure that the farmer who produces grain will be able to sell it at $1.35 a bushel. I shall not be satisfied unless there is a definite provision in this bill to make certain that the farmers will not be betrayed.


Hazen Robert Argue: In view of the minister's statement that the government is not going to guarantee that all the wheat grown in the year 194!) will necessarily be accepted-


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that; I said that we would argue that when we reached section 21.


Hazen Robert Argue: In view of the fact that the government will not state at this stage that all the grain grown in 1949 will be accepted; in view of the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said that it would be possible to accept all grain grown up to and including 1949; working on the basis of
22,000,000 authorized acres at fourteen bushels to the acre or 310,000,000 bushels of wheat each year the government would, according to those figures, be able to take all the crop.
There is just one fallacy in that argument. There may be 22,000,000 authorized acres, but in many years there may be many farmers who have no crop and, therefore, would have no grain to market under the fourteen bushels per authorized acre quota. My constituency is a high risk area and there may be a crop failure in 1947-I hope not-there may be one in 1948; then they may have a bumper crop in 1949 and the farmer would not be protected in any way. There is no guarantee that all the 1949 crop will be accepted when offered. In view of the minister's previous statement, I think this provision of fourteen bushels per acre for three years should be made such that a farmer could market that amount at any time he has the wheat. If, for instance, he does not have the wheat in 1947, and in 1948 has fourteen bushels per authorized acre and another fourteen bushels to take care of the authorized acreage for which he did not have a crop in 1947, over those three years he should be able to market at least an average of fourteen bushels yearly.
I do not know if I make myself clear. Provision is made for fourteen bushels per

year per acre for the three years. That is forty-two bushels per authorized acre for those years. My suggestion is that, if he does not have the wheat in 1947 or 1948 but has forty-two bushels per authorized acre even in 1949, he should be allowed to deliver that much wheat. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Weyburn:
That subsection (2) of section 17 be amended by adding the following:
"Provided that if by reason of crop failure or other causes a producer has not in any year prior to July 34, 1950, delivered fourteen bushels in any crop year, the board shall increase the quotas for delivery by such producer in subsequent years, but not so as to increase the total quotas which a producer may deliver prior to July 31, 1950."


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am largely in sympathy with what the hon. gentleman has in mind, but I wonder if he has taken the trouble to think of a number of ways in which the amendment perhaps does not make things quite plain. The word "producer" is rather broadly defined in our act. Would the hon. member have that apply to the various persons included under that definition? Second, let us assume that a man was not a producer in the first year or the second year. Do you not think you might do better by having it apply to the land in question rather than to the person operating the land? I am broadly in sympathy with the suggestion, but I wonder if it will accomplish just what the hon. member has in mind.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have not had time to think this through, but the suggestion might better fill the bill as I wish it to be filled. I believe the definition of a producer is broad enough. It is not only the actual producer; it would permit anyone interested in the crop, under the act, to market his share. "Producer" includes, as well as the actual producer, any person entitled as landlord, vendor or mortgagee to grain grown by an actual producer, or any share of it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is what bothers me. Let us say that the mortgagee has as his share two bushels per acre in a certain year. He has only two bushels of grain that year and perhaps three bushels the next year. I think if you tried it to an acreage basis, a farm basis, rather than to the individual, you probably would better accomplish what you are seeking to accomplish; and I hope the hon. member will believe that I am trying to be helpful. I can see some difficulties, however, if he just leaves the word "producer". Take a mortgagee who has only two bushels this year and three bushels next year. Perhaps he has more mortgages, and in the third year will have forty or fifty

Canadian Wheat Board Act
bushels, by spreading his interests. Surely you would not allow him, in the third year, to market that tremendous quantity of grain. He is not the original producer, so I am wondering if you would not consider tying it to the acreage rather than to the individual.


James Arthur Ross: 
James Garfield Gardiner: This is one indication of the trouble one gets into by proposing some of the things that are proposed. The fourteen-bushel provision was included in the first instance as a means of regulating farmers' acreage. That is what it was put in for. It was not put in on the suggestion of the government; it was put in on the suggestion of the Saskatchewan wheat pool. We had provisions under which we hoped to control acreage. It was suggested that the way to control acreage was to say we would not take more than 280,000,000 bushels of wheat, and in order to apply it to the acreage it was suggested that we should make it fourteen bushels to the acre on the established acreage, which was then 20,000,000 acres, not 22,000,000 acres as it is now; and fourteen times
20,000,000 was 280,000,000 bushels of wheat. It was thought that if we limited the quantity we would take, the acreage would be held around 22,000,000 acres. It has been in the orders in council since, and when this legislation was drafted it was transferred from the orders in council.
The position taken by the government when the matter was being argued, and when it was
first put in the orders in council, was that the provision could never be operative, for certain reasons. The only condition under which it could possibly be operative would be a condition under which the elevators could not take the grain. At the time this provision was first adopted we were emptying the elevators. We had been filling them up to 1943, but during the latter part of the war we started to empty them in order to distribute the grain that had been stored in the early years of the war. At that time we tried to point out that it would be absolutely impossible for this government or any other authority to refuse to accept grain in an elevator if the farmer had it on his farm and the elevator was not full. I think every hon. member from western Canada would agree that if we had elevators in any part of western Canada half empty and the board tried to tell the farmers they could not deliver more than fourteen bushels to the acre, and the fourteen bushels did not fill the elevators, you would not be able to keep the rest of the wheat out of those elevators. Every member of this house representing a constituency in which that was done would be writing here, sending telegrams and coming himself, trying to compel the board to open up those elevators and allow the grain to be delivered. We said that the only condition under which that could be done would be if there were a bumper crop, without sufficient markets to take care of it. The result is that it has not been necessary to apply it since it has been in here. We have been emptying the elevators. We have now got them down to where last year we had only 30,000,000 bushels of wheat left in Canada at the end of the wheat year.
A few moments ago I believe the hon. member for Lethbridge said something about storage. I thought the matter of storage would come up during the discussion, so that I obtained the figures yesterday. Prior to the war the registered elevator storage in Canada was about 423,000,000 bushels. Actually it is now 423,339,920 bushels; but in addition to that, there are 95,800,000 bushels of special storage west of the great lakes. It is perfectly right to say that most of the increased storage which was put up during the war at Fort William and from there east has been taken down, but the storage west of Fort William is 95,800,000 bushels. I do not know of any of that storage which has been taken down; practically all of that storage is still there. That makes a total of 519,000,000 bushels. I think we can say that there is no possibility in the world of our meeting in 1947 a condition where we shall require 519,000,000 bushels of storage space in order to handle the wheat
Canadian Wheat Board Act

which will be available in Canada to fill storage space at any particular time during that year.
Every country in the world which imports wheat will be begging us for wheat, and we shall be pressing our railways all across Canada all through 1947 to get that wheat to the ports just as fast as they can get it here. So far as I am concerned, I think that will be the condition if not all through 1948, at least well into that year. With a situation of that kind which I do not think anyone can question, it is a mistake to have in this bill-I thought it was a mistake as soon as I saw it there and I still think it is a mistake-anything about fourteen bushels to the acre being delivered to elevators or to give anyone authority to say anything about fourteen bushels to the acre. What we ought to be doing, in the next two years anyway and maybe for much longer, is pushing grain through these elevators as fast as we can push it through, getting it in and out again, getting it on down to the ports. At times we may even have to refuse the suggestion that there will be any quota on it at all in order to get space for the men who are ten miles or fifteen miles back. We may find that it is not necessary for the board to say that there will be any quota at all during the seasons which are immediately ahead of us. We may want the men who are within two miles, three miles or four miles to shove their grain in and get it shipped to get boats loaded. It all depends on shipping facilities and other things which may develop as we go along. With that situation in front of us, I do not think the government should be bound, nor should the wheat board be bound, to do any of these particular things that are talked about at the moment.
It may be taken for granted that the government, the wheat board and everyone associated with it will be getting this grain through just as fast as we can get it through.
With regard to the suggestion that we should put a provision in the bill that anyone who, because of drought or for any other reason, is not able to deliver grain to the elevator to the amount of fourteen bushels to the acre for one or two or three years should be permitted to deliver forty-two bushels to the acre, I cannot conceive of anything that might run you into more trouble. There are certain people who will refuse to believe, whether hon. members on this side of the house or hon. members of the C.C.F. party believe it or not, that this thing is going to last for four years. Knowing western farmers as I do, if they get the idea that wheat is going to be higher later on, they will hold back their wheat, and they'

may hold back much more than forty bushels to the acre for every acre on which they are growing wheat. For anyone to say that, after a man has done that, the wheat board or the government must give absolute commitment that they will take all that grain and by doing so maybe leave some other fellow who has done what we have been trying to get him to do, namely deliver his grain every year, put it in the elevators and let it get to the people who require it for food, he will be asking us to say to him, you have to take your chance; sit back and let the other fellow get his forty-two bushels in. These are possibilities that we have to look at; if we are to look at all the possibilities along the way and try to cover it all by this legislation, I do not think it will be possible to get legislation that will be suitable at all.
When hon. members who read this bill for the first time said the other day that the fourteen bushels to the acre ought to come out, I think they were right. I think we should still take the position that the fourteen bushels ought to come out. The wheat board and, the government ought to be left in the position to handle the quotas as they go along in a manner -which will best suit the producer himself, because we want to suit the producer. We want to do for him that which he feels ought to be done, just as every hon. member does. But the thing that will best suit the producer must at the same time make it possible to have the grain moved as rapidly as possible to where it is wanted. Therefore I say the less that we put in the act in the way of commitments of that kind, the better. Everyone is going to be working for the same end, anyway. We must have a certain amount of faith and confidence in one another, and that is not asking very much. When we come to section 21 I think that will be the time to discuss the question that is in the minds of hon. members and, until we have either convinced them or at least convinced a sufficient number to have the legislation put through in its present form, we should continue along that line. If we cannot do that, then we may have to submit to something else.
I think this section would be a much better section if we took subsection 2 out of it as was proposed, and leave the section as it would be without subsection 2. We can consider the other question when we come to it.


James Arthur Ross: In view of the argument we have just listened to, probably the hon. member will be ready to withdraw his motion. I have been very happy in listening to the discourse in the past few minutes. I

Canadian Wheat Board Act
am glad that the Minister of Agriculture has had a change of heart. I could not help but notice the expression on the face of the Minister of Mines and Resources, because I thought of the speeches delivered by the two ministers and reports that I had read which had been delivered on the prairies within the last few months, pointing out how the farmers of the prairies would appreciate this wheat agreement with Britain, because there would be no demand for wheat in the latter part of 1947 and certainly not at all in 1948. Because of that, the farmers would be happy to have this wheat contract. I am glad the Minister of Agriculture has become a convert, and we are now to have a demand for wheat for the length of time that he has told us, which will solve a lot of our problems. Because of that, I am sure the amendment will not be taken as seriously as it otherwise would.


Hazen Robert Argue: Since I was the mover of the amendment, with the permission of the seconder I shall be glad to withdraw it, if the minister is going to have the clause deleted. However, I wish to refute one argument which the minister raised. He said that quite a few of the farmers are going to hold back their grain. I wish to remind him that in the southwest part of the province there have been two crop failures. Quite a large number of people are living off family allowances and selling the odd cow.


James Garfield Gardiner: There have been three of them.


Hazen Robert Argue: These people are not going to hold back their grain. What I had hoped to do was to make it possible for these people who could not deliver fourteen bushels in one year but who may have a crop in three years, to market their grain.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: After listening to the Minister of Agriculture tonight, I am more convinced that this section should stand until we have had a chance to discuss section 21. When the hon. member for Acadia spoke the other night he tried to put across the idea that the wheat growers are not going to be satisfied with the guarantee of fourteen bushels for the twenty-two million acres of wheat for each year during the contract. I understood from the Minister of Agriculture that night that it was the intention of the government to accept all the wheat that would be produced on those twenty-two million acres during the period, but I notice from the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that he carefully protected the government by commitments with respect to wheat for which storage was provided. I submit that, if we
want to maintain production over an extended period, we must be prepared to give guarantees to people for specific amounts. The hon. member for Melfort happens to live in a good wheat producing area, and on his own farm for twenty-five years he has produced an average of thirty bushels for every seeded acre. Are the farmers in that area to be satisfied with removing the fourteen-bushel clause, leaving it to the government to determine by order in council the number of bushels that will be accepted on the authorized acreage?
I think that cabinet ministers who are piloting the bill through should agree to allow the section to stand until we come to section 21 and find out what the government is prepared to suggest.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I would move that subsection 2 of section 17 be deleted.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I do not think members on this side of the house are satisfied to have it deleted until we have further information regarding the policy of the government.


William Henry Golding: All in favour of the amendment will say "aye".


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I submit, Mr. Chairman, you are not in order in putting the amendment to a vote while a member is on his feet. I feel I must appeal from your ruling, if that is your ruling. I submit that you cannot put the motion while a member is on his feet.


@Acting Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: (Mr. Golding) : What ruling is the hon. gentleman appealing from?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am appealing the ruling that you have given, Mr. Chairman, in putting the motion while a member is speaking. You put the question while I was on my feet. Am I to understand that I am in order in speaking to the amendment moved by the Minister of Justice?


William Henry Golding: I asked all members who were in favour of 'the amendment moved by the Minister of Justice to indicate accordingly. I did not make a ruling, but hon. members said "carried."


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I was on my feet, Mr. Chairman. I thought you were rising to discuss a question of order and I sat down. I thank you for permitting me to continue. Several hon. members, I believe, have argued at considerable length that the wheat producer should have some guarantee as to how many bushels will be accepted during the period. There is some suggestion that a guarantee of
Canadian Wheat Board Act

fourteen bushels is not sufficient. If we pass this section and leave it to the government to determine by order in council the number of bushels, we place the wheat producers in the position where they will have no idea how many bushels they can deliver for the period of the contract. I urge that hon. members support me in voting down the minister's motion to delete subsection 2 of section 17. I think it should stand until section 21 has been discussed.


William Henry Golding: The Minister of Justice moved an amendment and I asked those in favour of the amendment so to state. I understood that the amendment was carried.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Oh, no.


William Henry Golding: Then I will ask the members again.


Victor Quelch: The hon. member was on his feet when you stood up to put the motion, Mr. Chairman. At the present time, under subsection 2 of section 17, we have a guarantee that the government will take up to fourteen bushels, but if you strike out subsection 2 we have no guarantee that they will take even fourteen bushels. I suggest, as other hon. members have suggested, that we wait until we reach section 21 and find out the intentions of the government before striking out this provision. We should allow subsection 2 of section 17 to stand until we know the intentions of the government. The Minister of Agriculture, speaking a few minutes ago, said he was satisfied that there would be plenty of room for all wheat we could deliver up to the end of the period. If that is so, the government should not hestitate to give a guarantee that they will accept delivery of all wheat that can be produced and offered for sale in that period. The Minister of Agriculture would not make that statement if he were not satisfied on the point. I have no doubt he may be right and, if the Minister of Agriculture is right, then the government should not hesitate to give that guarantee. But it is not satisfactory simply to have it by word of mouth. Who knows whether this government will be in power in 1950? There may be another government in power.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: A worse one.


Victor Quelch: And that government will be bound only by whatever is in the act. We want that guarantee put in the act now. Personally, I am not prepared to have subsection 2 removed, because it does give a guarantee of fourteen bushels. Certainly before that 
guarantee of fourteen bushels is removed I want to have some other provision put in to take its place.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I may deal with this question further I thought-and I am sure I am speaking within the memory of other members of the house-that the members who are speaking now were very insistent the other night that they would not allow the bill to go past the second reading until we agreed to take the fourteen bushels out.


Victor Quelch: The minister was asked for a guarantee to take delivery of all wheat produced and offered for sale prior to July 31, 1950.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not saying that the hon. member who has spoken did, but the other hon. members were insistent in regard to the fourteen bushels. The minister came down the next day and read a statement to the house in which he said he was agreeable to do that, and the house applauded.


Victor Quelch: On your side.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, on the other side.


Victor Quelch: Not here.


James Garfield Gardiner: This side did not say anything about it. I felt like applauding myself but as a matter of fact I did not.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It is hard) to hear the minister sometimes.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member must be hard of hearing. I do not know that we should insist on this section going through tonight if everyone is so insistent on its remaining open until another day. If we talk for another ten minutes it will not go through anyway. However I would suggest to hon. members that there is something in the suggestion that they might find a little difficult.
I do not think any piece of legislation can be one-sided, and when you say that the government must do a certain thing, there are some people who must see to it as well that the funds which the government is handling are protected, because they are not the government's funds but the funds of the people. If we try to visualize what conditions will be four years from now, I can think of conditions under which we might need far more power than we have now in order to get delivery of wheat. This bill does not say that we can go to anyone's farm and take his wheat and put it on the'market. All it says is that if a farmer delivers wheat to an elevator we must buy it and the wheat board must take delivery of the wheat.


Victor Quelch: If there is room.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, if it is delivered there and there is room, they must take it. It says that. But assuming that we do get down in the end, as some people have been predicting ever since this agreement was made, to a condition where the price is going down, there is not any difficulty about what will happen. Every farmer in the country will be trying to get his wheat into the elevator and have it sold at $1.35 a bushel before a lower initial payment is made on it. But I can conceive of an entirely different condition developing where, if we continue the pool beyond 1950, we may have to set a higher initial payment, say $1.45. Immediately that is realized, we shall not be able to get any wheat from the farmers and into the elevators.
I think, if we must put into that bill a provision which says we shall take all the wheat which is delivered at the elevator at a time when we do not know what the conditions are going to be, we must also put into the bill a provision, that if any wheat grown before that date is delivered at any time after that date, we cannot pay any higher price for it than $1.35 a bushel. You can get into all kinds of difficulties by simply trying to imagine what the condition will be at the end of this contract. But section 20 of this contract says that when you begin to decide what is going to happen after 1950, this bill must be brought into the house, not after 1950 but before then, and conditions must be discussed as they then are. When this bill is brought into the house for amendment, the government no longer has control over it; it is in the hands of this house and they can do anything they like about it at that time, having all the facts in front of them. I think that is a much more reasonable position in which to leave the legislation than to try to guess what the condition will be four years from now. Provision is made in the bill for the protection of everyone, if legislation brought before this house ever protects anyone. Provision is made for giving every farmer in western Canada the protection afforded by the opportunity for the House of Commons to say what is to happen. That being the case, I think we are trying to do something which is absolutely impossible for anyone to do, namely to surmise or predict what will happen or what we ought to do in order to protect ourselves against what may happen. If we start trying to protect the farmer in one direction, we shall have to try to protect the taxpayer in the other, and this legislation might be a peculiar looking document by the time we got through with it and not meet the requirements at all. I would suggest, if the minister would concur,
that we let the whole thing stand from there on until another day, think it over and come back and discuss it then.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Just before that is done, I wish to ask the minister a simple question on the simple reply that he gave to the question a moment ago. The speech he has just made is based on the proposition that no one can surmise what will happen. Is not his whole contract with Great Britain built on surmise for the years 1945 to 1950, and that surmise made by the government itself? Do not worry the rest of us about surmising. The government started it.


James Arthur Ross: Before this bill is allowed to stand, I should like to ask a question based on the remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture a while ago with regard to transportation. The idea has grown up across the country that our transportation of grain is held up owing to bad weather and so on, but it goes back quite a bit farther than that. I should like to know what control the wheat board has or how it has handled the matter of obtaining the necessary cars for the shipment of grain. I wish to quote the first part of a paragraph from the Current Review of "Agricultural Conditions in Canada", of December, 1946. It is there stated.
It is estimated that Canada's export of wheat and wheat flour equivalent during the first four months of the 1946-47 season totalled approximately 75 million bushels as compared with 154 million for the corresponding period a year ago. This situation is largely due to the fact that Canada's export programme was thrown off schedule early in the crop year. At the beginning of the season, lakehead stocks were at a very low level and only minimum supplies were available in export positions.
Then further down on the same page:
Up to November 28 more than 216 million bushels of wheat had been delivered at country points. Deliveries to the same date last year amounted to 156 million bushels. With the seasonal decline in marketings under way, a much lower rate of delivery is expected to prevail over the remainder of the crop year.
That also has a far-reaching effect, as you know, because of the cost of transportation. The long rail haul from the lakehead to the eastern part of the country is much more expensive. That is an added expense which will have to be borne by the board and will be, I should think, an added expense to the producer in the handling of this grain.


James Angus MacKinnon: No.


James Arthur Ross: Will you explain just
what happened last fall when there was this great tie-up in the transportation of grain

Canadian Wheat Board Act
normally going at that season to the eastern part of Canada, and what control was exercised over the transportation facilities at that time?


James Angus MacKinnon: At the end of the
wheat year last summer the whole pipeline across Canada was empty, and we had to wait for the new crop to fill up that pipeline as fast as it could. We ran into difficulties of transportation, shortage of boxcars and weather. I think those facts are pretty thoroughly known. They have been talked about in the House of Commons and have been written about in the press extensively.


James Arthur Ross: This condition prevailed before the weather became bad. It was in the normal harvest season that it took place.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was bad then too.


James Arthur Ross: Transportation was
bad.


James Angus MacKinnon: There was no wheat
in export position at that time, at the end of the crop year.
May I at this time, Mr. Chairman, take advantage of the opportunity to answer a question which was asked, I believe, by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie or the hon. member for Lake Centre, I am not sure which. A request was made for a list of the shippers to whom commissions or service charges have been paid by purchasers of Canadian wheat. I have this list showing the western shippers and the eastern shippers. I can read it or, with your permission, I can place it on Hansard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Calvert Charlton Miller: The hon. member for
Portage la Prairie was not the one who asked that question. It might have been the hon. member for Lake Centre.


James Angus MacKinnon: I beg the hon. members pardon. I believe the question was asked by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle.


William Henry Golding: Has the Minister of Trade and Commerce permission to put this list on Hansard?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


James Angus MacKinnon: The list referred to
follows:
Western Shippers
Buclcerfield's, Ltd.
Bunge Corporation, Ltd.
Canada Grain Export Company, Ltd.
Cargill Grain Co.
Continental Grain Co.
Co-operative Wholesale, Ltd.
Earl and Stoddart.
Hall Bryan, Ltd.

Hallet and Carey (B.C.), Ltd.
Kerr Gifford and Co., Ltd.
Federal Grain Co.
Leval and Co., Inc.
McCabe Grain Co.
Midland Pacific Terminals, Ltd.
Milroy Grain Co., Ltd.
Jas. Richardson and Sons, Ltd.
F. W. Rudolph Searle Grain Co., Ltd.
Eastern Shippers Bunge Corporation, Ltd.
Canadian Consolidated Grain Co., Ltd. Cargill Grain Co., Ltd.
Continental Grain Co. (Canada), Ltd.
Federal Grain, Ltd.
Folliott Grain, Ltd.
Hallet and Carey, Ltd.
Lake of the Woods Milling Co., Ltd.
Leval and Co., Ltd.
Maple Leaf Milling Co., Ltd.
McCabe Bros. Grain Co., Ltd.
Norris Grain Co., Ltd.
Northern Grain Co., Ltd.
Ogilvie Flour Mills, Ltd.
Parrish and Heimbecker, Ltd.
Pethiek Grain Co., Ltd.
Purity Flour Mills, Ltd.
Range Grain Co., Ltd.
Reliance Grain Co., Ltd.
Jas. Richardson and Sons, Ltd.
Robin Hood Flour Mills, Ltd.
Saskatchewan Pool Elevators, Ltd.
Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society, Ltd. Searle Grain Co.
J. B. Stoddart, Ltd.
Toronto Elevators, Ltd.
Western Grain Co., Ltd.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Will the minister tell me what he is bringing before parliament in 1950? He can do so tomorrow.


James Garfield Gardiner: This bill.


Calvert Charlton Miller: This very bill?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, February 28, 1947