[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. W. TURNBULL (Regina) presented the third report of the select standing committee on industrial and international relations, as follows:

Pensions for the Blind
' Your committee has held two sessions and has heard statements from eleven persons with respect to the subject matter of the resolution referred to it for consideration under an order of the House of Commons, dated January 31, 1935, which resolution reads as follows:
"Resolved that in the opinion of this house the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act should apply to blind people over forty years of age."
The committee has under instructions of the House of Commons reconsidered the said resolution, together with the instructions of the House of Commons-
"That they have power to amend their second report by recommending that the house pass a special blind act applicable to the nine provinces of the dominion and providing pensions for the blind over forty years of age on the same basis as the Old Age Pensions Act."
As persons seventy years of age and over, whether blind or not. fall within the application of the Old Age Pensions Act in its present form, your committee considered the position of the blind persons between the ages of forty and seventy.
Evidence submitted to the committee indicated that the Old Age Pensions Act is in force in only seven provinces out of nine and its provisions therefore when amended will not affect blind persons living in the remaining two provinces unless these provinces subsequently adopt the Old Age 'Pensions Act or the proposed amendments thereto.
It is also indicated that records of organizations interested in the blind place the number of the blind between forty and seventy years of age at 3.016 in the whole nine provinces. After making fair deductions, it was stated that approximately 2,600 persons would be affected by legislation requested by the said resolution. These figures are sufficiently in harmony with census returns to be considered reasonably accurate.
The estimated expenditure by the dominion government on the present basis of contribution, occasioned by the proposed legislation, if the above figures are accurate and allowing the maximum of $240 per person per annum, would be under $500,000 apart from administration expenses and the expense for the present fiscal year would probably be less than $125,000.
The committee regrets that an amendment to the Old Age Pensions Act may result in lack of assistance in those provinces that may not feel inclined to adopt appropriate legislation to bring such amendment into effect within their respective borders.
In view of all the circumstances, including possible constitutional difficulties, the committee recommends that the government of Canada consider amendments to the Old Age Pensions Act in such manner as to make that act apply to blind persons of forty years of age and over. The committee are of the opinion that in drafting such amendment provision should be made whereby any province might by appropriate provincial action, provide for the operation of that portion of the act dealing with pensions for the blind without the necessity of providing for the operation of the whole act within such province.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
F. W. Turnbull,
Chairman.
Mr. TURNBULL moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. SPEAKER:: By leave of the house-


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Mr. Speaker, I would
like this report to be printed in the votes and proceedings, before it is moved, so that we may know exactly what we are voting upon.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Motion stands.



RADIO BROADCASTING

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 99, respecting radio broadcasting.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Explain.


Mr. DURANLEAU:: The only purpose of the bill is to extend the life of the Canadian radio broadcasting commission up to the end of the present fiscal year.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



POST OFFICE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 100, to amend the Post Office Act.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Explain.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: This bill stands in my
name by reason of the fact that it is a legal and somewhat technical matter and involves a very slight change in section 77 of the present Post Office Act.


Mr. POULIOT:: Is it too technical for
the Postmaster General?


Hugh Guthrie: The section to which I
have referred provides that mail contracts may be renewed. The provision in the act is that they may be renewed on conditions advantageous to the public interests for a further term not exceeding four years. This has been the law of the land for many years, and the interpretation placed upon it has been that it enabled the Post Office Department to renew not for a further "term" but for further " terms,"-succeeding terms of four years. That has been the practice for thirty or forty years. The auditor general has pointed out that all the act authorizes is one renewal for a further term of years. This bill is to correct that condition, by adding the words "term or terms."


Mr. CASGRAIN:: There is nothing very
technical in that.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Questions



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
translations of publications
['1.\t$162,660.44.\n2.\t$271,100.73.\n3.\t$204,450.50.\n4.\tYes. (a) All; (b) None. Four claims for refund totaling $9,182.95 were paid, however, on the basis of item 1035 covering machinery imported during the period June, 1934, to April, 1935, under orders in council passed under authority of the Revenue and Audit Act.\n5.\tNo. The department honours claims for drawback qualifying under the provisions of schedule "B" of the customs tariff when presented to customs within three years of the date of importation.\n6.\tYes, in cases where orders in council wer obtained.\n7.\tThere is no statutory authority. I\'t has always \'been the practice not to give information that would divulge the business of an individual importer. The question has been raised on many occasions under different administrations.\n8.\tDrawback claims on materials set forth in schedule "B" of the customs tariff are paid under the authority of section 12 of the customs tariff. Drawback of customs duty in respect of goods exported is paid under regulations governing customs drawback established by orders in council under the provisions of the customs act.\n9.\tYes. Section 33 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, chapter 27, George V, 1931.']
Mr. FAFARD:: Does the government intend to have a French translation made of bulletin No. 72: [DOT]'Birds of Canada," by P. A. Taverner, also memoranda numbers 126: "Botanical Exploration of the North Shore of the St. Lawrence," by H. St. John; 146: "Retreat of the Last Ice-Sheet in Eastern Canada," by Ernest Antevs; 154: "Geology of Anticosti Island," by Twenhofel; 162: "Peat Bogs in Southeastern Canada," by Vaino Auer?


Mr. CAHAN:: With respect to this question, the translations of the various bulletins issued by various government departments is a matter entirely within the control of the officers of those departments. I have made inquiries and I learn that no instructions have been given to the bureau for translations to make translations of these documents. Therefore, so far they have not been translated, published or laid upon the table of the house. However, it is a matter entirely within the discretion of the department which issues the bulletins, and if there are any special bulletins which it is desired should be translated into French and published I have no doubt the head of the department in question will upon request see that such translations are made.



[Stage Direction]
Mr. 'STEVENS:
1.	What is the total amount of rebates granted under tariff item 1035, schedule "B" of the customs tariff during the period' June, 1934, to April, 1935, inclusive?
2.	What is the total amount of duty originally collected on the imports represented by the rebates granted as per the last preceding paragraph?
3.	What was the total amount of rebates claimed in the original applications?
4.	Were any rebates granted during the
period indicated in paragraph (1) on goods imported prior to the month of June, 1934; if so,	'	_
(a)	What portion of these rebates applies to such prior period? and
(b)	What portion applies to the period of June, 1934, to April, 1935?
5.	In each case, was the rebate authorized by a minute of treasury board?
6.	In each case was such minute of treasury board, if any, confirmed by order in council?
7.	Will the government state under what statute the Department of National Revenue is authorized to refuse parliament information regarding rebates made by that department under tariff item 1035, schedule "B" of the customs tariff?
8.	Is the authority under which rebates are paid out of the consolidated revenue fund based upon section 12 of the Customs Tariff Act?
[Mr. Casgrain.3
9.	Is there any other statutory authority authorizing the governor in council to pay rebates out of the consolidated revenue fund; if so, what statute?
Mr. MATTHEWS:: 1.	$162,660.44.
2.	$271,100.73.
3.	$204,450.50.
4.	Yes. (a) All; (b) None. Four claims for refund totaling $9,182.95 were paid, however, on the basis of item 1035 covering machinery imported during the period June, 1934, to April, 1935, under orders in council passed under authority of the Revenue and Audit Act.
5.	No. The department honours claims for drawback qualifying under the provisions of schedule "B" of the customs tariff when presented to customs within three years of the date of importation.
6.	Yes, in cases where orders in council wer obtained.
7.	There is no statutory authority. I't has always 'been the practice not to give information that would divulge the business of an individual importer. The question has been raised on many occasions under different administrations.
8.	Drawback claims on materials set forth in schedule "B" of the customs tariff are paid under the authority of section 12 of the customs tariff. Drawback of customs duty in respect of goods exported is paid under regulations governing customs drawback established by orders in council under the provisions of the customs act.
9.	Yes. Section 33 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, chapter 27, George V, 1931.



STE. FAMILLE, ISLAND OF ORLEANS, MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. BOUCHER:: 1.	Who is the present contractor for carrying the mail at Ste-Famille, Island of Orleans, on the northern side of the island, and since what, date?
2.	What remuneration does he receive in connection with such services?
3.	Does such contractor carry the mail himself?
4.	If not, did he let a sub-contract?
5.	If so, who is the sub-contractor and what sum does he receive from the contractor?
6.	What sum was paid to the former contractor?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Eudoire Piohette, by transfer on April 7, 1928.
2.	$595 per annum.

Questions
3.	Occasionally, but most of the time service is performed by his two sons and contractor furnishes all equipment.
4.	No.
5.	See answer to No. 4.
6.	$595 pen annum.



MILITIA ORDERS

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Referring to sessional paper 335 of May 20, 1935, was militia order 116 of 1933 to the effect that "officers attending courses in England will in future address all correspondence pertaining to leave of absence, pay and allowances, etc., or any other matters which may require action by national defence headquarters to-The Secretary, Office of the High Commissioner for Canada, The Canadian building, Trafalgar Square, London, S.W. 1," approved by the war office, and the admiralty?
2.	If so. was the abovementioned Secretary of the office of the High Commissioner for Canada thus acting on behalf and for the War Office and the admiralty?
3.	If not, does it mean that Canadian Officers attending courses in England did not have to report either to the war office or to the admiralty?
4.	Same question with regard to other ranks attending courses in England and mentioned in militia order 157 of 1933 contained in the abovementioned return.


Mr. STIRLING:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by 1.
3.	Canadian officers attending courses in England are not required to report either to the war office or to the admiralty, unless expressly instructed to do so by the department.
4.	The same answers as for 1, 2 and 3.



OFFICERS VISITING GREAT BRITAIN

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Was militia order No. 153 of 1932, respecting Canadian officers visiting Great Britain, republished in militia order No. 118 of 1935 at the request of the war office?
* 2. If so, was it on account of or because of the issuance of militia orders 116 and 157 of 1933?
3.	At what date were the militia orders mentioned in the preceding paragraph brought to the attention of the war office?
4.	Same questions for militia order No. 154 of 1932 republished in militia order 119 of 1935.


Mr. STIRLING:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by 1.
3.	Were not brought to the attention of the war office.
4.	The same answers as for 1, 2 and 3.



PUBLICITY AND ADVERTISING IN UNITED KINGDOM

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Was one or were several certificates of encumbrance issued for the expenditure of 8100,000 under the authority of the High Commissioner for Canada in England, being an appropriation for publicity and advertising in the United Kingdom and Europe, in the fiscal year 1933-1934?
2.	If so, what was the date and amount of each certificate, to whom was it issued and in virtue of what authority?
3.	Was the expenditure of the above mentioned sum of $100,000 for advertising a business involving questions of policy?
4.	If so, was the High Commissioner for Canada communicated with through the Secretary of State for External Affairs?
5.	If not, why was this not done?


Mr. BENNETT:: Questions


Jean-François Pouliot: What are the names and salaries of persons employed on the coastguard vessel, Preventor of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Hugh Guthrie: per day
Coffin, H. W., skipper-lieutenant	$5	90Ascah, J. F., skipper	
5	00Kenney, R. R., chief petty officer.... 3	20Murphy, J. M., chief engineer	
5	40Strickland, J. V., warrant engineer....	4	25Bowser, R. I., petty officer	
2	50
Roach, C. E., chief engine room artificer,
2nd class	 3	60
Harrigan, M. A. P., engine room artificer,
2nd class	 2	75
Martin, E. C. J., leading telegraphist.. 2	25
Clarke, F. W., telegraphist	
2	00Clattenbury, L. B., engineman	
2	45Bozec, J. M., engineman	
2	45Urquahart, A. H., engineman	
2	30Rioux, J. C., engineman	
2	25Bowser, L. A., A.B. seaman	
1	95Cook, R. J., A.B. seaman	
1	95Lund, G. A., A.B. seaman	
1	95Clothier, J. W., A.B. seaman	
1	95Blyth, G. G., A.B. seaman	
1	95Terrio, N. J., ordinary seaman	
1	25Derry, J. B., ordinary seaman	
1	25Fleming, P. R., ordinary seaman	
1	25Graham, C. H. S., cook-steward	
2	70Standing, J. N., ship's cook	
2	70



ASCENSION DAY, POST OFFICE CLOSING

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Did the Post Office Department issue instructions to postmasters to close post offices in the province of Quebec, on May 30th last, the feast of the ascension?
2.	What instructions were issued in this regard previous years since 1931?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	No.
2.	None.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE-HISTORICAL SECTION

Mr. AHEARN:: 1.	Was the historical section of the Department of National Defence created in 1917 by 92582-2261
order in council number 19, dated January 17, 1917, and reorganized by order in council number 1052, dated May 27, 1921?
2.	Did' the government at the time consideration was being given to the placing of the staff of the soldier settlement board on a permanent basis, give due consideration to having the staff of the historical section, Department of National Defence, also placed on a permanent basis?
3.	Is the government aware that this staff, the majority of whom are returned soldiers, has been employed on this work since 1917 and in a relative position to that of the soldier settlement board staff?
4.	If so, has the government given consideration to this question in view of the soldier settlement board staff being made permanent?


Mr. STIRLING:: 1.	Yes.
2,	3 and 4. The question of placing the staff of the historical section on a permanent basis has been under consideration for some time but no final decision has as yet been made.



ST. JEAN DE MATHA, QUE., MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	Did the superintendent of the Post Office Department call for tenders for the carrying of the mail on rural routes Nos. 1 and 2 in the parish of St. Jean de Matha, county of Joliette, in the month of April, last?
2.	If so, who were the tenderers and what were the tender prices?
3.	Were contracts awarded, what were the contract prices and to whom were such contracts awarded ?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2 and 3. The contract for route No. 1 was awarded to James C'omtois, the only tenderer, at $375 per annum, and the contract for route No. 2 was awarded to Hormisdas Desroches, also the only tenderer, at $375 per annum.



SALES TAX ON CANNED VEGETABLES

Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	What agricultural cooperative societies of the province of Quebec pay a sales tax of 6 per cent on the vegetables they can?
2.	Did any municipal councils of the province of Quebec protest against the levying of a sales tax of 6 per cent on vegetables canned
Questions

by the agricultural cooperative societies which, without engaging in trade, only sell the products to their members?
3.	If so, what municipal councils?


Mr. MATTHEWS:: 1.	No detailed statistical information as to origin of payments is maintained in the department in respect to sales tax.
2.	The department has been unable to locate any such protests.
3.	Answered by No. 2.



SHELBURNE-UPPER OHIO, N.S., MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	Who is the contractor for rural route No. I Shelburne to Upper Ohio, Shelburne county?
2.	What was the amount of the contract when first awarded to the present contractor?
3.	Was said amount of contract increased during the term of the present contract; if so, how much?
4.	When does the present contract expire?
5.	Will public tenders be called for new contract to follow expiration of present one?
6.	If so, in what newspaper or newspapers will they be published?
7.	Has any arrangement been entered into, or offer been made to present contractor, or any other person or persons, to carry the mails from Shelburne, N.S., to Upper Ohio, R.R. No. 1, immediately upon expiry of present contract?
8.	If so, with whom, and for what price, and for how long a period of time?
9.	If such arrangement has been made without public tender, upon whose recommendation did the Post Office Department act?
Mr. S'AUVE:
1.	James M. Bower.
2.	$550 per annum.
3.	No.
4.	30th September, 1935.
5.	No.
6.	See answer to No. 5.
7.	Yes.
8.	A renewal for four years was authorized with the present contractor at 8475 per annum.
9.	Donald M. Robertson.



CHURCHOVER, N.S., MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	When does the present contract for carrying mails from Churchover, Shelburne county, N.S., to the railway station, expire?
2.	Who is the present contractor, and what is the amount of his contract?
3.	Will tenders be advertised for new contract to begin upon expiration of present contract?
4.	If so, in what newspaper or newspapers will tenders be published?
5.	Will the present contractor be given a chance to renew present contract, without tender, at the same price?
6.	Has any offer been made or arrangement entered into with any person or persons to

carry the mails from Churchover to the railway station immediately upon expiry of the present contract?
7.	If so, with whom, and for what period of time, and at what price or amount?
8.	If such contract or arrangement has been made on whose recommendation did the Post Office Department act?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	30th June, 1936.
2.	E. G. Mahoney at $195 per annum.
3.	No.
4.	See answer to No. 3.
5.	No.
6.	Yes.
7.	Stillman Acker, 4 years at $195 per annum.
8.	Donald M. Robertson.



BIRCHTOWN, N.S., MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	When does the present contract for carrying the mails from Birehtown, Shelburne county, N.S., to the railway station, expire?
2.	Who is the present contractor, and what is the amount of his contract?
3.	Will tenders be advertised for new contract to begin upon expiration of present contract?
4.	If so, in what newspaper or newspapers will the tenders be published?
5.	Will the present contractor be given a chance to renew present contract, without tender, at the same price?
6.	Has any offer been made or arrangement
entered into with any person or persons to carry the mails from Birehtown to the railway station, immediately upon expiry of the present contract?	_
7.	If so, with whom, and for what period of time, and at what price or amount?
8.	If such contract or arrangement has been made on whose recommendation did the Post Office Department act?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	30th June, 1935.
2.	E. G. Mahoney $62.60 per annum.
3.	No.
4.	See answer to No. 3.
5.	No.
6.	Yes.
7.	Stillman Acker, 4 years at $62.60 per annum.
8.	Donald M. Robertson.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. STEWART (West Edmonton):: 1. What is the number of employees employed by tax paying firms in Canada (total amount only) ?

Motions for Papers
2.	What is the number of unemployed heads of families in Canada?
3.	What is the number of single unemployed in Canada?	,
4.	W'hat is the total amount paid' out on relief for year ending March 31, 1935?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Return tabled herewith.


DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE-OFFICERS IN GREAT BRITAIN
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Since October, 1931, were Messrs. J. Bent, A. E. Griffith, J. C. Williams, officers of the Canadian Department of Agriculture, on duty in Great Britain?
2.	If so, during that period were they always overseen and directed by the deputy head of the Department of Agriculture in virtue of section 7 of the Civil Service Act and section 3 of the act respecting the Department of Agriculture?
3.	Did the three above mentioned gentlemen come, at any time during that period, under the supervision of the High Commissioner in London?
4.	If so, was it under the authority of orders in council?
5.	Under what act were these orders in council passed?
6.	If such orders in council were passed, were they forwarded to the High Commissioner in London by the Clerk of the Privy Council or the deputy Minister of Agriculture?
7.	Referring to letter of November 11, 1931, from the office of the High Commissioner in England to the deputy head of the Canadian Department of Agriculture 'contained in sessional paper No. 335 of May 20, 1935, have the three above named officers of the Department of Agriculture ceased to be under the supervision of the deputy head of the Canadian Department of Agriculture?
8.	Was the Department of Agriculture specifically mentioned in P.C. 330 of February 10, 1922?


RADIO BROADCASTING-CANADIAN NATIONAL CARBON COMPANY EMPLOYEES
Mr. GAGNON:: 1.	How many employees does the National Carbon Company, Toronto, employ under a contract between the said company and the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission?
2.	What are their names, positions and salaries?


TRADE WITH GREAT BRITAIN
Mr. POULIOT:: 1. What was the total amount of exports (including exports of foreign products) of Canada to Great Britain in calendar years 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, and 1934?
2. Same question for Canadian imports from Great Britain?


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Return
tabled herewith.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. BARRETTE (for Mr. Gagnon):: 1.	For a copy of the contract between the Canadian National Carbon Company, Toronto, and the Canadian radio broadcasting commission whereby the commission leases the facilities of stations CRCT and CKNC, Toronto.
2.	For a copy of all correspondence, documents, etc., relative to the engagement or appointment of personnel at stations CRCT and CKNC, Toronto.



HECTOR WARREN

Mr. DESROCHERS:: For a copy of all documents, correspondence, letters, telegrams exchanged between the government, the Department of Public Works at Ottawa and at Quebec, and Mr. Hector Warren respecting the dismissal of the said Hector Warren as engineer in the employ of the Department of Public Works in the year 1916.



RADIO BROADCASTING-NEW CARLISLE

Mr. BARRETTE (for Mr. Gagnon):: For a copy of all correspondence, and other documents, between station CHNC, New Carlisle, and the Canadian radio broadcasting commission, since January 1, 1934.



RADIO BROADCASTING-SALARY INCREASES

Joseph Arthur Barrette: For a copy of all letters and other documents in the possession of the government, relative to increases in salaries of all employees of the Canadian radio broadcasting commission, since January 1, 1934.



LEWIS DUNCAN, TORONTO

Mr. STITT (Selkirk):: For a copy of all correspondence between the Department of Justice or the Department of External Affairs in the year 1921 with Lewis Duncan, barrister, of Toronto, regarding claim of said Duncan for legal services.



RIVIERE AUX HURONS, QUE., DEEPENING

Mr. FONTAINE:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents, exchanged from 1931 to date between the hon. Minister of Marine or his department and any persons, respecting the deepening of the river bed of Riviere aux Hurons, province of Quebec.
Trade Agreements


Joseph-Théophile-Adélard Fontaine: For a copy of all correspondence, letters telegrams and other documents, exchanged from 1931 to date between the hon. Minister of Public Works or his department and any other persons, respecting the deepening of the river bed of Riviere aux Hurons, province of Quebec.



STE-HYACINTHE, QUE., FAIR

Joseph-Théophile-Adélard Fontaine: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: Before the orders of the day are proceeded with I desire to make a statement on behalf of the Minister of Finance, who has been called away owing to the illness of his mother. He would have on Monday made the following statement: That in reply to the question, of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) of June 5, what he had in mind was to emphasize the overriding poweT of parliament in connection with any trade agreements, and that anything in the nature of a formal agreement should be submitted for ratification or approval by parliament. In making that statement, however, he did not have it in, mind to imply that the putting into effect of any reductions of rates agreed upon would require to be deferred until such approval had been given, or to impair in any way the full operative force of section 11 of the Customs Act, with which he was them dealing.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: W'hat the right
hon. the Prime Minister has just said would indicate that he has in his mind the subject to which I am about to refer. On May 20 I asked my right hon. friend whether negotiations were still continuing between the United States and Canada with respect to a trade agreement, and whether he contemplated the probability of submitting an agreement to the house before prorogation. My right hon. friend replied as follows:
I can only say that negotiations with Washington have been continuing, but it would be idle for me to express any view at the moment as to whether or not they would crystallize in the form of an agreement within the period of time which will elapse between now and the rising of the house. If, as and when I am informed so as to be able to give an answer to that question. I shall be glad to give such information to the house.
I notice that yesterday, speaking in another place, the leader of the government in the Senate said that a good reciprocity treaty can be made. It is therefore apparent, if the hon. leader of the government in the Senate was speaking as a minister of the crown, which no doubt he was, that the government is now in a position to say that it has found it possible to make an agreement. What I would like to ask the Prime Minister is whether such is the case, and if so whether matters could not be so arranged as to have the agreement placed before this parliament before it rises, in order that it may receive consideration here, and1 that if, as stated, it is a good agreement, it may receive approval, and the public thereby have the advantage at the earliest possible .moment of any benefits that a reciprocal trade agreement ,may give.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I very much regret that the right hon. gentleman has placed a wrong construction on a head note which he read in the newspaper. It is not correct to say that any agreement has been negotiated with the United States.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg my right hon. friend's pardon, I was not referring to a head note in the newspaper. I was quoting from the Senate Hansard of yesterday, page 415, in the report of a speech by the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen the words "a good reciprocity treaty can be made."


Richard Bedford Bennett: What the leader of the
Senate was dealing with was not that there was an agreement made, but that Canada was desirous cf making a good agreement if a good agreement can be made, which is an altogether different thing. No agreement

Grain Board-Mr. Bennett
has been made. Had1 any agreement been made I Would have informed this house. Negotiations will be proceeded with next week, I believe the time has been fixed at which the discussions will be resumed. The only reason I made the statement on behalf of the Minister of Finance was in order to remove any doubt as to the desirability of our being able to act under section 11 if the occasion should arise. I quite share the right hon. gentleman's vieiw that if it were possible to have an agreement arrived at between now and the rising of this house it would be desirable, and I assure him that if one were arrived at it would be submitted1 to parliament at once without any delay at all.
FARNHAM, QUE., POST OFFICE On the orders of the day:
Mr. PIERRE F. CAlSGRAIN (Charlevoix-Saguenay): I read in the paper to-day this article:
Tenders tabled for post office Privately invited bids received June 6, for Farnham, Que., project.
I understand this has to do with the erection of a post office building at Farnham. It proceeds to say:
Tenders from a selected list of contractors were received toy private invitation until Thursday, June 6.
I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) how it is that tenders were invited privately, also the names of the privileged few who were invited to tender.


Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works):: I shall inquire into the matter and give my hon. friend an answer to-morrow.
THE CONSERVATIVE IDEA On the orders of the day:


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government if there is really a conservative idea and, if so, what is it, and if there is more than one?


Mir. F. J. LAFLECHE (Richmond-Wolfe) (Translation):: The hon. member for Temis-couata should first have an idea himself.
REHABILITATION OF DROUGHT AREAS On the orders of the day:


Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. AVeir) with respect to the water conservation committee of the west. What are their present activities and what are their future plans, if any?


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: During the last month a careful survey has been under way of all applications received for consideration of certain localities with reference to the conservation of water. This is being done by engineers well and specially qualified to do it in cooperation with the three western provinces. There have also been appointed other staffs that will be required to proceed with the work without delay.


Mr. WEIR (Macdonald):: May I ask if that survey is confined to the drought area?


Robert Weir: First, yes.


Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):: Is it possible that this plan of investigation in regard to water conservation will be extended to all areas in those provinces instead of just the dried-out areas?


Robert Weir: The drought area will receive first consideration.



CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 98, to provide for the constitution and powers of the Canadian Grain Board.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, in rising to move
the second reading of this bill I am not unaware of the public interest in its contents, nor yet of the fact that complaints have been made that the matter might have been dealt with at an earlier time in the session. Before I was ill I had placed upon the order paper the resolution which was adopted the other day, and on my return, but for the illness of Mr. McFarland, who is still confined to the hospital, the matter would have been proceeded with more promptly. I think I should say that in fairness to the house.
I indicated a few days ago that unquestionably the wheat problem is the most important problem that concerns the Canadian people. Canada is the largest exporter of wheat in the world. She is not the largest producer of wheat, production is larger in the United States and larger in Russia. In the latter country production has reached 1,000,000,000 bushels per annum, and in the United States the average has exceeded 800.000 000 bushels until quite recently. We have not reached a production of 600,000,000 bushels of wheat in this country in any one year as yet. We are the largest exporters and as such we are concerned as to the price at which our pro-
Grain Board-Mr. Bennett
[Stage Direction]
duct may be sold. Need I remind the house that the reason wheat plays so large a part in the economic life of Canada is that it is a product which is more readily converted into new wealth than any other resource upon which we can have reliance to take care of our adverse trade balances and to increase the purchasing power of our people. I need hardly remind the house that when there is a favourable crop with a favourable market the railways have traffic and that when the railways have traffic employment on the railways is larger than it otherwise would be. I need hardly remind the house that in eastern Canada, whether it be Quebec. Ontario or any part of the country, the ability of the industrial population to produce in their factories and mills the requirements of the population west of the lakes depends entirely upon our ability to market our crop of wheat. If the crop is slight and the demand is limited there is no purchasing power on the part of the population west of the lakes to enable them to purchase the goods produced in the factories and mills of eastern Canada. There is no constituency represented in this house, except possibly the Yukon, which is not directly affected by the production and sale of wheat in western Canada.
For the last thirty-seven or thirty-eight years it has been my privilege to make western Canada my home and I have seen the development of that country from small things to large things in the way of wheat production. I have seen great areas which did not produce wheat, produce wheat in large quantities and I regret to say that I have also seen great areas in which wheat was produced, no longer capable of producing anything. Drought with the consequent movement of the soil by the wind has made it impossible for crops to be produced and like many other hon. members I have seen dust piled like snowbanks against the fences along the dividing lines between the farms. This is the condition which prevails in a country which at one time produced more bushels of wheat per acre than almost any other part of the world. I repeat that there is no part of this country which is not affected by the production and sale of wheat.
For these reasons we, perhaps more than most countries, are vitally concerned in a reasonable price being secured for our product. When I say a reasonable price I but reflect the views which have been expressed by every economic council which has met since the world war. The view has been that commodity prices should be increased.

This view has been expressed at great economic gatherings of world wide extent, it has been expressed by the League of Nations and it has been expressed in this house, too frequently for me to refer again to it. Canada has a responsibility which is not limited to the Canadian producer. As I said a moment ago, Canada is the largest exporter of wheat in the world while Great Britain is the largest buyer of wheat. May I say what is possibly known to many that in the four crop years ended August last, out of every 100 bushels of wheat which, in the form of wheat or manufactured into flour, went into the markets of the world, 35 bushels came from Canada, 20 bushels came from Australia, 20 bushels from Argentina, 8 bushels from Russia, 10 bushels from the United States and 7 bushels from the Balkans and other countries. These figures should have the effect of making every hon. member realize that during the last four seasons for which we have a record Canada has sold nearly as much wheat as Argentina and Australia together.
I repeat that Canada is concerned about the price structure. Canada has a duty not only to its own farmers but also to the smaller countries which are marketing wheat to see to it that a lead is given with respect to the prices which may be received for a commodity of such importance to the world. Wheat is the most important commodity in the export business of Canada. I do not like to repeat, but there is no constituency in this country outside of the Yukon which is not affected directly or indirectly by the sale of our wheat. Under these circumstances let us approach this problem in the sense to which I have directed attention, namely, as a problem which affects not only Canada but all the other wheat producing countries, as a problem which is not only a factor in international trade but also a vital factor in determining our international balances.
As I proceed this afternoon I shall endeavour to point out what has been done during the last four years. I shall offer this record to the house without apology or excuse and with some sense of justifiable pride for the results which have been obtained. I look back upon this record with some degree of pride as paying some part of the debt which I owe to western Canada. I intend to put upon the records of this house figures which will tell their own story, figures which will indicate just as clearly as figures can the history of the dealings in wheat during the last four or five years. It has been said that we should not be concerned as to what the

Grain Board-Mr. Bennett
price of wheat is and I shall show presently that there are public men in this country to whom the people have sometimes listened who say: Let wheat go to any price, we are not concerned about it. There are others, and I shall deal with them also, who say that the difficulty is not over-production but under consumption. I shall be glad to show that during the years when we had the largest crop, when the world's carry over was the greatest and when the price was lowest, there was less consumption than during the preceding years. These are facts, not fancies and it is time attention was directed to these matters.
Wheat Production and Value
Production
Years	(bushels)
1920		 263,189,000
1921		 300,858,000
1922		 399,786,000
1923		 474,199,000
1924	  262,097,000
1925		 395,475,000
1926		 407,136,000
1927		 479,665.000
1928	  566,726,000
1929		 304,520,000
1930	  420.672,000
1931		 321,325,000
1932	  443,061,000
1933	'	  281,892,000
1934		 275,849,000
I shall later consider the observations which have been made on various platforms of this country and which in many instances were unworthy of the public men who made them. They seem to have had no regard for the injury they might be doing their country by making misstatements which if made by those who have to transact business would constitute actionable misrepresentation. These are facts to which I direct the attention of the house this afternoon.
I repeat that there devolves upon this country a responsibility as the greatest wheat exporting nation in the world not only to discharge its duty to its own citizens but so to measure its international responsibilities with other nations of the world which are wheat producers that we may be regarded as giving them assistance in their endeavours- to do what? To raise the price of commodities and thus bring about some measure of rehabilitation and recovery in the world. This is what I submit to this house. I should like to give the house the number of acres which have been sown to wheat in Canada
since 1920. They are:
1920		
1921		
1922		
1923		
1924		
1925		
1926		
1927		
1928		
1929		
1930		
1931		
1932		
1933		
1934		
1935	(estimated) .. .
18,232,374
23,261,224
22.423.000
21.886.000
22.056.000
20.790.000
22.896.000
22.460.000
24.119.000
25.255.000 25,584,939 26,355,136
27.182.100
25.991.100
23.985.000 23,344,900
I next desire to place on Hansard the record of the production, in bushels, of wheat in this country, which includes not only the west but also the east, since 1920:
The value of that crop, as indicated by the figures accumulated in the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, is as follows, beginning with 1920:
Years	Value
1920		$ 427.357,300
1921		 242,936,000
1922	  339,419.000
1923		 316,994,700
1924	  320,362,000
1925		 487,736.200
1926		 442.221,000
I997	  477.791.000
1928	  451,235.000
1929		 319.715.000
1930		 204,693.000
1931		 123.550.000
1932	  154.760.000
1933		 136.958.000
1934		 163,972.000
The wheat that we produce is used for the following purposes; (a) for seed purposes in the succeeding year; (b) for domestic purposes; (c) for the production of flour for export; and (d) for export as grain.
For the purposes of making computations it is usual to add flour on the basis of the quantity used in the production of the barrels of flour exported. I will now give the house exports of wheat in the form of grain and wheat utilized in the production of flour for the crop years from 1919-20 up to date. I need only point out that the crop year ends on the 31st day of July in each year, but for purposes of dealing with problems of this kind -it is scarcely necessary to say this-an exact date can hardly be fixed. The end of the crop year is when the crop becomes available on the markets of the country, and therefore we deal in crop years:
Exports of Wheat and Wheat Flour for the Crop Years 1919-20 to 1933-34 Total export Quantity Value Crop vears	Bushels	$1919-	20	
89,003,0231920-	21	
167,163,3051921-	22	
194.003.408	Not1922-	23	
279.492.557	available1923-	24	
332.146,9801924-	25	
192,721,772
Grain Board-Mr. Bennett
[Stage Direction]
Exports of Wheat and Wheat Flour for the Crop Years 1919-20 to 1933-34-Con.
Total export Quantity Value Crop years	Bushels	$1925-	26	
324,592,024	475,023,6241926-	27	
292,880,996	409,654,7151927-	28	
332,963,284	441,068,2001928-	29	
407,564,186	451,820,8871929-	30	
186,267,212	227,317,0901930-	31	
258.693,887	188,421,3641931-	32	
207,029,559	128,117,1281932-	33	
264,304,328	151,321,7461933-	34	
194,779,876	140,488,6061934-	35	
146,387,083	121,178,831
(end of May)
We have not available the prices received for this wheat up until the beginning of the year 1925-26, but from that time on we have a complete record of what was received in the way of new wealth by the Canadian people through the export of wheat in the form of grain and flour, and those figures are given in the foregoing table. That gives the history of the production and of the new wealth received by this country from the sale of wheat. I need hardly remind this house, if it has followed me in what I have said up to the
moment, that having regard to the purposes for which we utilize wheat, to the size of crops to which I have referred, and to the statement as to quantity exported, that there was a very large carryover. The word "carryover" is used therefore to indicate that quantity of wheat which has not found a market during the crop year. These figures are interesting; for part of our crop that was carried over wa3 in the United States, some of it in elevators, some of it in ships. But it had been included in the export figures when it cleared from Canada, so that while it appears as part of our exportable surplus, it must also be regarded as part of the carry-over, because until wheat enters into consumption it of course is not off the market. For instance, all the crop in this country might be shipped to Europe, but until such time as it had been consumed it would always overhang the market as something that has to be taken care of before additional markets would be available. The carry-overs for the different years from 1920 are as follows:
Year ending August 31:
Canada	United States	Totalbushels	bushels	bushels
1921
1923
9.847,591
13.727.088
19,462.664
11,749,995
299.037
1,558.092
483,324
9,847.591
14.026J25
21.020.756
12,233,319
In 1924 the increase was perceptible:	Canada	United States	Year ending July 31:	bushels	bushels	bushels1924	.. 41,118,536	2,958,084	44.076.6201925	.. 25,454.635	3.027.284	28.481.9191926	.. 34,817,757	3.664,179	38,481.936
May I direct attention to the following years:
Canada	United States	Totalbushels	bushels	bushels1927	4.835.148 13.604.780 22.604.398	1928	t.U / U.TOO1929	
Now we come to 1930, which was the last year in which my hon. friends opposite were in office:
Canada	United States	Totalbushels	bushels	bushels1930	
111.094,912___________16,065,242	127.160.154
Notwithstanding the fact that we carried over these large quantities, we were growing, as I have indicated to the house, increased quantities of wheat. In spite of the fact that this country harvested so large a quantity, the total carry-over in 1931 had risen to only the following:
Canada	United States	Totalbushels	bushels	bushels1931	
134,078,963___________6.798,312	140.877,275
Or slightly over 13,000,000 bushels more than the year before. In 1932, when hon. members will recall we had the third largest crop in our history, the carry-over was as follows:
1932	

Canada	United States	Totalbushels	bushels	bushels131,844,806	5,888,255	137,733,061
Grain Board.-Mr. Bennett
Or slightly more than 3,000,000 bushels less than the year before, notwithstanding the fact that we had the third largest crop in the history of Canada. In 1933 the carry-over however reflected the large sales of the year before with the additional crop of 1933:
Canada	United States	Totalbushels	bushels	bushels1933	
211,740,188	7,688,210	219,428,398
Or something over 81,000,000 bushels more than the preceding year, for reasons that I shall
presently discuss.	Canada	United States	Totalbushels	bushels	bushels1934	
193,990,281	9,954,252	203,944.533
Or approximately 16,000,000 bushels less than the preceding year. Those are the facts as disclosed by the records with respect to the history of carry-overs in this country f;cm August 31, 1920, to the end of the last
crop year.
In order that the house may have all the information it desires, I shall give the average price, recalling to the attention of hon. members the fact that immediately after the war, for reasons that need not be discussed, but largely because of the revolutions in Russia, there was a steady, large price for wheat. These figures are on the basis of Fort William and Port Arthur for number one northern
Manitoba wheat:
Crop year:
1919-	20..
1920-	21..
1921-	22..
1922-	23..
1923-	24..
1924-	25. .
Average price per bushel .	$2	17.5.	1	99.3.	1	29.7,.	1	10.5,.	1	07.1
To which reference will be made later.
Crop year:
1925-	26. .
1926-	27..
1927-	28..
1928-	29..
1929-	30 . .
1930-	31. .
1931-	32..
1932-	33..
1933-	34..
Average price per bushel .	$1	51.2.	1	46.3..	1	46.3.	1	24.	1	24. .	64.2..	59.8..	54.3..	68.1
From the beginning of the present crop year to the end of April, 1935, the price was 82 cents, for reasons that I suppose are known to all members of the house.
That is the story with respect to wheat production, wheat exports, wheat carry-overs, wheat prices and new wealth derived from wheat by this country.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend has not given an estimate of the carryover for the present year. Will he give that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I gave it. I am not
making estimates to-day; I am talking about facts. I am not giving estimates at all; I think the time has come to deal with facts
and not fancies and I am dealing with facts. Before I resume my seat, I am going to discuss some of the statements made by hon. gentlemen opposite.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can my right hon. friend give the carry-over for the present crop year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot. Until the end of the crop year, how can I?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If he cannot
give us the facts, can he give us an estimate?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not propose to
make estimates at the moment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is
the situation at the present time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will discuss that
presently. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) need not be the least bit exercised; he will get all the facts he wants before he is through with this matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to
the Prime Minister that if he cannot give the facts or an estimate, at least he could give a courteous answer. Mine was not an interruption; it was an effort to get a complete statement, which the Prime Minister said he would give.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If hon. gentlemen interrupt they violate the rules of this house. Under present conditions I have a right to make my statement, and that is what I propose to do.
The next point to which I desire to direct attention is one to which I doubt whether sufficient importance has been given. I refer to the circumstances over which this country has had no control. There are those in this house who on the public platform have talked about tariffs abroad as though they were something over which Canada could have control. Some months ago the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) delivered a speech down in Quebec in which he referred to the fact that here was France willing to sell wine and buy Canadian wheat, and we

Grain Board-Mr. Bennett
were not doing our duty in the premises. Let me ask the hon. member this: Did he at any time when be was negotiating a treaty with France say a word about wheat at all, in any shape or form, when he was giving France preferences? Did he stipulate for anything then, when he might have done so in respect to wheat?


Ernest Lapointe: We were selling our
wheat at the time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We were not; that is
exactly the point. In any case, it is the duty of a statesman to look a bit into the future in respect to these matters.
Now let us see why there has been a diminution in the sale of our wheat abroad; let us look at it frankly. What is the reason? It is because the nations of the world that formerly bought wheat have desired to become self-sustaining communities. They were afraid of war; they were afraid of the submarine menace with respect to the transshipment of wheat and they were afraid of the price they had to pay during the war for wheat. There on the one hand you have the development of nationalism to the extent that the nations desired to become self-sufficient and self-sustaining with respect to wheat, and on the other hand you have bonuses, tariffs, quotas and every device imaginable being relied upon for the purpose of enabling the
countries of the world that did buy wheat no longer to find it necessary to do so. When I was sitting in the seat now occupied by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) I pointed out that during his regime every nation of the world made it more difficult for Canada to sell her products than at any time in the history of this country, and I repeat that statement. What is more, that was admitted by the then Minister of Finance with respect to wheat and other commodities about which I shall speak presently.
In order that there may be no misunderstanding I propose to place upon Hansard the changes that have taken place, country by country, and the dates on which they took place, with respect to the sale of Canadian wheat. First I take France. In June, 1928, the French franc was stabilized at 3-92 gold cents, so we have converted the figures into Canadian terms on that basis, not upon the actual exchange, which perhaps would not be fair, but upon the basis of the steady rate that has prevailed, because the duties would be higher if we dealt with them otherwise. Conversions prior to June, 1928, are made at the approximate prevailing rate of exchange, because the French franc was not stabilized until that time. These are the figures in regard to wheat:
Commodity	Date of change	General Tariff	Minimum Tariff	Approximate Fquivalent of Rate to CanadaWheat	Rate in 1921	29c. bu.100 kgs. (C)	Jan. 7, 1924	lie. bu.100 kgs. (C)	Aug. 1, 1924	20c. bu.100 kgs. (C)	April 7, 1926	18-2 frs .	18c. bu.100 kgs. (C)	Sept. 3, 1927	27c. bu.100 kgs. (C)	Nov. 18, 1927	37c. bu.100 kgs. (C)	May 24, 1929	50 frs	53c. bu.100 kgs. (C)	May 20, 1930	85c. bu.100 kgs. (C)	July 14, 1931	160 frs	85c. bu.100 kgs	100 kgs. (C)	June 16, 1932	$1.70 bu.100 kgs. (C)	100 kgs.	June 10, 1933	160 frs	85c. bu.100 kgs.	100 kgs. (C)	*June 16, 1934	11.70 bu.100 kgs. (C)	100 kgs.	*Oct. 1, 1934	85c. bu.100 kgs	100 kgs. (C)	*Rate at present	85c. bu.100 kgs.	100 kgs. (C)	
(C) indicates the rate applied to imports from Canada. 

Grain Board-Mr. Bennett
On October 1, 1934, the rates were again lowered to 85 cents a bushel, where they remain at the present time xcept that since August 10, 1934, these rates have been increased by four per cent of the duty.
There is the story with respect to France; there is the limitation placed upon our ability to sell wheat in that country. When hon. gentlemen opposite left office the rate was 85 cents a bushel; to-day the rate is the same, 85 cents a bushel, plus four per cent in additional surtaxes that have been placed on all commodities since 1934.
Now let us take Germany, because we have heard much talk about that country.
The reichsmark at par equals 23-82 gold cents and the conversions are made on that basis; if they were made at t'he prevailing rates of exchange at different dates the rates, as expressed in Canadian cents, of course would be much higher. For instance, the gold reichsmark now is worth about 40 cents in Canadian money, and of course it is known to this house that 100 kilograms equal 220-4 pounds. Wheat, except where the rates are modified by special regulations, in 1921 entered under the rate of seven reichsmarks per 100 kilograms, or 42 cents a bushel. That rate has varied as follows:
Commodity		Date of Chancre	Rate to Canada	Conversions at par
			7 Rm. 100 kilogs		42 cts. bush.
(except where rate modified regulations).	by special	May 1, 1922.... Sept. 1, 1925.... Aug. 1, 1926.... *July 10, 1929.... Jan. 10, 1930.... Mar. :7, 1930.... April 25, 1930.... Sept. 28, 1930.... Oct 26, 1930.... Oct. 22, 1934.... Rate at present...	Free	 3*50 Rm. 100 kilogs	 5 Rm. 100 kilogs	 7-50 Rm. 100 kilogs	 9-50 Rm. 100 kilogs	 12 Rm. 100 kilogs	 15 Rm. 100 kilogs	 18-50 Rm. 100 kilogs	 25 Rm. 100 kilogs	 35 Rm. 100 kilogs	 35 Rm. 100 kilogs		Free 23 cts. bush. 39 cts. bush. 49 cts. bush. 02 cts. bush. 78 cts. bush. 98 cts. bush. SI.20 bush. SI .62 bush. $2.27 bush. $2.27 bush.
And that is the rate prevailing to-day. I need hardly point out to this house that any rate in excess of 40 cents per bushel is a prohibitive rate, and that when you
get to a rate of 75 cents, 80 cents or 90 cents it does not make any difference whether it is 90 cents or $2. The table continues:
Commodity	Date of Change		Rate to Canada	Conversions at par
			18-75 Rm. 100 kilogs		$2.03 100 lbs.
	May 1,	1922....	Free		Free
		1925....		
Aug. 1,	1926....	10 Rm. 100 kilogs	$1.08 100 lbs.April 1,	1927....	12-50 Rm. 100 kilogs	$1.35 100 lbs.July 10,	1929....	14-50 Rm. 100 kilogs	SI.57 100 lbs.Feb. 11,	1930....	18-50 Rm. 100 kilogs	$2.00 100 lbs.Mar. 29,	1930....	23-25 Rm. 100 kilogs	$2.50 100 lbs.1930....	$3.41 100 lbs.Sept. 28,	1930....	38-50 Rm. 100 kilogs	S4.17 100 lbs.Oct. 26,	1930....	51-50 Rm. 100 kilogs	$5.58 100 lbs.June 10,	1931....	43-16 Rm. 100 kilogs	$4.67 100 lbs.Oct. 22,	1934....	59-80 Rm. 100 kilogs	-56.48 100 lbs.Rate at present...	59-80 Rm. 100 kilogs	$6.48 100 lbs.
I need hardly say that any of those rates are prohibitive. I now turn to Italy, and a discussion of the tariff changes on wheat and wheat flour. The gold lira at par equals 19-3 gold cents in Canadian money. The paper lira at par equals 5-26 gold cents in Canadian money. Conversions are all made at the aforementioned gold equivalents of the
Italian currency. If the conversions were made at the rates of exchange prevailing at the different dates the rate of duty as expressed in Canadian money would be higher. For example the present value of the gold lira in Canadian money is approximately 30 Canadian cents and the value of the paper lira about 8 Canadian cents. The table is as follows:
Grain Board-Mr. Bennett


Mr. McINTOSH:: A splendid paper
though.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It may well be so, compared with the weekly paper which the hon. gentleman runs. Now let us see what in 1928-29 under similar circumstances was the attitude taken by this paper that has no regard for anything that touches the public interest if it can make party propaganda at the expense of any government that happens not to see as it sees. We have not consulted Doctor Dafoe, that is the trouble. As long as you consult him his vanity is tickled and he is quite content that all is well, but if the government do not consult him anything they do is wrong, even although their predecessors did it. Let us see what he said in 1929, when the elevators of Canada were bursting with the largest crop we ever had in our history, when the tariffs of France and Italy and Germany were as I have indicated, when the Argentine was selling its wheat on the markets of the world, so that Canadian wheat could not find a market. What were his words then? On October 4, 1929, he said:
Since July enormous quantities of low-priced wheat have been exported to Europe from the Argentine. Liverpool buyers were
Grain Board-Mr. Bennett

under no necessity to buy Canadian wheat at $1.59 per bushel or thereabouts when they could buy from Argentine at $1.12.
A spread of 38 cents or thereabouts. Then on October 23 what does he say? In the editorial column were these words:
In such a situation, with more wheat offering to buyers than they want, the argument that Canadian wheat should be freely offered at competitive prices seems curious. If it were thrown on the market at prices which made it highly attractive to speculators, it might be bought, but would it be used? The price might fall, and the wheat still remain in storage.
As late as October 23 of that year, 1929, dealing with the carry-over to which I have referred from the crop of 1928 and preceding years, he said:
Whatever the economic effect has been this summer in the Argentine, the fact is that Argentine wheat is being sold at prices in Liverpool which would be disastrous to Canadian producers.
Now I could go on and give further extracts, but I put to the house this question: If it was desirable that the Canadian farmer should not sacrifice bis wheat at a loss in 1929 at the Argentine price to which reference has been made, which was then SI. 12, is it not equally true that it should not be done now? That it should not be done during the last three or four years? That and none other is the question to be considered. There are the figures, and I ask, and the people of Canada have a right to ask, why a great organ of public opinion would endeavour to induce the people to believe in 1928-29 that the right thing to do was to cling to their wheat until they got a decent price for it, and that, in 1935 the right thing to do is to throw it to the winds and let anyone buy it at any price they will. That is the issue.
Now, sir, it is not as though it ended there. I say that my right hon. friend opposite and those associated with him have not the slightest appreciation or understanding of this problem as it then existed. Why? I will tell you: On February 20, 1930, in the last speech from the throne prepared by the right hon. gentleman there occur these words:
The dominion is already recovering from the seasonal slackness evident at the end of the year, and it is not to be forgotten that the bulk of the 1929 wheat crop still remains in Canadian hands for final disposition.
I commend that to thoughtful men. What was done about it? That was in 1930, the crop of 1929 still remained unsold in the hands of the farmers. When we inherited that condition we had to deal with it. And what is more, we did. Now let us proceed. I am going to give some figures with respect to the acres that were sown to wheat in the

wheat-producing countries of the world after the war. I shall give a few figures to show what was withdrawn from production in European countries because of the war. I suppose it is hardly necessary to say that if during the war a country could not produce wheat, and subsequently came back to wheat production, it just means that they supply themselves with what during the war they had to buy elsewhere. Now I have given figures with respect to the prices to which wheat had fallen, and I have endeavoured to give some figures indicating the prices which were being received for that wheat. Look at these figures. In 1932 when we had this enormous crop, when the government supported the operations of the pool to the extent they did, when they bought, for reasons that I shall presently say that no government could disregard, I do not believe dared disregard unless they were prepared for complete chaos in this country, what happened? Let us look at the facts. In February, March and April 1933, the average price was 49 cents at Fort William or 30 cents at elevators in western Canada for No. 1 wheat. The imports at that low price averaged only 11,000,000 bushels a month in that three-month period. The reason was that the importing countries had, as I pointed out, accumulated sufficient wheat to carry them over for that time. Now take the last three months of that crop year. In May, June and July, when the gSvernment was taking action to which I have referred, buyers in importing countries boueht and cleared an average of 21,000,000 bushels a month from Canada. At what price? At 70 cents f.o.b. Fort William. For the six months' period to the end of January in the crop year 1932-33, 285,000,000 bushels were marketed, for which quantity our farmers received only $86,000,000. I wonder if the true significance of that is in the minds of hon. members of the house. In the same six months of 1934 we marketed 177,000,000 bushels of wheat for which the farmers receiyed $107,-
000.000. That is they sold 108,000,000 bushels less wheat than in the corresponding six months' period of 1932-33 but received for it $21,000,000 more money. In the first half of that year, 1932-33, therefore they really paid $21,000,000 for producing and feeding the world with 108,000,000 bushels of wheat. Now has this house realized just what that meant to Canada? Just what it meant to the citizens of Canada, just what it meant to the factories of Quebec and Ontario, just what it meant to the artisans of this country, just what it has meant in the way of maintaining the integrity of the body politic? That is what I put to this house.

Grain Board-Mr. Bennett
I come now to a point which I think is perhaps somewhat interesting as it indicates the average increase of acreage in other countries. I give these figures in order that we may see why this price structure has been what it is. I want hon. members to realize that other countries have also increased their acreage. The average acreage in Canada for the five years 1909-13 was 9,940,000 acres; in 1927-31 it had risen to 24,590,000 acres and in 1933 it had risen to 25,990,000 acres. The acreage for 1933 showed an increase of 161-5 per cent over the average acreage for the five years 1909-13. In Australia the average acreage for 1909-13 was 7,600,000 acres; for 1927-31 it was 15,000,000 acres, while for 1933 it had fallen to 14,970,000 acres. The 1933 figure was an increase of 96-9 over the 1909-13 figure. In the Argentine the average sown acreage for 1909-13 was 16,050,000 acres; in 1927-31 it was 20,500,000 acres; then followed a decrease in 1933 to 19,660,000 acres. In the United States for the period 1909-13 the acreage was 47,100,000 acres; in 1927-31 it had risen to 60,400,000 acres while in 1933 it had fallen to 47,520,000 acres. This latter figure showed an increase of only nine-tenths of one per cent over the 1909-13 figure. If you take these figures you will see that on the basis of the Argentine increase which was only 22 per cent, we should have increased our acreage to less than 13 million acres instead of to almost 26 million acres. For reasons which are obvious these are the increases which should have obtained. Argentina which has been forcing its wheat upon the markets of the world has increased its acreage relatively less than our own country and other wheat producing countries. Further than that, the Argentine had actually decreased its wheat acreage at one time before it started in to increase the area sown. We are sometimes prone to blame the Argentine for the action it has taken in forcing its wheat upon the markets of the world at a low figure.
We come now to another important matter and one which I think should be considered carefully. I intend to refer to a statement by Broomhall's which gives the consumption of wheat in Europe outside of Russia. I pointed out in this house some time ago that Russia first became a factor in the international trade in wheat after her rehabilitation, to the extent to which she was rehabilitated, in 1930 when she was selling wheat at 60 cents per bushel delivered in Liverpool and London. These figures leave out Russia as that country has not been a factor during the last year or two.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the date of that statement?
92582-227	revisi


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member will see as I proceed. The average production of Europe (ex Russia) for the period 1923-24 to 1927-28 was 1,240,000,000 bushels. The average importations by importing countries for the same period were 601,000,000 bushels. The average consumption by European countries was 1,841,000,000 bushels. It will be observed that you have an average consumption during that period of 1,841,000,000 bushels. It has been stated that there has been a diminution in consumption but I give these figures to show that such is not the case. For the period 1929-30 to 1933-34-these are the crop years ending July 31-the average production of Europe (ex Russia) was
1.496.000.	000 bushels. The average imports by importing countries for the same period had fallen from 601,000,000 bushels to
469.000.	000 bushels while the average consumption had risen to 1,965,000,000 from
1.841.000.	000 bushels. I come now to the last crop year, 1933-34. The European production for that year was 1,749,000,000 bushels while for this year the imports had fallen to
374.000.	000 bushels. I ask the house to note that the average imports for 1923-24 to 1927-28 were 601,000,000 bushels and these had fallen to 469,000,000 bushels for the period 1929-30 to 1933-34, there being a further decrease to
374.000.	000 bushels for the last crop year. In this last year the total consumption had risen to the largest figure in history, 2,123,000,000 bushels.
I wonder if the true significance of those figures will find lodging in the minds of hon. members of the house? While the average consumption of Europe (ex Russia) had increased from 1,841,000,000 bushels in 1923-24 to 1927-28 to 2,123,000,000 bushels in 1933-34, at the same time the importations by importing countries had fallen from 601.000.000 bushels to 374,000,000 bushels. There is the answer to your problem and I submit it is quite impossible to find any other answer than that you must take care to accumulate your surplus and by the efforts of your country and other countries remove that from the market at a price which will not destroy those who produce it. That is what you must do.
Before I proceed further I should like to place another authentic statement upon Hansard. I have given figures showing the consumption by world countries. I have shown how these countries have diminished their imports of wheat while increasing their production by the methods to which I have alluded. I now propose to indicate to the house the percentage of the entire quantity of world foodstuffs which Canada has supplied since 1922-23. I notice that the president of



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Grain Board-Mr. Bennett
the Canadian Pacific Railway made some reference to these figures in a speech he delivered the other day. I am placing these figures on Hansard so they will be there as a record. They are issued by BroomhalPs and show that in the year 1922-23 Canada sold to the world 41-4 per cent of all the foodstuffs consumed.
Mr. HANBURY:: Is that grain?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, foodstuffs.


Mr. YOUNG:: Imports?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. We sold to the world 41-4 per cent of their imparted foodstuffs.


Wilfred Hanbury: Was that grain or cattle and hogs?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I	am talking about
wheat. In 1923-24 we sold 44-4 per cent but in 1924-25 this had fallen to 26-9 per cent. In 1925-26 it had risen to 48-6 per cent but in 1926-27 it had fallen to 36 per cent. In 1927-28 it was 42 per cent, in 1928-29 it was 43-9 per cent and in 1929-30 the year in which we inherited our carry over, it had fallen to 30-4 per cent. In
1930-	31 it had risen to 32-9 per cent and in
1931-	32, for the reasons given in the table just presented, it had fallen to 26-9 per cent. In 1932-33 it had risen to 43 per cent. The house will note that this last figure is within one and a fraction per cent of the highest figure since 1923. How does that fit in with the statement that we are losing our markets? According to the figures given at the board of tirade in Toronto the other day, in 1932-33 43 per cent of the world's breadstuffs-I said foodstuffs, but it should be breadstuffs-came from the Dominion of Canada, and the next year, 1933-34, the figure was 37^ per cent. This year the figures as given by the president of the railway were up to the end of April, but I have the figures to the end1 of May, and up to the end of May we have supplied 32 per cent of the world's breadstuffs from Canada-32 per cent, which you will observe is a higher figure than we have had for a total year in some years. It is 6 per cent higher than it was in 1924-25 for the whole year; and since that date, to-day being the 12th of June, we have sold substantial quantities of wheat, one day a million and a half bushels, there being an average of half a million a day during that period; and our percentage is going up rapidly. So that I have every reason to believe-I am not venturing an estimate but merely giving a statement of my belief-that we shall find that this coun-
(Mr. Bennett.]
try will sell its percentage of breadstuffs to the world in 1934-35 at a figure much higher than it has been at any time during the last few years.
Now I am going to give the house one more set of figures; some hon. members may have seen them but I think it desirable to place these figures on Hansard in order to indicate just what action has been taken to deal with this tremendous problem. In the last five crop years, 1934, 1933, 1932, 1931 and 1930, this country produced 1,734,000.000 bushels of wheat, or an average of 346,000,000 bushels a year; and the carryover on the first of August, including that in the United States, was in round figures 127,000,000 bushels. On August 1, 1930, that is what it was This was prior to the harvesting of the 1930 crop. Let us see what we have to add to our carryover, which was the largest we had, of 127,000,000 bushels. We harvest the 1930 crop and we have additional crops amounting in all to
1,730,000,000, all harvested; and at the moment the total carryover of this country is less than 100,000,000 bushels more than it was on the first of August, 1930.. I will deal with the exact figures presently. Let me go one step further, however. The average Canadian carryover in five years of prosperity ended1 July 31,	1929-reckless
speculation, so-called prosperity-was 70,000,000 bushels a year, made up in the manner I have indicated. Now I ask this question: Can the people of this country afford to see the wheat that plays so large a part in our economic life become the sport and play of what is called supply and demand at 38 cents a bushel? That is the issue. That is the whole story. And when I said that part of that wheat was used and consumed, it is only fair to add that part of it was used for other than human food; that is to say, part was used, when the prices of other grains went up, for what I call husbandry food purposes.
Those figures are, I think, perhaps worth considering. They indicate as clearly as can be indicated just what the situation has been. And now I arrive at a consideration of what the situation is. If the house has followed me up to this point, during these years beginning 1930 Mr. McFarland undertook, without salary, to serve his country and western Canada particularly, to the best of his ability. He received no salary, as was stated in the committee a year ago; and he has given himself so unremittingly to his toil that he is now another wreck of this depression, physically. I put this to the house. We did not employ Mr. McFarland; I was in England when he undertook the duties of manager of

Grain Board-Mr. Bennett
the wheat pool. We guaranteed the wheat pool's liabilities later, for the purpose of enabling it to protect and stabilize the Canadian market. Some people have said that that is speculating, and I will deal with that promptly.
The Canadian wheat pool has been, the hedge-taker on the Winnipeg exchange. I am going to explain to the house, especially to my hon. friends from parts of Canada other than the west, what is meant in the use of these terms. I have already given the house a clear statement, though not as clear as I should like, of exactly the bushels of wheat that have been marketed in- a short period of nine weeks in a great year. I trust that hon. members appreciate that it means there has been a movement of wheat just- as fast as it could go through the separators into the elevator and, through the elevator, move to some other point for the purpose of being sold if possible. Now, if the wheat is sold on the market the elevator companies must pay the farmer for it in full, or he may store it and get an advance; but if he does what is done so frequently, he puts his wheat, in the elevator and gets his ticket as to weights, and is paid on the basis of the Fort William price for that grade-it being graded to ascertain its quality -at the prevailing rate of tha-t date, converted into terms of price at the elevator, wherever it may be, whether High River or Okotoks or Gleiehen or some other point. That being so, the bank provides the elevator with credit to enable it to pay in full. No elevator company has liquid capital sufficient to enable it for longer than a few weeks in the year to carry on business with its own resources. It therefore has to seek accommodation from the banks, and the -banks grant a line of credit on the hypothecation of wheat by the elevator company. But they do not stop there. The banks are never willing nor prepared to h-ave a loss by reason of great fluctuations in price, and so they compel their customers, the elevator companies, to hedge their purchases every day, by which is meant that they must find someone willing to buy that wheat. That is a hedge; that is what has to be done. Now I put to this house very simply this single question. When the speculator disappeared from the markets, he having been the hedge-taker in days gone by, and when the purchasers were not on, the market to acquire the wheat, who was going to hedge it? That is the question. Who is going to hedge that wheat? There was only one hedge-taker and that was the Canadian cooperative wheat organization, and they had to take, day after day, thousands and even millions of bushels, 02.582-227*
hedged for the purpose of preventing the development of absolute chaos in the marketing of Canadian wheat. Is there any gentleman in this house who will say otherwise? There were no speculators as in days gone by to take hedges. In days gone by there used to be speculators who took a chance. Many of them from the south had millions of dollars at their disposal; they, including Mr. Cutten whom the hon. member for Temisco-uata (Mr. Pouliot) mentioned, and others, were always prepared and willing to buy on the market as speculators. But with the disappearance of the speculators and there being no demand for export by the purchasers who had heretofore been buying wheat, for the reason before given, namely, that they were producing wheat on the scale I have mentioned, then what? Should we have chaos? Should 5ve have wheat backing up until it could not leave the farm? Should we allow the farmer to have his wheat piled up in great dumps on his farm, or should we do what we did, namely, make it possible, by hedging this wheat, for the buying and selling to continue? That is what w-e did anyway. In hedging the wheat we thereby became ultimately the owners of its unless there was a sale for it, because the hedge taker is the man who becomes the owner of the commodity unless he sells it. That is the story.
I know how difficult it is in the stress and strain of acute partisan politics for hon. gentlemen to agree that anything done by the government of the day is soundly done; but still I put it to the house and to the country: Is there in Canada any living man who would take the responsibility for the chaos that would have resulted had this action not been taken? Now is the time during the debate on the second reading of this bill, not on the hustings where no man can answer, for hon. members to rise in their places and speak. I see the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) is not present. Let him on the second reading of the bill rise in his place and say that he would not have hedged this wheat nor provided the credit of the Canadian people to save the greatest industry in this country. Let him say that he would support bankruptcy for the whole of western Canada and the destruction of the entire economic structure we have built up during the last fifty years. That is what the matter comes to; let there be no misunderstanding about it. Would any hon. member opposite take such a stand? Would the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) do so? These are not promises; they are achievements; they are the result of what has been
Grain Board-Mr. Bennett

done, and he who runs may read. But if partisanship is so blind as not to be willing to read even the record, so unwilling to grant to your opponents an effort to save the country from destruction and ruin, then of course let your sneering observations be sent to the farmers of western Canada; they are the people to whom they should be sent.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order!


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let the hon. member rise in his place and say that he votes against this bill.
I have indicated to the house why we took the action we did, and I am content to leave that record to the judgment of the future; I am content to leave it to my fellow countrymen, to the man who has toiled with his wife and family upon the soil to produce wheat that in 1932 he could not sell for thirty-eight cents a bushel even though we took what we did for the purpose of hedging. I am content to leave the record to them. I am content to leave it to the more fortunate people who live in great cities and towns in eastern Canada to say whether they believe the action taken was sound. When I listen to the sneers of hon. gentlemen opposite, I invite them to rise in their places and say that they are opposed to this bill. That is the test of their sincerity, and not the sneers they make as they sit in their seats, not the sneers they express as they talk among themselves. Let them speak up like men.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad to hear hon.
gentlemen opposite laugh as I paint the story of those who have endured toil; I am glad to hear those members to whom such toilers have some right to look for support laugh and jeer. Let the hon. member for Willow Bunch lead the procession.
I should like to refer to what was done with respect to marketing the wheat which we had to take. I have said that we have taken these hedges. We took them in 1933; we took them in 1934 with the only body that was left to do so. Either government support was required or there would be the chaos to which I have referred. Let us see what we have done in the way of selling to Great Britain. The other day I said that I would take several countries and point out what we had done with respect to them. I am not unmindful of the fact that the former Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm), whom I am glad to see in his place,
TMr. Bennett.]
declared in the house that the trade commissioners can do nothing toward selling wheat. His observation in that regard is a perfectly clear statement and it is one that has met with approval from many hon. gentlemen opposite. He said, as reported in Hansard of March 14, 1929:
The Department of Trade and Commerce is not exercised over the sale of such commodities as wheat, because those commodities find their own markets; but we are interested in assisting the sale of manufactured products.
To that statement hon. gentlemen opposite have given their approval. Let us go a step further and see what we have sold in the United Kingdom in the way of wheat and flour converted into terms of wheat. Up to the end of April of this year, in this crop year, the United Kingdom has imported
136.800.000	bushels of which Canada supplied
48.100.000	bushels or 35-1 per cent. The percentages of her imports that we supplied are as follows:
Percentage of total imports of wheat into United Kingdom supplied by Canada
Fiscal year:
1933-34	 34.4
1932-33		50.4
1931-32	 25.7
1930-31	 25.4
1929-30	 22.7
1928-29	 36.3
1927-28	 33.7
1926-27	 31.6
1925-26	 36.9
1924-25	 30.2
The ten ^ear average being 32-73. Thus far in nine months that is excepting the months of May, June and July, we have already supplied the United Kingdom with 35-1 per cent of its total purchases. How does that sound as loss of markets?
The story is that we have lost with respect to the quality of wheat they have been accustomed to. and therefore the bread to which they have been accustomed is an inferior product. I have given the figures to the house. I have shown that the United Kingdom produced 50,000,000 bushels upon which last year they had a subsidy, which was operative for the year before for the first time. I think it is only fair to say that undoubtedly those percentages prior to 1932 should be increased, because there was no clear distinction between all the wheat that was cleared for the United Kingdom and wheat that sometimes went to continental countries. I remember the former Minister of Trade and Commerce pointing out how difficult it was to secure accurate figures with respect to the matter. But since the preference in 1932. the figures are such that unquestionably I think they may be regarded

Grain Board-Mr. Bennett
as accurate, for these figures were secured from the British Board of Trade. Let us bear in mind the fact that from August 31, 1934, to April 30, 1935, the Dominion of Canada has supplied the United Kingdom with 35-1 per cent of its imports of wheat and wheat flour in terms of wheat. How do hon. gentlemen reconcile that with the statements which have been made not in the house but on the hustings? It is not correct to say "the English are eating more bread," because recently the mills appropriated $2,500,000 for an advertising campaign: "Eat more bread." The quality of the bread, by reason of the very circumstance to which reference has been made, namely the use of softer wheat, had not appealed to the British people as it had previously, and they were using less bread. Eat more bread; that was the cry, and they are spending $2,500,000 in that campaign. I repeat that at the end of nine months of this year this country has supplied the United Kingdom with 35-1 per cent of all its importations of wheat and of flour in terms of wheat.


Mr. MALCOLM:: Will the Prime Minister permit an interruption?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


James Malcolm: I should not like to
break the current of my right hon. friend's speech, but he is aware of the fact that in 1929 the total volume of business in wheat done with the British Empire was 229,000,000 bushels and that in 1934 the volume was
112.000.	000 bushels. There is often a great difference between the amount of wheat which the British re-export to other nations and the amount they themselves consume.
It is wrong to estimate that while Britain did not consume as high a percentage of the
229.000.	000 bushels, they were buying less from us. As a matter of fact I think they consumed as much then as they do now, but they re-exported more.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can only say that these are the board of trade figures. In 1933-34 the total importations were 200,100,000 bushels, and of that total Canada supplied 68,100,000 bushels or 34-4 per cent. Since the preference was granted these figures have been kept very accurately, for reasons which the hon. gentleman will appreciate, because of the preference of 2s. a quarter.


James Malcolm: But has the right hon.
gentleman the re-export figures in order to compare them with 1928?


Richard Bedford Bennett: These are the figures
without the re-export figures, because there has been no re-export of the wheat that came in under the preference.


James Malcolm: But has the right hon. gentleman the re-export figures for 1928?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said a moment ago that the figures with respect to 1929 were: Total importations, 192,500,000 bushels; total amount supplied by the Dominion of Canada, $69,900,000 bushels, or 36-3 per cent. Those figures, however, in my judgment would be inaccurate because they do include re-exported wheat. The figures I gave previously did not include re-exported wheat, and that is the point I am making.


James Malcolm: I quite admit that, but
my right hon. friend will admit that there was also wheat exported from Canada to the extent of 229,000,000 bushels, all of which did not reach Great Britain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is hardly accurate.
The hon. gentleman has the year wrong; in the year 1931-32 total exports to Great Britain from all countries were 229,400,000 bushels, of which 58,900,000 bushels came from Canada.


James Malcolm: But some of that was
re-exported.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would be true in
connection with the figures up to the time of the preference.
That is the situation in connection with Great Britain. Now let us turn to France. I have heard a great deal of talk about losing markets in that country. Canada shared in the French market to the following extent:
Bushels
1926		 1,483,054
1927		 12,016,273
1928		 10,300,373
1929		 16,647,328
1930		 9,906,775
1931		 31,606,308
1932		 24,628,895
1933		 13,746,663
Let me repeat:
Bushels
1931		 31,606,308
1932		 24,628,895
1933		 13,746,663
And what about 1934, when France had the largest wheat crop in many years, when she was selling denatured wheat in the United States, and when French flour and French wheat were displacing British empire wheat on the English market? How much do you think we sold France in that year? Franee only imported 10,953,159 bushels in 1934, and of that total Canada supplied 9,606,530 bushels. Those figures were given me by the French ministry of commerce.


James Malcolm: All for seed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not so; I am not talking about the Morocco situation at all.
Grain Board-Mr. Bennett

Under the agreement we have with France, when France sells 100 bushels of wheat they are allowed to acquire 100 bushels of wheat, and as I say, of the 10,000,000 bushels, the total that have gone into France, exclusive of the importations from France's own dominions, 9,606,530 bushels came from Canada.


James Malcolm: But my hon. friend knows that France bought no wheat except for seed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know just the opposite. I trust that in his absence the hon. gentleman has not been entirely asleep. That is not so, and my hon. friend knows that it is not so. He knows that 10,000,000 bushels of wheat were not imported by France in 1934 for seed; he knows that the importations for seed went to Morocco, Algeria and other countries. I am taking the figures they themselves gave as to the quantity of wheat they imported, and they used that wheat for strengthening their own wheat. They did not use it for seed; they used it for bread.


James Malcolm: Then my right hon. friend had better refer to his own minister, the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan), who gave that explanation at the time he put through the French treaty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
John Vallance: There are 227,000,000
bushels.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Possibly the hon. member has better information 'than I have. Probably I should say there are between 200,000,000 and
230.000.	000. Only the other day 1,500,000 bushels were sold, and on another day a half a million bushels were sold. I should say the figure would be approximately 220,000,000 to
225.000.	000 bushels. At any rate, that is my idea of what it would be.
It is true that last year in committee the view was expressed that it was not desirable to make these figures known. The debate which developed indicated that there was a sharp division of public opinion as expressed by the members who were there. On that vote a large number of members expressed their desire to disclose the figures. The following Liberal members voted to disclose them: Hur-tubise, Nipissing; Raymond, Beauharaois; Lapointe, Quebec East; Power, Quebec South; Mackenzie, Vancouver Centre; Ralston, Shel-bume-Yarmouth; Howard, Sherbrooke; Donnelly, Willow Bunch; and Duff, Antogonish-Guysborough. Conservatives, Progressives and the remaining Liberals on the committee opposed the publication. There was a vote of 26 to i0 not to disclose the financial position of operations.
In view of the evident desire of men occupying high positions in the Liberal party I have no hesitancy whatever in making known the figures which, although it changes from time to time, is I believe at the present time between 220,000,000 and 225,000,000 bushels. That has accumulated in the manner I have indicated. This has been accumulated on the guarantee of the Dominion of Canada, under the circumstances to which I have alluded.
I shall add only one word further. I have endeavoured as fully as possible to disclose to this chamber the position of the wheat business in Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: You didn't say how much.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I didn't say what? I
have endeavoured to make known to this house the world conditions which have rendered it impossible to find a market for the over-production of Canadian wheat. Had I desired to take the time I could have given the surpluses, and carry-overs of other countries. Nature has limited production in some countries and stimulated it in others. But I know of no method by which we could have prevented a debacle on a scale never before known in this country than the method we adopted. I know some have suggested we should have let the wheat go at any price and withdrawn our guarantee. I am not prepared to do that. I do not yet think that is a sound policy; I have not changed my mind with respect to that point.
The bill, the second reading of which I have moved, is one predicated upon the fact that the general manager of this company whose operations have enabled this end to be accomplished is not further able to discharge his normal duties. I have indicated, therefore, that a wheat board in name-because we have had one in reality during the last two years- that a wheat board in name and reality should be set up. The terms and provisions of the bill are short and simple. It provides for the marketing of the Canadian wheat crop through the channel I have indicated, not through a private enterprise. It is to be done through a public board created by the Dominion of Canada for the purpose of ensuring against the destruction of that measure of economic stability, weak though it may be, that we through our efforts have been able to build up in the last few years.
I should not care to contemplate what the position would be had this action not been taken. I shall await with great interest the statements of hon. gentlemen opposite as to what course they think should be pursued,
Grain Board-Mr. Ralston

other than that which I have suggested to meet the situation now confronting us. I repeat now what I stated at the beginning: We have an obligation that is not limited to our own country, because as the chief exporter and the third greatest producer of wheat we have a duty to all wheat exporting countries to give such help and assistance as we may to prevent wheat being sold at a price ruinous to the producer, one which will not permit him any return on his money and does not enable him in any sense to reap the reward for the effort of his hands. It is for that reason that the bill is commended to the bouse. I offer it with a great deal of confidence that it will meet with the approval of those who believe that the welfare of their country transcends that of any party.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Shelbume-Yar-mouth):: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing
upon which hon. members on this side of the house may congratulate the Prime Minister, and that is on his return to normalcy. I do not think he has ever so excelled himself in truculence, bombastic utterances and general partisanship, as he has in the speech to which we have just listened.
At the last minute the right hon. gentleman has appealed to the house to have this matter considered in no party spirit. But almost every line of his speech, every sentence of it, has been an attempt to glorify the government of which he is the leader, and to deprecate the efforts of anybody else. I say this, too, that the right hon. gentleman has not hesitated to misrepresent the attitude of hon. members in this chamber, thinking possibly that he might bring support to a cause he now espouses. I propose to deal with that point before I have concluded. Let me say to the right hon. gentleman that I have neither the information before me, much less the ability, to deal with the mass of figures with which he has smothered this house and with which he has smothered the real issue contained in the bill. The right hon. gentleman has taken a tilt at the editor of the Winnipeg Free Press, a gentleman who is not here to answer for himself. The editor of the Winnipeg Free Press I think is quite able to take care of himself, and we need not worry about him. My right hon. friend has also set up some invisible opponent- because so far as I know no hon. member sitting in this house has as he suggests opposed1 the assistance which has been given to the western wheat grower during this time of stress and strain. There is not a man sitting on this side of the house who has opposed that assistance. My right hon.

friend's brave challenge to stand up like men and vote, and all this bravado which he has exhibited this afternoon, is quite beside the point. He is only setting up a straw man and knocking him down again. Of course he had to inject a certain amount of that sort of thing into his speech to indicate that he was making his come-back, of which we are all glad, but I say to my right hon. friend that on a subject which he asks to have dealt with seriously he should not give way to the truculent tone and bombastic utterance in which he indulged this afternoon. His speech was nothing more or less than a partisan appeal, an election appeal of a dying government.
My right hon. friend has left his headliner for the campaign to the last. Up to this day, June 12, let it be known this house has never been told the amount of wheat on hand carried by the central selling agency to which my right hon. friend has referred. On May 21 last my right hon. friend in answer to the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) made a reply concerning this question which he now puts before this house in this long speech, which would rather indicate that he was then of a somewhat different mind than he is to-day respecting the importance of this matter. As reported on page 2926 of Hansard Mr. Vallance asked the following question:
I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he can indicate to the house when we may expect to deal -with the resolution now standing in his name proposing to set up a wheat board or at least a grain board.
And what was the answer?
Right Hon. R. B. Bennett (Prime Minister): When other business more pressing is disposed of that will be dealt with in due course.
What has been the pressing business which has been dealt with in the meantime? Facing as we do the close of the session probably next week, we are called upon to deal with this momentous question which my right hon. friend says, and I think quite properly, almost transcends in importance any other question facing the Dominion of Canada at the moment except perhaps unemployment. What business have we had which has been regarded as more pressing than the wheat question? Well since the Prime Minister made that answer we have dealt with fair wages on public works, simply the putting into statutory form of an order in council which has existed all along, this measure by the way not to come into effect until May 1, 1936. Much more pressing than the wheat question! We have dealt with weights and measures. We saw two sessions of this house

Grain Board-Mr. Ralston
devoted to consideration of a bill respecting patents, and a debate between the hon. member for East Kootenay (Mr. Stevens) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) with regard to a particular provision, and the Prime Minister taking a rather prominent part in that debate. We had the amendment to the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, simply an enabling measure which permitted complaints to be made to a board set up under the act, this being I understand since rejected in another place. We had amendments to the Criminal Code in connection with legislation which the Minister of Justice admitted was invalid and inefficacious and that convictions could not be secured under it. All that took precedence of the matter of the establishment of a Canadian grain board. And we have had supply in connection I think with half a dozen different departments. That answer, Mr. Speaker, was given three weeks ago; and now, with this house expecting to prorogue next week, my right hon. friend introduces this bill, dealing with the biggest and probably the most pressing problem before the Dominion of Canada at the present time. In that deluge of figures which my right hon. friend put on Hansard he omitted to tell us how much this country is committed to in connection with the guarantees given by the government, guarantees which were not even formulated by an order in council but by a letter written by my right hon. friend in January, 1931, not put into shape as an order in council until September, 1931. In those four years we have not been given a single item of information on that matter, nor have we had any information on it this afternoon in spite of all my right hon. friend has said, going back as he has to ancient history, 1920 and 1921, telling us the acreage of the different countries during these years and the amount of production and value of exports and all these one hundred and one things. This fills up Hansard, but I submit with all respect to my right hon. friend that it does not assist us in considering intelligently and deciding the problem which he says is the greatest problem of this country to-day. He has cited reams of figures even the duties put on by all the countries of the world beginning back in 1921. Has my right hon. friend in giving his comparisons, in stating that 35 per cent I understood him to say, of Great Britain's imports of wheat came from Canada, given a comparison between Canada and the Argentine, which I had the opportunity of putting on Hansard a short time ago? My right hon. friend has dealt in percentages, but with all the wealth of figures it seems to me it would
interest us to know whether or not our competitor, which admittedly is the Argentine, is gaining on us in the British market. The figures which are on Hansard already, and which I shall read again in order that this matter may be easily available at this time, are these:-I give just the round figures:
British Imports of Wheat from September 1, 1932, to January 31, 1933
Bushels
From Argentine	 3,635.000
From Australia	 10.358.000
From Canada	 51,696,000
For the same period in the following year Britain imported from Argentine not 3,635,000 but 12,176,000; from Australia instead of
10,358,000	she imported 17,661,000, and from Canada instead of 51,696,000 in 1932-33 she only imported 29,406,000.
My right hon. friend deals in percentages;
I am dealing with bushels. I think the western Canadian farmer understands those terms better. From September 1, 1934, to January 31, 1935, I find that Argentine, which the year before had, as I have said, only exported to Great Britain 12,176,000 bushels, had increased this amount to 26,000,000; from Australia, Great Britain imported 17.000.000 bushels in 1933-34, and 15,900.000 in 1934-35. From Canada the bushelage imported by Britain actually fell off by 2,000,000, although the imports from Argentine had more than doubled.
Why does not my right hon. friend give us these figures?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Another case of depending on the newspaper.


James Layton Ralston: I submit they are rather
relevant in considering the effects of the policy of this government. He gave us the duties in France back in 1923 and told us about the lira in Italy and paper pesos in Argentine, why did he not give figures which would assist us in considering this bill?
While mentioning Argentine may I call attention to the fact that my right hon. friend has done us the honour of putting on record the fact that Argentine in cleaning up her situation only made a loss of something like six or seven million, including administration expense perhaps eight million in all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Only $2,200,000.


James Layton Ralston: My right hon. friend in
his delightfully vague way said that we had a carry-over of less than 100,000,000 bushels more than 1930, a rather left-handed way of conveying the real fact that our carry-over is more than 200,000,000 bushels this year under the policy of my right hon. friend.
Grain Board-Mr. Ralston

Now those are the matters which my right hon. friend has dealt with. I hope he does not expect me to go into the mass of figures he gave. I do not propose to deal with Mr. Dafoe and I do not propose to deal with the many statistics which have nothing to do with the question now before this house.
However, I do want to submit something which we in this house have pointed out in debate, not on the hustings but across the floor of this 'house. We have called attention to the disastrous results of the policy of this government in connection with the wheat growers but my right hon. friend has not deigned to mention, that. He goes to some newspaper and quotes someone who is not here, he quotes something which has been said on the hustings somewhere by someone else who is not here but he has not dealt in any way with the statements which have been made across the floor of this house as to the effect on this country and the wheat growers of the policy of this government.
We have dealt with that policy as it affected the farmers and we have dealt with it also as it affected the country generally. We now know at last that we have over
200,000,000 bushels of a carry-over this year and we do not know what are the commitments of this government to the bankers. Should this wheat be marketed at today's price we do not know whether the loss would be $30,000,000, $100,000,000 or no loss at all. We have received no information of any kind but in the dying days of this session we are being asked to commit this country, not to a hit and miss policy such as my right hon. friend has had in force during the past four or five years during which he has been the wheat dictator of Canada, but to a permanent policy. Now when we are within probably one week of the end of the session we are being asked to do this. It is over five years since the previous parliament was dissolved and we are at this late date suddenly confronted with the policy that Canada shall go permanently into the wheat business, that there shall be created a government monopoly in connection with the handling of grain. That is what my right hon. friend advocates by this bill but he is very careful not to defend it when he makes his speech. He contented himself with challenging people to vote against- what? Against what the government has done in the past in connection with assistance to farmers. That is all. There is no challenge as to voting in connection with this bill. He hardly mentioned it.
I do not intend to deal at length with the policy outlined in this bill but I submit that

the first point for the consideration of the government and the country is this: If the policy embodied in this bill is to be a permanent policy, this is no time to place upon members of the House of Commons and the people of the country the obligation of deciding as to such a permanent policy without being in possession of more information than we have to-day. How can we at this stage intelligently consider what should be done and how can we know what the western wheat grower wants? We have not been told by my right hon. friend. There has been no consultation with the western wheat growers with regard to this matter, my right hon. friend suddenly brings down a bill which will place the government in the wheat business. It is not fair to the country, it is not fair to the western wheat growers and it is not fair to this house for my right hon. friend to bring down a bill at this stage and attempt to fasten on the people of the dominion of Canada by means of his majority in this house-it is not a majority in the country- a permanent policy in connection with wheat. Has this government any right to commit this house or to commit the people of the Dominion of Canada to a policy as farreach-ing as this one?


Wilfred Hanbury: Or to any policy.


James Layton Ralston: Or to any policy, as my hon. friend suggests. This government has been told repeatedly at every by-election that they have not the confidence of the people of Canada and yet my right hon. friend proposes at this time to saddle the western wheat grower with a policy of his kind. He has had five years in which to inaugurate or develop a policy but only in the last hours of the last session of parliament does he act. It is very much like the unemployment relief policy with which my right hon. friend has been shuffling along year after year, making the one hand wash the other; he has had no constructive policy or no definite abjective. The wheat business has been in the same category but my right hon. friend now emerges at the eleventh hour, yes, at the half past eleventh hour or about a quarter of twelve with a policy which he proposes shall be accepted by the people of this country willy nilly because of the majority he has behind him. I submit that my right hon. friend should not expect the House of Commons and the country to accept from his hands a permanent policy concerning this great question which affects not only the western wheat grower but the whole Dominion of Canada. We should not be asked to do this without being afforded the

Grain Board-Mr. Ralston
opportunity of giving it more consideration than it has been possible to give up to this time.
I do not believe that the people of the Dominion of Canada are favourable to a compulsory wheat board, to a board the constitution of which will mean that every wheat grower, every elevator man. and everybody engaged in the wheat business must deal with the government agency and no one else. This matter of policy lias been discussed before not only in this house but throughout the country. The government has carried on with a voluntary system for five years as Mr. McFarland and the Canadian. Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited have been nothing more or less than a .board conducting voluntary market operations. A man was entitled to. sell or not sell to Mr. MicF.arland as he saw fit. I submit that so far as the western wheat grower is concerned that the voluntary system should be continued until there has been more opportunity to consider the matter. I do not believe the compulsory feature of this bill will meet with approval, either in the west, in the east or in this house. After all' the people still feel that subject to government regulation and control they should have some rights in connection with the marketing of their product, but my right hon. friend has injected that feature into this bill.
What is the real problem facing my right hon. friend? Why is this bill being brought down at the last minute to shear Mr. McFarland, whom we all regret to hear is ill, of his authority and replacing him with somebody else? We submit, and we are not afraid to tell this to the public of Canada, notwithstanding the truculent challenge of my right hon. friend, that it is being done for the purpose of covering the mistakes of this government in connection with its wheat policy. It is to cover up the particulars of which the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) with all his show of candour, with all his show of furnishing information has not put upon the records of this house up to this moment. What is the situation? Subsection (b) of section 7 of the .bill provides that the Canadian grain board to be constituted by the bill shall be empowered to take over on such terms as the governor in council thinks fit the wheat held by the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited. What does that mean? It means that all the bookkeeping, all the guarantees, all the liabilities of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited and all the mistakes and errors will be handed over to the new grain board. So far as was indicated this afternoon by my
right hon. friend, this house is to have no information as to the extent of those liabilities and the extent and nature of the operations carried on during the past three or four years. We are not to be told what has been bought and sold or what was the amount of wheat on hand from time to time except that in answering a question this afternoon the right hon. gentleman at this last .moment put the wheat on hand at somewhere between 200,000,000 and 225,000,000 bushels. That is the extent of the candour exhibited Iby my right hon. friend on this occasion, he tells us something which every hon. member, every person in the country, and every newspaper has known and in order to surround the whole thing with a proper degree of mystery he attempts to smother us with statistics.
Let me say to my right hon. friend that the house will not accept subsection (b) of section 7 of the bill without the fullest information being furnished as to the operations of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited during the last three or four years under the direction of the Prime Minister.
With regard to the operations of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, under the direction of the Prime Minister during the last three or four years, let me say this. When I observe that the board has made some mistakes I am not saying anything that has not been said in this house before. I have indicated it very plainly and I only want to mention it now so that my right hon. friend will not think that I am simply dealing in generalities. I can only tell him what the reports are; and if they are as authentic as the reports that have been given with respect to the amount of wheat he has on hand, they are not far from being correct. The reports are that my right hon. friend and the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, which he was directing, in the earlier part of 1933, although the price of wheat was at least equal to the amount which it cost the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, and notwithstanding the fact that the world price was up to that price, did not dispose of a bushel of wheat but held on to that grain, and that lack of action is one of the contributing factors accounting for the two hundred million bushels odd which we have to-day. That is the first thing to be noted. As a matter of fact, at that very time, if the reports are correct, when the duty of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, by virtue of the order in council under which they were appointed, was to dispose of
Grain Board-Mr. Ralston


Richard Bedford Bennett: I may say that those figures were included in the statement I gave. I gave the figures up to the end of May.


James Layton Ralston: Not to date.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those figures were the same.


James Layton Ralston: They might possibly be included in the mass of figures given by the right hon. gentleman, but I noticed very distinctly that when he was asked a question by my right hon. leader, the latter received a very sharp reply to the effect that my right hon. friend could give only the volume of exports to the end of the crop years. He used the expression "facts, not fancies."


Richard Bedford Bennett: I gave the figures to the end of May.


James Layton Ralston: He gave prices to the end of May.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I gave the figures.


James Layton Ralston: I accept the right hon. gentleman's statement, but I do not remember it. I made a very careful record of that and I do not find the volume of exports up to the end of May.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I gave the figures.


James Layton Ralston: I accept my right hon. friend's statement, but Hansard will record what was said. I thought that was the question on which my-right hon. leader had asked for information and had been rather cavalierly refused it when it was requested.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the question he asked.


James Layton Ralston: My right hon. leader is within the recollection of every hon. member as having asked for a statement up to date with regard to the volume of exports.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He asked if I would give an estimate of the carry-over at this time. That is not a question as to the exports at all.


James Layton Ralston: That is one point; that is to say, the necessity for the fullest information in connection with the transactions which have taken place in connection with the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers transactions and the other point is the one which I have already made, that this is no time for the government to attempt to impose upon Canada and the Canadian wheat growers a permanent wheat policy. I was proceeding to state what effect this policy had had on the western wheat grower himself. As I pointed out, he finds himself in competition with the wheat which he thought he had sold. Next, he finds, notwithstanding what my right hon. friend says about percentages, that the customer on the other side is learning -to do without Canadian wheat and that, notwithstanding the fact that my right hon. friend boasts about having been given a preference of six cents a bushel on wheat, the Argentine is outstripping us in exports t-o Great Britain. That, the western wheat grower can appreciate fully. My right hon. friend may bluff and bluster, as he did this afternoon, on the platforms of western Canada-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order!


James Layton Ralston: Would hon. members permit me to use the word "bluster"? I will
Grain Board-Mr. Ralston

withdraw the word "bluff." My right hon. friend may bluster on the platforms of western Canada with regard to what this government has done for the western wheat grower, but the latter will have a very vivid and lively recollection of the fact that he is in competition with his own wheat which he thought was off the market, and that the market is very largely lost to him. My right hon. friend is only anticipating his own downfall when he makes su'ch statements.


Mr. GOTT:: Will the hon. member permit me a question?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Eccles James Gott: To show whether his party
is going to be returned' to power, I would like to have him indicate any section of Canada where there is any public enthusiasm for him or his party or his leader. There certainly is none in my constituency.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend will
consider four out of five ridings in which by-elections were held recently, he can find that out; and there were also a couple of by-elections which took place the year before.


Eccles James Gott: I am referring not to byelections but to a general election.


James Layton Ralston: 
Eccles James Gott: Is the hon. member for or
against the bill?


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, June 13, 1935