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

Mr. SENN:: 1.	Was a caretaker recently appointed by the civil service commission at the request of the Department of National Defence at Dunn-ville, Ontario?
2.	If so, whom?
3.	What are the names, addresses and occupations of the members of the board who gave the applicants an oral examination?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Charles Allan Bint.
3.	The examining board to rate the candidates consisted of a representative of the department, a representative of the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League, and the civil sendee commission's supervising examiner, Mr. E. J. Hellyer, principal of the

Questions
Dunnville high school. Mr. R. S. Colter, barrister, of Cayuga, Ontario, was selected by the department to represent them in the examination, and the Legion was represented by Mr. G. E. Battle, president of the Dunnville branch.
Since the examination it has been ascertained that the representative of the department was not, as was expected, an officer of the department, which would have been in accordance with the usual practice. Therefore the department has been requested in future examinations for this class of position, to have as its representative either an official of the department or an officer of a military unit, preferably the one in connection with which the vacancy occurs.


SYDNEY, N.S., GOVERNMENT PROPERTY PURCHASE
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	Has the government purchased any property in Sydney, Nova Scotia, between the government wharf and the old Rhodes-Curry property?
2.	If so, what was the cost?
3.	From whom was the property purchased?
4.	What was the assessed value?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	A harbour front property south of the existing public wharf including the so called Harrington wharf was purchased in July, 1935,
2.	S75,000.
3.	Sydney Foundry and Machine Works Limited.
4.	Assessed value of land including Harrington wharf property, $9,100.


ATLANTIC COAST HALIBUT FISHERY
Mr. KINLEY:: 1.	What was the amount of halibut landed in Canada, being the product of the Atlantic coast fisheries, each year since 1930?
2.	What amount was landed in Nova Scotia?
3.	How much halibut was exported from the maritimes each year since 1930, being the product of Atlantic coast fisheries?
4.	How much from Nova Scotia?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.
1930		
1931		
1932		
1933		
1934		
*1935	
*	unrevised
2.
1930		
1931		
1932		
1933		
1934		
*1935	
*	unre vised
cwts.
27,809
28,921
24,998
30,011
25,471
29,341
cwts.
27,258
27,978
22,696
27,900
24.254
28,825
3 and 4. Exports of fresh and frozen halibut through ports in each of the maritime provinces, fiscal years ended March, 1931 to 1935, and the period from April 1, 1935, to February 29, 1936:
Nova Scotia	New Brunswick	Prince Edward Islandcwt.	value	cwt.	value	cwt. valueFiscal year 1931	9,825	$149,594	184	$3,010	Fiscal year 1932	9,785	117,889	369	5,644	Fiscal year 1933	4,250	39,048	77	785	Fiscal year 1934	8,617	79,982	100	1,113	Fiscal year 1935	8,294	86,727	1,077	9,708	Apr. 1, 1935, to Feb. 29, 1936..	9,827	94,059	267	2,580	
This includes all fresh and frozen halibut shipped through ports in the maritime provinces. There is no statistical segregation of exports originating in different parts of Canada, although it is known that there have been exports through maritime ports of halibut originating in British Columbia.


NATURALIZATIONS SINCE MARCH 31, 1934
Mr. GAUTHIER:: 1.	How many persons have been naturalized in Canada since March 31, 1934?
2.	What is their nationality?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	46,124.
2.	Former nationality of naturalized persons as shown in the following list:
Argentine Republic	 11
Albania	 6
Austria	 2,033
Austria-Hungary (under s. 8)	 13
Belgium	 763
Brazil	 2
Bulgaria	 83
Chile	 1
China	 14
Costa Rica	 2
Questions

Czechoslovakia	 2,311
Danzig	 9
Denmark	 1,304
Doubtful	 24
Dutch East India	 1
Egypt	 1
Esthonia	 89
Finland	 1,137
France	 264
Germany	 2,741
Greece	 363
Guatemala	 1
Holland	 678
Hungary	 2,580
Iceland	 56
Italy	 1,691
Japan	 85
Latvia	 128
Liechtenstein	 1
Lithuania	 844
Luxemburg	 4
Memel Territory	 1
Mexico	 3
Montenegro	 2
Mount Lebanon	 1
No nationality	 72
Norway	 1,307
Palestine	 27
Persia	 6
Poland	 12,624
Roumania	 2,358
Russia	 5,132
South Africa (under s. 8)	 4
Spain	 18
Sweden	 1,176
Switzerland	 184
Syria	 138
Turkey	 49
Turkey (Armenia)	 42
Turkey (Syria) (under s. 8)	 1
United States	 3,694
Yugoslavia	 2,045
Total	46,124


POPULATION
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	(a) What was the population of the province of Quebec when the last redistribution of counties was made, only taking into consideration the territory existing at the time of the entry of the province into confederation?
(b) What was the population of the province of Quebec when the last redistribution of counties was made, taking into consideration the territory added to this province by the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act, Bill No. 151, George V, 1911-1912?
2.	(a) What was the population of the province of Ontario when the last redistribution of counties was made, only taking into consideration the territory existing at the time of the entry of such province into confederation?
[Mr. Rinfret.l
(b) What was the population of the province of Ontario when the last redistribution of counties was made, taking into consideration the territory added to this province by the Ontario Boundaries Extension Act, Bill No. 152, George V, 1911-1912?
_ 3. (a) What was the population of the province of Manitoba when the last redistribution of counties was made, only taking into consideration the territory existing at the time of the entry of such province into confederation?
(b) What was the population of the province of Manitoba when the last redistribution of counities was made, taking into consideration the territory added to this province by the Manitoba Boundaries Extension Act, Bill No. 115, George V, 1911-1912?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	(a) Population in 1931 (Quebec) (less extension additions of 1912) was 2,872,078.
(b) Total population (Quebec) in 1931 was 2,874,255.	*
2.	(a) Population in 1931 (Ontario) (less extension additions of 1912) was 3,427,710.
(b) Total population (Ontario) in 1931 was 3,431,683.
3.	(a) Population in 1931 (Manitoba) (less territories added in 1871) 451,599.
Population in 1931 (Manitoba) (less territories added in 1881) 529,887.
Population in 1931 (Manitoba) (less extension additions of 1912 ) 688,295.
(ib) Total population (Manitoba) in 1931 was 700,139.


MARINE DEPARTMENT STAFF AT QUEBEC
Mr. WERMENLINGER:: 1.	Has the Marine department added employees to its staff at Quebec since October 15, 1935?
2. If so, what are the names of such employees ?
3.	Who recommended their appointment?


Mr. HOWE:: 1, 2 and 3. The Marine department has not added to its staff at Quebec since October 15, 1935, other than to replace those dismissed or retired.


Mr. WERMENLINGER:: 1.	How many employees of the Marine department at Quebec have been dismissed since November, 1935?
2.	Who recommended the dismissal of such employees ?
3.	What were the causes of dismissal?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Four employees of the staff of the marine agency at Quebec have been dismissed and two retired since November, 1935.
2.	and 3. Two were dismissed for political partisanship on the statement of (1) Mr. Lacroix, M.P., and (2) Hon. C. G. Power.
Two casual employees were notified that their services would no longer be required

Questions as Orders for Returns
and were replaced by those who were dismissed in 1930.
Two were retired having reached the age of sixty-five.


RADIO NEWS SERVICE
Mr. MALLETTE:: 1.	Does the Canadian radio commission still publish Radio News Service?
2.	If so, is it published in both French and English?
3.	To whom is this publication sent?
4.	Of what benefit, financially or otherwise, has it been to the Canadian radio commission?
5.	What was the cost of such publication during the year 1935?


Mr. HOWE:: 

QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. GAUTHIER:: What amount has the government granted to wheat growers since 1930 (a) in the form of bonuses; (b) in the form of reduced freight charges?


Mr. RINFRET:: Return tabled herewith.


MARINE DEPARTMENT-LUMBER PURCHASES AT QUEBEC
Mr. WERMENLINGER:: 1.	Has the Marine department at Quebec purchased lumber since November 5, 1935?
2.	If so, from whom?
3.	What quantity was purchased?
4.	What was the purchase price?
5.	Were tenders called for?
6.	If so, what are the names of the tenderers?
7.	If no tenders were called, from whom was such lumber purchased?
8.	What was the purchase price?
9.	Were any complaints made respecting the *quality of such lumber?


PERSONS SECONDED TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS FROM NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. POULIOT:: 1. Are there any officials or persons who have been seconded by the Department of National Defence to any other department?
2. If so (a) who are they; (b) what was their salary in the Department of National Defence; (c) when, how and why was every one so seconded; (d) what is their present occupation and salary; (e) what would be their superannuation (1) if returned to the Department of National Defence, and (2) if superannuated while being seconded?


DOMINION PUBLICATIONS
Mr. WARD:: What publications other than departmental reports are issued annually, and what is the total cost of same?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents, regarding the dismissal or retirement in or about June, 1933, of Mr. P. H. Gentleman and his wife, from the teaching staff of French Bay school under the Indian department.


SEED GRAIN
[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it^ is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the guarantee by the government of Canada of the principal and interest of loans made to or guaranteed by the province of Saskatchewan for purchasing seed grain and providing other assistance to farmers in connection with seeding operations during the spring of 1936.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. WILTON (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I would like to ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) if he has received any requests or communioations from United States interests combined with Canadian interests to amend the criminal code to permit professional dog racing in Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the question of privilege?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I do not think I have had the


BBYISED EDITION
[Stage Direction]
Soldier Settlement Act
[Stage Direction]
privilege of receiving any such communications, but I will make inquiry and let my hon. friend know whether anything has been sent to the department in that regard.
Herbert Earl Wilton: Do I understand that nothing has been received?


Ernest Lapointe: I am not sure that anything has reached the department, but I will make inquiry and let my hon. friend know.



PRIVILEGE-MR. HARTIGAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. J. HARTIGAN (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. On Monday last the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) in answer to a question of mine made the following statement. His words did not reach this side of the house but evidently were heard by the Hansard reporter. The statement as reported is as follows:
Mr. Bennett: Will you, Mr. Chairman, be good enough to tell that hon. gentleman to talk to himself outside.
I wish to inform the right hon. gentleman that I am not a past prime minister and have never been in the habit-


Mr. BENNETT:: This surely is not a question of privilege.


David James Hartigan: -of holding council meetings with myself in front of the Rideau club.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.



UNION STEAMSHIP COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General (Mr. Elliott). A statement has been made in Vancouver that forty-five Japanese, Canadian citizens, many of them ex-service men, formerly employed with the Union Steamship Company, have been denied reinstatement following an industrial dispute last June. It is intimated by the management that the present government will not permit reinstatement on the ground that they are orientals, and that such reinstatement might involve the loss of mail contracts. Has the government made any such stipulation in the awarding of mail contracts to the Union Steamship Company?


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such representations having been made, but I shall be pleased to look into the matter and let the hon. member have any available information.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) moved the second reading of Bill No. IS, to amend the Soldier Settlement Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Taylor (Norfolk) in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
Mr. MacNICOL:: Mr. Chairman, you mentioned section 1, which is followed by section 73. Which section are you referring to?


James Samuel Taylor: Section 1. There is only one section.


John Ritchie MacNicol: After stating certain facts I should like to ask the minister a question. I have in mind a returned soldier who won the military medal or the military cross. After the young man returned from overseas his father, an old man, apparently decided that the son should go out west and take up farming. He did not feel disposed to have the title drawn in the son's name. I have known this family since I was a boy, and my memory is that the old gentleman was about eighty years of age. It would appear that for some reason, of which I am not aware, he felt he ought to keep a guiding hand over the boy. Before the old gentleman was able to transfer the land upon which he had made a deposit, he passed away. Since that time the son has been having difficulty with the department, in an effort to obtain redress under the legislation of 1929 under which returned soldiers were to be allowed a thirty per cent reduction. I have discussed the matter with the department on two or three occasions, and I believe it was considered by the minister's predecessor on several occasions. I should appreciate it if the minister would look into the case. I shall give him the information privately, and I hope he will try to give this young man some redress. He has a family, and I was told this morning he had not been able to pay anything. As a result he is liable to be dispossessed. It is a very worthy case, and I should like to see some consideration given to a soldier who won recognition overseas on the field of battle.


Mr. CRERAR:: I know nothing of the circumstances to which the hon. member has referred, but as he has suggested I shall be

Soldier Settlement Act
pleased to get all particulars and to discuss the matter with him further. I regret that at this time I cannot make any further observations because this is the first occasion upon which it has been drawn to my attention.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It may be necessary to bring in a special bill. Apparently the young man is in arrears, and owing to the fact that the father had taken the land in his name a returned soldier with a very creditable record is denied the consideration to which returned soldiers are entitled in matters of this kind.


Mr. QUELCH:: I should like to support
the bill, but before doing so may I point out, as other hon. members have done, that although the measure represents a step in the right direction it does not begin to meet the needs of soldier settlers. Last fall when I interviewed the superintendent of the soldier settlement board in Calgary he said he was puzzled because he had not received applications from my constituency. I pointed out to him that the reason was obvious, namely that in the majority of cases the soldier settlers in the south-eastern part of Acadia were in such a hopeless position that they would be unable to repay their indebtedness to the board even if extensions were made indefinitely.
About the time the war ended the soldier settlement board was put into operation and field supervisors were appointed for the purpose of advising and reestablishing returned soldiers. At that time the dominion government had information from their engineers to the effect that the drought areas were unsuitable for settlers. In spite of that fact, however, the supervisors helped a number of soldiers to reestablish themselves in the drought areas, and for that reason the government incurred a direct liability. Although the land had already been condemned as unsuitable, many returned soldiers were established in these areas, and to-day they find themselves in a hopeless position. They have lost what little capital they had and are totally unable to repay their indebtedness. Surely it is the responsibility of the government to reestablish those men in areas in which they might have a chance to succeed. I would urge upon the minister that he make a thorough investigation into the whole problem with a view to a reduction of interest, a revaluation of land, and an extension for at least five years of the dollar for dollar bonus. After five years of depression and low prices the returned men even in the better districts are finding themselves in a precarious position.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There are 1,466 soldier
settlers who come under the jurisdiction of the Calgary office. Of that number, 1,080 have taken advantage of the provisions embodied in the act.	That is a substantial
number indeed, considering conditions in the province of Alberta in the last four or five years. I doubt whether this would be the proper time to consider the hon. member's suggestion of further reductions in interest and principal. During the last fifteen or sixteen years, since the soldier settlement scheme was embarked upon, there have been very substantial reductions covering a considerable period of years. In 1922 legislation was passed granting exemption of interest in arrears, and the amount involved was over $10,000,000. In 1925 provision was made for a revaluation of live stock, and a reduction was made in the value of live stock of almost $3,000,000, covering soldier settlers throughout Canada. In 1927 there was a land revaluation, involving a total of $7,500,000. In 1930 legislation was passed providing for a reduction in principal and interest over the whole scheme, involving a sum of $11,300,000. So, during the period that this scheme has been in operation substantial reductions have been made in the obligations of the soldier settlers. Furthermore, when the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act was passed returned soldier settlers, although their debt was to the crown, were brought under the provisions of that measure.
In reply to my hon. friend's suggestion that a two year extension is not sufficient, as I indicated the other day when we were discussing the resolution, if conditions at the expiration of two years warrant a further extension, it will require only a simple amendment to the act, but as my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) pointed out in the debate the other day, if you now make the period five years, the inevitable tendency will be for the soldier settlers to postpone making payments until nearly the end of the period of grace. So, taking it all together, after a very full discussion with the officers of my department, I think a two year extension is probably the wisest at the present time. I am quite aware of the fact that the particular district in Alberta from which my hon. friend from Acadia (Mr. Quelch) comes, has had serious reverses over a period of years. But the history of that district, which I know fairly well, having handled grain from it for a great many years when I was with the United Grain Growers, is that it has its periods of good times and its periods of bad times, and
Soldier Settlement Act

while everyone in the house desires, I am sure, to extend the fullest possible sympathy and support to the returned soldier settler, I think on the whole the legislation before us will achieve what we have in view.
One other fact that should be kept in mind-and it has been brought to my attention already in the last few months-is that there are on farms throughout Canada to-day many returned soldiers who secured their farms independently of the soldier settlement scheme altogether, and they have had none of these benefits which have accrued to the soldier settlers under the various provisions that I enumerated a moment ago. If we extended the provisions as far as my hon. friend suggests, perhaps these other soldier settlers might have some claim upon us. My hon. friend can rest assured that the administration of the soldier settlement scheme will be as fair and reasonable as possible, and if at the end of two years we find it necessary to make a further extension I am quite certain that this parliament will gladly make it.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Can the minister tell the committee the amount of money that was spent originally in establishing soldiers on the land, just the principal, without interest, for land, machinery, live stock, and so on?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have not that information at hand, but I shall be glad to give the hon. gentleman the information when the soldier settlement estimates are before the house. My recollection is that the total advances for land, live stock, and assistance in other directions, with administration costs to date, approximate $150,000,000, against which there are the credits of principal and interest payments received.


James J. Donnelly: Thank you.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I should add, for I want the information I give the committee to be as complete as possible, that the figure I gave a few moments ago of 1,466 soldier settlers under the jurisdiction of the Calgary office, 1,080 of whom have taken advantage of the dollar for dollar bonus plan, does not take into account any settlers who may have settled under the three thousand family scheme, and of whom there are many others in Alberta.


Mr. BARBER:: What are the figures for the Vancouver district, the number of those who took advantage of that provision? fMr. Quelch.]


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The total number of soldier settlers under the jurisdiction of the Vancouver office is 1,431, of whom 1,090 have taken advantage of the dollar for dollar bonus provision.


Victor Quelch: The point I wish to make is this, that certain districts not only in my constituency but throughout the province and other provinces have been condemned by government engineers as unsuitable for settlement, and yet in spite of that fact the soldier settlement board reestablished soldiers on certain of these lands on which they will never be able to make a living. In some cases individuals in these districts have not harvested a paying crop for fifteen years, and the settlers are on relief and will never be able to make a living there. Would it not be cheaper in the long run to move them to more suitable land? The government assumed the responsibility of reestablishing them, and then settled them in districts that were totally unsuitable for farming. I say that the government has a moral obligation to establish them on farms on which they have a chance to make a living.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The suggestion of my hon. friend may have considerable merit, but if we attempted to carry it out, it would open the door, I am afraid, to a great many difficulties in the administration of this act. While those for whom he speaks in the constituency he represents may be in a difficult way, there are many others in a difficult way, and if we opened the door for the settlers in his constituency, I am afraid the department would be exposed to many demands from other constituencies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One word, Mr. Chairman. A question was put to the minister, which was not answered, as to whether provision could not be made to deal with the case in which title was taken in the name of one person as trustee for the settler under the act, or for the person entitled under the act. The suggestion appears to me to warrant some consideration. It would require legislation, in my judgment, to accord the benefits of this act to a trustee for a settler, if the department is satisfied that the relationship of trustee exists. That is the only method by which I think the matter could be dealt with, and it might be dealt with by an amendment to this section. Perhaps the minister will take the suggestion into consideration, and the amendment might be made in another place in order not to delay the passage of the bill here.

Soldier Settlement Act


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I shall be glad to give consideration to the suggestion made by my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition, but as a layman it strikes me as unusual to legislate by a special act to relieve the necessities of an individual. I gathered from the observations made by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) that the land in question was held by the father, and the occupant was in the nature of a tenant on the land. I shall be pleased to get all the relevant facts and also to take under consideration the suggestion of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett).


Victor Quelch: Does the minister admit that the government incurred any responsibility or moral obligation when they settled returned men on lands that had been condemned by government engineers? I am referring not only to my own constituency, but to all the drought areas in Canada which were condemned as unsuitable for settlement and then settled by soldier settlers.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Who condemned the land?


Victor Quelch: The government engineers.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: What government engineers?


Victor Quelch: I could not give the minister the exact date, but the figures were quoted in Hansard last year and they are on file. The information can be found.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have no knowledge of any land being condemned by government engineers and then later made available for returned soldiers. I shall be glad to look up the point. I think the hon. member is referring to condemnation of land by provincial government inspectors or engineers, but these soldiers were settled on this land some fifteen years ago. I was in the house at that time and I recall the discussion that took place when the legislation was being put through. I have no recollection of that point having been brought up at any time, but I shall be glad to get some further information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think what the hon. member is referring to is the fact that certain areas were opened up for settlement against the protest of certain government officials that this was range land and unfit for settlement.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is away back.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. When he speaks of condemnation, I think he means that in the light of subsequent events the reports then made should have been acted upon instead of the lands being opened up for settlement.
That argument was put forward in the case I have in mind and that is perhaps what the hon. gentleman himself has in mind. May I assure the minister that I am not thinking of legislation for single cases; what I am suggesting is an amendment to the present statute to make it applicable in the case of a trustee. Such a case would be where a father, shall I say fearing that his son might be indifferent to his own financial interests, would say to his son that the land had better be taken out in his, the father's, name so that it would not be improvidently dealt with. If he can establish the relationship of trustee


Mr. DUNNING:: That is the difficulty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would be up to him. This would apply to all cases except that of a tenant. If a man was a landlord he could not be a trustee. This would apply to cases where for extraordinary reasons and out of consideration and regard for the soldier settler, title was taken in somebody else's name as trustee. If he were not trustee, the benefits certainly could not accrue.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The leader of the opposition has presented a case to some extent similar to the one I had in mind.


Charles Avery Dunning: It was your case.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am very glad to know that.


Charles Avery Dunning: You will only spoil it if you go any further.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If the hon. member for Davenport will give me the name of the party, I would appreciate having the information.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I will do that later; I did not want to make the name public.


Mr. POOLE:: The minister speaks of the
difficulty of administering this act under certain conditions. If it is true, and I believe it is, that soldiers are settled on land which is not productive, it would certainly simplify administration if they were moved to land that was productive. This act will have to remain in operation until such time as the soldier settlers are made independent and they can never be made independent while attempting to produce farm products on land which has not produced a crop in fifteen years. It is just a waste of money to continue to keep them on such land. I suggest to the minister that a survey should be made to find out what can be done and means should be provided
Wheat Board

either to make this land productive or to move the settlers to land that is productive. After all, the purpose of this act is to provide security for the soldier settler.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed. CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the payment of certain sums of money to the Canadian Wheat Board for distribution to primary producers of wheat in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta who delivered wheat grown in 1930 to Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, through their respective pool organizations, for the payment by the Canadian Wheat Board to Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, of the net credit balance resulting from transactions by Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, in respect of coarse grains grown in the year * 1930, and for the payment of the reasonable expenses incurred in carrying out the provisions of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Taylor (Norfolk) in the chair.
Mr. FAIR:: Would the minister be good
enough to tell us what will be in the proposed bill?


Mr. GARDINER:: The resolution covers
in general terms what will be included in the bill, that is, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the payment of certain sums of money to the Canadian Wheat Board for distribution to primary producers of wheat in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta who delivered wheat grown in 1930 to Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, through their respective pool organizations. Those who signed contracts with the wheat pools delivered wheat in 1930 at an initial price of seventy cents per bushel, No. 1 northern, Fort William; later on at sixty cents per bushel, No. 1 northern, Fort William; still later at fiftydive cents per bushel, No. 1 northern, Fort William, and still later at fifty cents per bushel, No. 1 northern, Fort William. The suggestion in connection with wheat is to pay an amount equal to the sixty cent payment to all who received less than sixty cents. That is to be done in the manner suggested in the resolution.
Ifi the second place there is the payment by the Canadian Wheat Board to the CanafMr. Pcc.le.l
dian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, of the net credit balance resulting from transactions by Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, in respect of coarse grains grown in the year 1930. There were four different pools in Saskatchewan and Manitoba; there were no pools in Alberta having to do with coarse grains. The four pools in Saskatchewan and Manitoba had to do with the marketing of oats, barley, flax and rye; these pools were finally handled through Mr. McFarland, as .the representative of the banks, I think, who were financing the pools in their operations, in such a manner as to dispose of these grains, and the amounts that are now in the accounts that were guaranteed by the government are to be returned to the wheat pools to be handled by them in such manner as will be provided in the act. The amount involved in the first part of the resolution, that is in the wheat, will total about $6,500,000; the amount involved in the coarse grain pools will be $350,000, and these amounts will be returned. There will be an amount for the payment of reasonable expenses incurred in carrying out the provisions of the act, that is to say, expenses incurred in making the returns of these sums of money.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: What justification is
there for making this payment to contract holders in the wheat pool any more than for paying growers of wheat in the west on the same basis of sixty cents a bushel, that is to those who delivered wheat at possibly fifty to fifty-five cents, and who did not belong to the pool?


James Garfield Gardiner: I should much prefer
to discuss on the second reading the provisions contained in the bill. On the second reading the whole bill will be before the house and the house can examine its different sections and discuss the proposals from that point of view. I have no objection to giving at this stage all the information I can with respect to the matter under discussion, but I would suggest that probably the discussion of the reasons that might prevail in connection with making these payments as against the reasons which might exist for paying other amounts would take me a little afield in discussing the resolution itself. I should prefer to deal with that matter on the second reading, in so far as it can be dealt with at all in a discussion of this question, to going into details in that connection at the moment. But any suggestion with regard to amounts or what is involved in the payments or anything of that kind could, I am sure., be properly given now.

Wheat Board


Mr. NEEDHAM:: Will these payments
be made to the pool or directly to the members of the pool from the federal government?


James Garfield Gardiner: The bill will contain
provisions for the method by which the payments are to be made. I assume, however, that the most suitable way, generally speaking, of making payment would be to follow the method that has always been followed by the pools themselves in making payment. There is machinery for doing it in that way through the pools themselves and it is possible that that would be found to be the most convenient way.


Mr. MOORE:: On the second reading of the bill will the minister be in a position to provide information as to the present financial condition of the pool?


James Garfield Gardiner: Only in relation to
those matters dealt with in the bill; with regard to the general financial position of the pool, no.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: Will the minister give
an itemized statement of the amounts?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have given the
amounts in round figures: For wheat, $6,500,000; for coarse grains, about $350,000, and there will be a comparatively small amount for expenses in making the distribution.


Mr. McDONALD (Souris):: Does this contemplated payment include the premium on durum wheat?


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not quite hear the question, but I believe that what the hon. gentleman has in mind is the amount of money actually obtained for durum wheat, which was a premium over other wheat. The answer is yes.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Does the $6,500,000
cover the spread on all grades, or is it confined to certain grades only?


James Garfield Gardiner: It covers the spreads,
just as they were paid previously by the pool.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Does this phraseology
in respect of coarse grains include all coarse grains, and is each of the coarse grain pools to be treated separately in this division? I have in mind the situation in connection with the delivery of flax. Is that to be treated on the same basis or on a basis different from that in regard to the other grains, respecting which possibly there may be some surplus?


James Garfield Gardiner: Each of the pools is
separate. There are separate pools for oats, rye, barley and flax, and they will be dealt
with in this legislation as separate pools. The amount that is available in each pool will be returned. Flax will be dealt with in the manner indicated, and any surplus there will be returned.


Robert Fair: Will this legislation be puit
into force immediately? The farmers are short of money, and if these payments were made right away a good deal of trouble would be avoided and the expenses would be met in connection with seed, feed and other requirements.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know whether I understood the question. Is the hon. gentleman asking whether the legislation will be put into force in time for seeding operations?


Robert Fair: That is the idea.


James Garfield Gardiner: That depends entirely
upon the length of time it takes to geit this legislation through the house. As soon as the legislation is through the money will be paid.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am surprised at the
paucity of information which the minister offers on this resolution. Whether it is the settled policy of the government not to supply information on resolutions I do not know, but judging from what was said yesterday apparently it is. Now the rule is clear, and-I speak only for myself-I propose to see that it is observed. We are entitled to this information. It may take a long time to get it but we are entitled to it. One thing we are not entitled to do is to make long speeches on questions of policy. That is the objection I urged last year and the Prime Minister now admits that it is a sound view. It took five sittings to deal with the relief resolution last year though it might have been passed in a little while if speeches had not been made on everything in the world but the resolution itself. I propose to confine myself to this resolution and its terms, and I must asik that the information requested be put on Hansard in order that the public who are watching this matter may be properly informed.
The first question is: Why was this matter not disposed of long ago? It will be recalled that the legislation of last session provided that the Canadian wheat pool should take over from the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, the stocks of grain they had on hand and pay for them. These grains belonged to the Canadian Wheat Producers Limited and not to the government of Canada or to the wheat board. But it was thought desirable, not by the government of the day but by a committee which was composed of members from both sides of the house, that the wheat should actually be placed in the
Wheat Board

possession and under the control of the wheat board. To that end the legislation provided that they would take it over. To take it over meant that they had to assume at the bank the obligation which the Canadian Wheat Producers Limited was carrying under the guarantee of the government. That is the position. That is, Mr. McFarland was not appointed to the position of manager of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers by the government; he was appointed by that corporation, and I think the hon. minister is right when he says that undoubtedly the appointment met with the approval of the banks.
There was, then, when this wheat act came into force last year, a quantity of wheat in the possession of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited; they had borrowed the money from the bank to buy the grain and pay for it; and the government had guaranteed the payments to the bank of the money that had been secured for the purpose of making the purchase. Included in that wheat was a quantity of grain that the wheat pools had owned in 1930 and that had been utilized, as the other grains had, in connection with the operations that were carried on. They pointed out that part of that grain had been bought at a price of seventy cents per bushel, part of it at a lesser price, and that initial payments had been made of fifty-five cents and of, I think, some larger sum and lesser sums. They asked as a condition of turning over their grain that they should receive payment on the basis of sixty cents a bushel for the whole of the grain that was to be taken over by the board and not paid for. When the order in council was passed-and reference has been made to it-it provided that they were to be paid that sum of money plus reasonable expenses as certified by auditors. The order in council was passed in September, 1935. The press carried long statements that advances were to be made to the farmers of this country on the eve of an election, to make it appear that some effort was being made to influence them with respect to this matter. That was not the fact at all. The fact is that, not the wheat board but the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited were going to issue cheques to their customers at the rate of sixty cents per bushel, and indeed had taken steps to do so.
That is the position; that is, that the people who were divesting themselves of property and ownership in their wheat asked that, when the obligation that had been incurred in the purchase of it was being taken over by the wheat board, provision should be made for
fMr. Bennett.]
these quantities of grain that had come into their possession at various prices; that it should be averaged at sixty cents per bushel, and that those who had received fifty-five cents should receive the difference between that and sixty cents. That is the question that was asked by the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell).


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, no, not an average.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not an average, a price of sixty cents for the pool wheat. If my hon. friend thinks I was suggesting an average price for the whole, no; I am dealing only with the wheat delivered by the pools, for which wheat an initial payment had been made.


Charles Avery Dunning: That was not an average even in that case.	.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it brought the average of those who had received less than sixty cents up to sixty cents, and it did not reduce to sixty cents the amount received by those who had been paid more than that sum, for the simple reason that they had not the money to pay. That is the question asked by the hon. member for Swift Current.


James Garfield Gardiner: I beg to differ with the right hon. gentleman. That was not the question asked by the member for Swift Current. He asked me to make a comparison-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, no.


James Garfield Gardiner: -between these payments and the payments to other persons who did not deliver the wheat to the pool.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; his question was why payments were made to people within the pools.


James Garfield Gardiner: And not made to those outside.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly. I thought it was a highly proper question to ask at this particular moment, because the answer is that these payments were being made in order that the grain which had belonged to the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited could be vested in that new wheat board by reason of the payment of the moneys that they had in it. I will put it that way. They had made the payments on the basis of a higher price, in some instances, as the Minister of Finance has just pointed out, than sixty cents, some payments being as

Wheat Board
high as seventy cents, and eventually in some instances the payments have been reduced as low as fifty-five cents. I do not think any were as low as fifty cents.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes, forty-nine cents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought the minister would make this explanation himself.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did make it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Sixty cents was the price at which the Canadian Wheat Producers Limited were willing to adjust their differences and receive from the wheat board created last session the money necessary to put the payment upon that basis. Coarse grains stood upon an entirely different basis. There was a credit balance with respect to coarse grains, as I understand, and that money amounting to some $350,000 is now to be returned to the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited; is that amount right?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, about that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the position with respect to these two matters. With regard to durum wheat, for instance, I remember a delegation coming hefe and discussing that with me. Until such time as the business for the year was wound up the payments could not be made, but the payments now being made are made on a basis of the actual price at which durum wheat was sold, which was from time to time over the ordinary sale price for the days on which it was sold. In other words, what was got for it is now being accounted for. That is the contention they were making from time to time, that the price the pool received for durum wheat which is in excess of the market price for ordinary wheat should be accounted for and paid to them. That is being done by this provision. Last year when the order in council was passed it provided that, subject to the auditor's certificate being obtained, these moneys should be paid over, and the matter was treated as being ended. Now we have a bill, and I assume the reason the bill is here is because it is impossible to deal with the matter by order in council when parliament is in session; under the provisions of the relief act it will require legislation. The money might have been paid by order in council at any time prior to the meeting of parliament.
I want to know, and I think I am entitled to know: When was the auditors' report received? Did the auditors' report certify to the correctness of the position taken by the sellers of the grain? When was that auditors'
report received? What is the amount that is to be paid for expenses, and was the auditors' report given upon that point? I remember that there was a difference of opinion as to the charges under the total expenses, and that necessitated the auditors going into the matter and making a report. I think we are bound to receive an answer to those questions before we proceed with the resolution.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the first question asked was as to why there had been delays between late in October, when the present government came into office, and the present time in making payments.


Charles Avery Dunning: Since the passing of the legislation of June of last year.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, and since the passing of the legislation of June of last year. Of course, in connection with the delay that took place in the payments between June and late in October, this government knows very little other than is contained in the records.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is all there is, too.


James Garfield Gardiner: What is on record, of course, has been recorded and covers the period until the tenth day of October. From that time on there is a reason, and a very good one, for any delays that have occurred. I hold in my hand a copy of the order in council which was signed by, I think, five members of council on the tenth day of October last, that is four days before the last election. This order in council dated October 10, 1935, reads:
Whereas the Canadian Wheat Board is empowered by section 7(f) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act to acquire from Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited upon terms to be approved by the governor in council all wheat or contracts to purchase or take delivery of wheat in respect of which the government of Canada has given a guarantee:
And whereas the Minister of Finance reports that Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited has now offered to sell and transfer their wheat and contracts to purchase or take delivery of wheat in respect of which the government of Canada has given a guarantee upon the terms set out in the following letter from the president of said Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited:
Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers
Limited,
Wheat Pool Building,
Winnipeg, Canada.
October 8, 1935.
The Canadian Wheat Board:
423 Main Street,
Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Gentlemen:
Under the provisions of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, it is provided by section 7 (f)
Wheat Board

that your hoard shall have the power to acquire all wheat and contracts to purchase wheat from the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited upon terms to be approved by the governor in council.
On behalf of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited I hereby offer to sell and transfer to your hoard all wheat or contracts to purchase or take delivery of wheat in respect of which the government of Canada has given a guarantee, such sale or transfer to be upon the following terms:
I ask the committee in the first place to note this, that there is no mention, in the powers given by the act, that is by section 7 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, of power to acquire anything but wheat, or in the wording of the order in council to this point. The order in council continues:
(a)	The Canadian Wheat Board assumes all liabilities of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited in respect of the said wheat and the said' contracts, for advances made in connection with the acquisition and holding thereof by the following banks:
Bank of Montreal Royal Bank of Canada Canadian Bank of Commerce Dominion Bank Imperial Bank of Canada Bank of Nova Scotia Bank of Toronto.
That is the first condition or the first term. In other words, the government was undertaking to implement its guarantees given, not to the pools, not to the producers, but to these seven banks, against loss on advances granted to the pool in order to carry on the grain business of that particular year.
(b)	The Canadian Wheat Board will pay to the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited the sum of $8,262,415.37 being the sum total of balances due to the primary producers, and expenses and other charges in connection with the holding and handling of the wheat.
Yours very truly,
L. C. Brouillette,
President.
And whereas the minister further reports that the Canadian Wheat Board has accepted the offer so made by the following letter signed by the chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board:
October 8, 1935.
The Canadian Wheat Board,
423 Main Street,
Winnipeg, Canada.
Canadian Cooperative
Wheat Pool Building, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Wheat Producers
Limited,
Gentlemen:
I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of even date from the president of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, offering to sell and transfer all wheat or contracts to purchase or take delivery of wheat in respect of which the government of Canada has given 
a guarantee upon terms therein set out. I beg to inform you that the Canadian Wheat Board is prepared to acquire the said wheat and contracts on the terms mentioned in your letter and I am directed to accept your offer accordingly.
Yours very truly,
John I. McFarland,
Chairman,
The Canadian Wheat Board.
It will be noted that all through the order and all through those letters and the powers given, wheat and wheat only is dealt with. The letters aforesaid were exchanged at Winnipeg, October 8, 1935, that is just two days prior to the drafting of this order in council. The order in council continues:
Now, therefore, His Excellency the Administrator in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, is pleased to approve the terms of acquisition set out in the aforesaid letters and they are hereby approved accordingly.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the original order in council ended there, that is the order in council before it was actually signed and had become a legal order in council legalizing this contract. The first order in council ended at that point. Had the order in council been signed without any addition to it, that order in council would have meant exactly what the leader of the opposition stated a few moments ago it did mean, namely that payment could have been made on October 10 or any time after that by any government that was in power, and had it been intended


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is objectionable.
Let the hon. gentleman stick to the rules. He talks about intention-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point is that the
hon. minister is endeavouring to impute intentions to those responsible for the order, which he is not permitted to do. The order speaks for itself.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am explaining how
the order was drafted in order to answer the right hon. gentleman's question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I must insist on the
point of order. Do not think for a moment I am going to be overawed by anyone; do not have any idea of that kind. I have listened in this house during the last few days to an endeavour to impute motives and intentions. This is a document that speaks for itself, and was not drawn by the minister, but he says that the intention was so and so. The document speaks for itself, and I ask the hon. gentleman to discontinue any references of that kind.

Wheat Board


Ernest Lapointe: The right hon. gentleman does nothing else.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am reading the document in order that it may speak for itself.
I will read it again. It must be remembered that the reason this order in council was passed was that the law said that no agreement was binding as between the wheat board and the wheat pools until it was agreed to by order in council. After setting out the agreement that had been reached between the wheat pools and the wheat board this order in council then goes on in these words:
Now, therefore. His Excellency the Administrator in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, is pleased to approve the terms of acquisition set out in the aforesaid letters and they are hereby approved accordingly.
Let me say accordingly, that had the order in council ended at "accordingly," no doubt would have arisen in anyone's mind that approval by the government was given to the agreement which had been entered into apparently between the wheat board and the pool organization. This agreement could not become an effective agreement until it was approved by the government of Canada.
Now, these words were added. I say "added" advisedly:
Subject to the amount referred to in paragraph (b) page 2 hereof being verified by auditors certificates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a question of the gravest moment. It is either part of the order in council, or it is not. He says these words have been added to it. When? When?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will give that information in a minute, if you will permit me. I will explain when, why, and all about it. I would like to say to him that I have seen the original order in council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the point, exactly.


James Garfield Gardiner: And that original order in council has these words written in, in pen and ink.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course.


James Garfield Gardiner: And the remainder is typewritten.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course, yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: And that order in council is initialled on October 10 by the Minister of Finance of that day. And there is something more, in addition to that. The right hon. gentleman himself was in Toronto on the tenth of October last, and one of the officers
of the Department of Finance was also in Toronto. The right hon. gentleman was not in Ottawa on the day this order in council was drafted; he was in the city of Toronto that morning. One of the officers of the Department of Finance, Mr. W. E. Hunter, was also in the city of Toronto. On October 10 he sent this telegram to Mr. B. J. Roberts, Department of Finance, Canada:
Just received consideration. Stop. Report approved, subject to following change, section (b) page 2. Add this to be verified by auditors' certificates.
That sets the time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course.


James Garfield Gardiner: On October 10. This matter w'as decided after the order in council had first been discussed and after some one had gone to Toronto, and after some one had seen some one of considerable importance in Toronto and wired back to the city of Ottawa to add those words at the end of the order in council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is wrong with that?


James Garfield Gardiner: Nothing at all. I am giving the right hon. gentleman the information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, has the hon. gentleman finished?	.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I have not finished, unless you wish to ask a question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Don't worry about that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will read the telegram again. I am still answering the question about the delay.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I want, but that does not explain it.


James Garfield Gardiner: " Just received consideration. Stop. Report approved, subject to the following change."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: A change in the order in council.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Mr. LAWSON:: A change in the draft.


James Garfield Gardiner: " Just received consideration. Stop. Report approved subject to following change, section (b), page 2. Add this to be verified by auditors' certificates."
Wheat Board

That is what was on it. And the order in council was then made to read-let me read section (b):
The Canadian Wheat Board will pay to the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited the sum of $8,262,415.37, being the sum total of balances due to the primary producers, and expenses and other charges in connection with the holding and handling of the wheat.
Then read along with that these words at the end of the order in council:
Subject to the amount referred to in paragraph (h) page 2 hereof being verified by auditors certificates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


James Garfield Gardiner: In other words, these
amounts under section (b) were to be verified by auditors' certificates before any payments whatsoever were made in connection with this order in council.
Now, I do not know whether that answers in full the question which my right hon. friend has asked, namely, as to why there has been delay. Delay was necessitated by getting a certificate from the auditors as to whether these amounts could be verified as amounts due to the primary producers in the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman will now lay on the table the order in council, in order that it may be available to the house. He has quoted from a public document, and it should be laid on the table of the house.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will see that it is
laid on the table. It has been in the press and read extensively throughout Canada, and I understand my right hon. friend has read it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am merely seeing that
the rules of the house are observed, and that the document is laid on the table.


James Garfield Gardiner: All right. Do you wish this particular copy of it laid on the table?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I want a copy laid on
the table, so that I may have it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will place this one
on the table; I am through with it.
Then, turning to the other part of the question, namely, as to why there has been so much delay, may I say that I have here a copy of the report of the auditors. I notice that it is dated January 25, 1936. I think there was a question asked as to the date of the report by the auditors. That of course is not the date it reached the government, but it is the date that was placed on the report when they began to write it. The report itself was then gone over by the government. I 
quite agree with the leader of the opposition's statement that because of provisions having been made for payment under the relief act, it would be impossible to make those payments while the house was in session, without legislation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, that is not quite so.


James Garfield Gardiner: But there is another
reason why that has been done. This particular payment is a rather extraordinary one. I do not know that any government before in Canada has been called upon to make a payment of just this kind. I do not know that any government in Canada has had the same reasons for making a payment of this kind as has the present government. For that reason the government of the present day thought it wise to have anything that has to do with wheat done in the open, in the future, rather than done behind closed doors. We proposed to have this piece of legislation providing for these payments brought before the house and discussed in such a manner as to give full information before any vote is taken for the payment of somewhere between $6,000,000 and $7,000,000 to people in some parts of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the hon. gentleman now lay on the table the orders in council
and the auditors' report, so that I may proceed with my observations?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have only one copy
of the order, but I shall lay that on the table. The auditors' report will be placed on the table also. I have only one copy here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I do not
know what experienced members of this committee may think, but we have listened to the most extraordinary statement to which it has ever been my privilege to listen.


An hon. MEMBER:: A very good one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question of goodness is not at issue. What is at issue is that a veiled insinuation has been made that an order in council was altered. That is what it meant, or nothing-it is either one or the other, Mr. Chairman, and there is no alternative. The order in council was complete in the form in which it is now produced- bring me that order in council, please-or it was not. If it was complete when signed by his excellency the administrator, that is the end of it, and that is the order in council. If it was not, then a grave offence has been committed, and the hon. gentleman must make that good. That is the position.
Now, let us look at the order in council. Here it is, in its entirety. Here it is in its

Wheat Board
completeness, produced by a minister of the crown and laid upon the table of the house, showing that it was passed on October 10, 1935. These words are contained in it and form part of it:
Now, therefore, His Excellency the Administrator in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, is pleased to approve the terms of acquisition set out in the aforesaid letters, and they are hereby approved accordingly, subject to the amount refered to in paragraph (b) page 2 hereof being verified by auditors certificates.
Were these words on that order in council when his excellency approved of it or not? If they were, then why this veiled insinuation that someone has been altering the order in council? That reflects upon the honour of eighteen or twenty men, who value their honour as highly as any former premier of Saskatchewan. Those words were on that order in council when the administrator approved of it, and I shall require that there be conducted by a committee set up by this house or by the committee on privileges an investigation to determine whether or not that order in council has been altered; for the insinuation means that or nothing. There is no half way house about it. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) stood in his place to-day and said that there had been an alteration in this order in council which he now produces.


James Garfield Gardiner: The right hon. gentleman is making a statement that is absolutely incorrect.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then make your own
statement.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will make it when you are through.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He says my statement is incorrect, and I want him to correct it. I appeal to the Prime Minister, who knows something of what the enormous responsibility of a minister of the crown may be. Here is an order in council produced by a minister of the crown and containing the words I-have read, and a minister in his place this afternoon has referred to those words as having been altered or to the words having been added. He says now that there was a part of it which did not contain those words.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He referred to the order
in council and said that those words were written in in ink in the original, thereby implying that these words had been written in in ink-when? Subsequent to the order in council having been signed, or not?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: My right hon. friend says that the writing was in the original. Does the right hon. gentleman dispute that fact?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know; I have
not seen it. That has nothing whatever to do with it. Words are frequently written in or added to orders in council, but there the order in council stands as it is signed.


Ernest Lapointe: There is
nothing wrong about that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. Then why level a
veiled insinuation which is thoroughly characteristic of some people when dealing with matters? Why endeavour to make it appear that there is something irregular about this? Why were there cheers from hon. gentlemen opposite when he made that reference? Did they believe that there was something irregular and improper about this or not? If they do believe that, then let us have it settled. It is true, as he says, that I was not in the city that day, but I was the leader of the government and the president of the privy council at that time, and upon my shoulders rests the responsibility if deceit has been practised on the representative of the crown. Does the hon. gentleman mean that there has been deceit practised on the representative of the crown? Does he mean to say that these words were written in after the order in council was signed? That is the question. If he admits they were in the order in council when it was signed, then why the suggestion of irregularity? Let the people of this country understand the kind of debate we are having here.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. Hon. gentlemen have reference to the speeches of the hon. member for Temiscouata, I suppose. Let us go a step further. I put to the house this question : Is this fair? Is this a decent way in which to conduct the affairs of this country? Is it decent to suggest that there is something irregular when the order in council we have tabled contains nothing to show that these words were not as much a part of the order in council as any other part of it? But the Minister of Agriculture says that these words were written in. I assume they were. He says they were, and I will take his statement. What is more, he has taken the unusual step of producing from the Department of Finance a message sent by one official to another official saying: "Just received consideration. Report approved." Report approved-not the order in council, but the
Wheat Board

report upon which all orders in council are based. It says that the terms of acquisition

-are hereby approved accordingly, subject to the amount referred to in paragraph (b) page two hereof being verified by auditors' certificates.
That was after Mr. Hunter had seen me in Toronto; for as the hon. gentleman said a moment ago, I was in Toronto, and the report which Mr. Hunter brought down, because of the difficulty of getting together men scattered all over the country, was signed by five members, and the words that were added to the report-not to the order in council, because the report precedes the order in council-were these: This to be verified by auditors' certificates. Why? I do not think any president of the privy council to whom the report of the Minister of Finance was submitted would have done otherwise than say, when you are dealing with a large sum such as this, that it should be verified by the auditors' certificate. Why? Because it was known to the committee that considered these matters last year that in every instance the auditors' reports had been made from week to week and from month to month; these auditors' reports were sent to the Department of Finance, and upon them the action was taken that was reviewed by the committee last year.
Now the hon. gentleman says: I want to do it this way, not in any hole in the corner way, behind closed doors. Why that gratuitous insult to a committee that dealt with these matters and on which were members of his own party, Colonel Ralston being one, and the Hon. Charles Stewart another, two exministers of the crown? They were sitting upon that committee when the provision of section 7, subsection (f) was under consideration, that is as to the terms under which the wheat was to be acquired, and this section was agreed to by everyone in that committee. But more, the bill came back to this house and received the unanimous endorsation of this house, the unanimous support of the house. Let us see what section 7, paragraph (f), says:
Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, to acquire from Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, upon terms to be approved by the governor in council, all wheat or contracts to purchase or take delivery of wheat in respect of which the government of Canada has given a guarantee.
Of course it did not cover anything but wheat. It covered wheat alone. That was the language of the section. And the report made by the Minister of Finance-which in view of the reference that has been made to it the hon. gentleman will also table in order 
that there may be no question about it

that report upon which the order in council in this case was based, was a report that the government approved of the purchase of this wheat from the wheat producers by the Canadian wheat board, and it recites that whereas the wheat board is empowered to acquire wheat from Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, and whereas the Minister of Finance reports that they have offered to sell their wheat:
Now, therefore, His Excellency the Administrator in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, is pleased to approve the terms of acquisition set out in the aforesaid letters, and they are hereby approved accordingly, subject to the amount referred to in paragraph (b) page 2 hereof being verified by auditors' certificates.
What is paragraph (b)? It is this:
The Canadian Wheat Board will pay to the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited the sum of $8,262,415.37, being the sum total of balances due to the primary producers, and expenses and other charges in connection with the holding and handling of the wheat.
The governor in council, careful of the interests of this country, did not ask his excellency to approve of it as it stood, but said, "subject to auditors' report." And because that is done we have listened this afternoon to what I venture to say has never before been heard of in any parliament or any house of commons, an attempt to say that the original of a document has had something written into it in ink, which is not suggested as having been fraudulently done or being a forgery, but because it is written in, it is suggested that it is a circumstance that merits condemnation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Surely the
right hon. leader of the opposition is mistaken. It was a question of delay, not a question of the bona fides of the order in council. There was no question of the bona fides of the order in council. The question was over the delay.


Charles Avery Dunning: He asked the question himself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Prime Minister was not in the chamber.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: I admire the loyalty of the Prime Minister and his endeavours to extricate his colleague from a difficult position. At least the right hon. gentleman has a great sense of responsibility and I ask him now, as I ask any member of this house who carries with him a sense of responsibility, what has delay to do with the fact that part of the order in council was not in typewriting? This matter cannot possibly end here. I submit that the original order in council must now be produced because the hon. gentleman has made a statement that in the original order in council certain words had been written in. I submit that the original order in council must be produced for inspection as well as the minute upon which it was founded, and to which he has referred. We call them reports at times. That also must be made available, otherwise it can only mean one of two things. Why refer to it at all? It cannot touch the question of delay. All that has to be done is to read the order in council and it will be seen that it provides that there must be an auditor's certificate, and that involved a delay. I had already made that statement before the hon. gentleman spoke. I had stated already that we did insist upon an auditor's report being received. Why? Does the hon. gentleman suggest that this should have been paid without an auditor's certificate when auditor's certificates were being given with respect to transactions every week and being sent to the Minister of Finance, when the telegram was sent by Mr. Hunter to Mr. Roberts showing that he had received a report, that it had been presented to me? He does not say " me " but that is what is meant. He says, " it was approved subject to the following change." I took it at that time to be merely an incidental omission, it was not intended that the money should not be paid.


Charles Avery Dunning: My right hon. friend surely does not imply that the auditor's weekly certificates could possibly fill the requirements of a situation such as that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It could not; that is what I say. The auditor's weekly certificates could
not possibly cover that. The government had to be satisfied by the auditors' report that the amount thus to be paid was an amount that was properly due to the sellers. Mark you, the producers were selling their wheat to the wheat board, it was a transaction involving an offer and acceptance constituting a contract, and we simply stated that the prices to be paid must be verified including expenses.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the important thing, the amount due to the producers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the reason we added those words to the report.


James Garfield Gardiner: And that is the reason for the delay.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman says they were added in writing. Why say they were added in writing when he produces a copy of the order in council, a document that shows no such condition?


James Garfield Gardiner: The right hon. gentleman keeps asking that question over and over again. If he will recall, he got up and asked me when they were put in and I tried to explain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, here are the hon. gentleman's words:	"There it ended." He
read them twice and then he thundered, "There it ended." But it did not end there. There is the order in council which he now produces and lays on the table. It did not end there and it never ended there. There never was an order in council that ended there. Read his remarks in Hansard and it will be seen that they are open to only one interpretation, that there was what he called an order in council that ended there. There never was an order in council that ended there; there never was an order in council that did not contain these words:
Subject to the amount referred to in paragraph (b) page 2 hereof being verified by auditors' certificates.
Why? In order that the public interests might be safeguarded, in order that the auditors who had made their reports from week to week and from month to month with respect to daily and weekly transactions should also certify that the amount to be paid the producers by the cooperative enterprise was the correct and proper amount based upon sixty cents per bushel being the price for the wheat. That is what it was for, including expenses. These were included in the $8,000,000 when properly incurred. That is what was being done. In other words, it was an effort to protect the public interest, this adding to the report. The reason the
Wheat Board

report was sent to the president of the council was in order that he might determine whether it was a correct interpretation of the arrangement made, of the offer and acceptance arrived at. When it was added that there should be an auditor's certificate it was done in order that the public might be protected, in order that the sum paid should not be in excess of the proper sum due to those who produced.


James Garfield Gardiner: My right hon. friend says that the $8,262,000 was to cover wheat and other expenses. I should like to ask him if it was intended to cover any payments in connection with coarse grains?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot answer that question for I do not know. When my hon. friend asks me what was the intention I say to him that there can be no intention imputed with respect to anything committed to writing. The courts have long decided that proper communings between parties cannot be referred to once they have been reduced to writing. That has been the practice for centuries. I can only read the document. If the hon. gentleman desires to make political capital with respect to the coarse grains, all I have to say is that there never was any proposal to depart in any sense from the statute. When I referred to section 7 (f) of the statute, I did so for the purpose of seeing that the order in council was strictly within the terms of the section. Here are the words:
The Canadian Wheat Board will pay to the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited the sum of $8,262,415.37, being the sum total of balances due to the primary producers, and expenses and other charges in connection with the holding and handling of the wheat.
It did not include coarse grains.


James Garfield Gardiner: Am I to conclude from that that the right hon. gentleman or his government had no intention of making any payments under this order in council in connection with coarse grains?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Coarse grains are covered by another provision in the act. I may say that so far as I was concerned I dealt only with wheat, and I believe my colleagues dealt only with wheat. Whether they did or did not, the order in council deals only with wheat. Let there be no misunderstanding about that.


James Garfield Gardiner: The payment of $8,262,000 was intended just to cover wheat?
fMr. Bennett.]


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend knows that I am precluded from speaking of intentions. I am bound by the document. It says just what it says, and nothing more. You cannot read into it something that is not there and you cannot impute intentions in this parliament with respect to transactions of this kind. Here is the position:
The Canadian Wheat Board will pay to the Canadian Cooperative WTheat Producers Limited the sum of $8,262,415.37, being the sum total of balances due to the primary producers, and' expenses and other charges in connection with the holding and handling of the wheat.
"Of the wheat"

not something else; not coarse grains, but wheat. That is what the document says. The auditor general would not pay a single sou beyond the sum required to pay for the wheat. The reason the president of the council suggested that there should be auditors' certificates was in order that the government of this country might be safeguarded and the public interest protected in connection with any payments made under the authority of the act. Could anyone have done less who had the public interest at heart? So far as coarse grains are concerned, I am not even discussing them at the moment, because I am taking them up separately. The $350,000 or thereabouts to which the hon. gentleman has referred we shall discuss when the proper time comes. Eor the moment, however, I am dealing with wheat, and I do ask that a minister of the crown who has made with respect to this matter the references which the hon. gentleman has made-he will read them in Hansard and I ask the Prime Minister also to read them-shall produce the original report upon which the order in council was framed, and the order in council itself in order that they may be understood and appreciated by the members of this house; and, what is more, that there shall be beyond any question a clear appreciation and understanding, to the satisfaction of every member of the house that the order in council produced by the hon. gentleman is the order in council signed by the administration of the day.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a certified copy;
look at it and you will see.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman
need not think for a moment that he is dealing with some poor rural rustic in Saskatchewan. That sort of business does not go very far. I am not unfamiliar with what has transpired in days gone by in other places.


An hon. MEMBER:: Calgary?

Wheat Board


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; Calgary is not a
capital, may I inform the hon. gentleman. The hon. gentleman did not name me in person but he said that Mr. Hunter saw someone of importance in Toronto. I do not claim to be someone of importance; he may have seen many other persons, but he did see me, and on the strength of that he sent this telegram that these words were to be added to the report and I think they were added to the report by myself. The order in council was submitted to the government by the Minister of Finance and in due course to the administrator and executed by him; but I am concerned that the implications of this afternoon shall be removed. No public men can possibly do business if they are to be subject to implications of that kind, if they are to be a circumstance to be referred to, when we have not access to public records unless they are produced here, and when a minister of the crown says, "And there it ended," and then says that these words were added in writing. If that is to be done, then the rewards of public life are wholly incommensurate with the imputations thus involved. Men value their reputation for honesty and honour and integrity far beyond any implications and suggestions that they would be guilty of endeavouring to add words to an order in council. That meant, if it meant anything, that these words were added under circumstances of a sinister character; for if they were added properly, then they should not have been the subject matter of discussion, inasmuch as they involve a study of the original documents not in the possession of the house.


Mr. STIRLING:: The insinuation was
received with applause.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As my hon. friend from
Yale says, the insinuation was greeted with applause. Has public life sunk to that? Are my colleagues, Mr. Rhodes, who is not in the house, Sir George Perley and others who constituted the council of that day, to be subject to this insinuation, with the applause of members in the chamber? That is the real issue; otherwise there is no purpose in referring to it at all. If the hon. gentleman did not say that he did not say anything. That is the position at this moment.
I put it to the Minister of Justice, I put it to any member of the profession to which he and I belong: Is it open to any other construction than the one I have made, when an original document which I cannot see is referred to and the statement is made, not once but twice, "Here it ended," and then
the further statement made that these words were added in pen and ink, and not by typewriter, and upon that you have a burst of applause. I put it to the hon. gentleman, that means but one thing; there could not have been in the mind of the man who used those words other than one suggestion, and on behalf of my former colleagues I protest and ask the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice to bring into the house the original report and the original order in council in order to make it perfectly apparent, from the Clerk of the Privy Council, that the document from which he made this copy was the document that went into his custody when the administrator had approved of it and that there had been no alteration or change in it.
Men do not desire to smart under imputations of that kind. It may be a simple and easy thing to jeer and laugh, but some of us are no longer young and we value at least something of the reputation for integrity which we built up in the course of many years-something that is not to be impeached and impugned in the manner in which it has been this afternoon. I was not present; and no member of the legal profession, at least no court of law, would for a single moment permit what has been done; and the Minister of Justice, if he exercises his powers as Minister of Justice of this country, will see to it that immediately, without delay, this house shall have an opportunity to see for itself that there has been no deceit practised on the crown, no fraud practised on anyone, but that the words that were added to the report upon which the order in council was made were words to protect the public interest. And if they were put down in writing instead of in typewriting, it is the usual course with respect to matters of this kind. When it is insinuated that some other course was pursued, I can only say I was not present, and I resent it on behalf of those with whom I have been associated and whose reputation in this country will bear the closest scrutiny by anyone, even by those who applauded the insinuation made this afternoon.


Charles Avery Dunning: There was no applause of any insinuation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for Yale could not have been deaf or blind, nor could my friends to the right. Let us leave out entirely my view of it. Now having got that far, the hon. gentleman says that in January last the auditor's report was received. The order in council was passed in October. If one had endeavoured to practise what has

Wheat Board

been suggested one would not have provided that an auditor's report should be received before action was taken. The hon. gentleman says that the auditor's report was received, but he has not laid it on the table. It is a public document and I should like to have it because I wish to speak to it, and he is bound to lay on the table the copy from which he read. I cannot proceed until I get it. I want the report now in order to proceed with the rest of what I have to say.


James Garfield Gardiner: When I have finished speaking-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have a right to the document now. The hon. gentleman must realize what the rules of the house are when he refers to a public document.


James Garfield Gardiner: I know the rules of the house as well as the right hon. gentleman. I have the floor and I want to say this at the beginning-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not finished.


Charles Avery Dunning: Neither has the minister.


James Garfield Gardiner: The right hon. gentleman had sat down.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I asked for the document.


James Garfield Gardiner: Who has the floor?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had not concluded my speech. I asked the hon. gentleman to lay the document on the table. I asked that the auditor's report be laid on the table of the house in order that I may deal with the matter. The auditor's report is dated January, 1936, and now I want to deal with it and I ask that it be produced.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will get a copy of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the rule is to lay
on the table the document that is being read.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just as soon as I get
through reading from it I will put it on the table. In the meantime I will get another copy and read from it and let the right hon. gentleman have mine.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is all I suggest. I
want a document which I may use in what I am now saying. I have concluded one phase of it and I am now dealing with another, the auditor's report. I said it was dated January, 1936. I want the document in order to make reference to it.


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of fact I
have not read from the report of the auditor up to date.


Charles Avery Dunning: He just said it was received.


James Garfield Gardiner: I just said I had it here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just imagine that being
said this afternoon.. I saw the hon. gentleman pull out of his documents that report, and he gave the date, January, 1936. He says that is the date it bears. [DOT]


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not read from it.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the only reference he made to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He read the date from
it, and that is as much a part of it as any other part. And I want to deal with it. But if the rules of the house are to be challenged and thus treated, Mr. Chairman, I cannot help it; all I can do is refer to them. If you rule that I am not entitled to the document I shall have to appeal and let the majority take the action that it can take, but I want to put myself right in the matter. Am I to have the document or not, Mr. Chairman?


Charles Avery Dunning: On the point of order,
may I point out to you, sir, that the Minister of Agriculture had not finished his initial statement when the leader of the opposition, after repeated questions, commenced to make a speech himself. I think the leader of the opposition is now really in the position of having interrupted the Minister of Agriculture, and on his resuming his seat the Minister of Agriculture certainly has the floor.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All I can say is that
the Minister of Agriculture sat down.


Charles Avery Dunning: To let you speak.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And by appropriate
words-


Ernest Lapointe: So did
the leader of the opposition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I got up as soon as he
sat down, as my right was; I said I desired to have laid on the table the document in order that I might make my speech, and he produced the order in council and had the boy lay it on the table. That is how much foi'ce there is in my hon. friend's objection. If I am not to have the document I shall have to appeal, because I have precedents; the future is at stake as well as the present. I cannot permit it that a document of that kind shall not be available to me.


James Garfield Gardiner: I cannot answer the
questions the right hon. gentleman has been asking without the document, but if he wants it right away I will send it over to him and let him have a look at it.

Wheat Board


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it goes to the table of the house, not to me.
(The document having been sent over to Mr. Bennett):


Richard Bedford Bennett: It goes to the table of the house, and then I want it.
(The document having been tabled):


Richard Bedford Bennett: Thank you. The auditor's report is that of Price, Waterhouse & Company, Union Trust building, Winnipeg; it is dated January 25, 1936, and is addressed not to the Minister of Agriculture but to the Minister of Finance-"The Honourable Charles A. Dunning, Minister of Finance, Ottawa, Ont." So that the document comes out of the custody of a minister to whom it was not directed, against which practice nothing need be said. The opening paragraph reads as follows:
Acting on your instructions we have made a special review of the accounts of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited in respect of their operations dealing with the crop of 1930 pools, including the stabilizing operations, from September 1, 1930, to October 31, 1935, a period of five years and two months. The operations during this period were on such a large scale and the problems presented in them so varied that it appears to us necessary, for a better understanding of the accounts, to refer briefly to a few of the more outstanding features peculiar to pool operations generally, and also to certain matters antecedent to the commencement of the operations of the crop of 1930 pools.
Then follows a reference to the stocks of the various grains, the bushelage that was purchased. The important part of it is to be found-


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps you had better read through it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Charles Avery Dunning: You know the answer to that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, in view of what has transpired this afternoon, I certainly do not.


Charles Avery Dunning: How about that for an insinuation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not a bit.


Charles Avery Dunning: Talking about insinuation-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Here is the document, page 37:
From the order in council attached to your letter of instruction we note that the wheat board has agreed, under the provisions of section 7 (f) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act to take over the wheat stocks and contracts on the basis of assuming the bank loans of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited in respect of wheat, and in addition to pay the sum of $8,262,415.37 to that company.
It contains no reference to its being verified by auditors.


Charles Avery Dunning: What contains no reference?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This paragraph.
Section 7(f)... refers to the asquisition of only wheat and wheat contracts whereas the amount of $8,262,415.37, which forms part of the purchase consideration, includes figures relating to coarse grains and expenses of the provincial pool organizations.
There is the answer to the question which was asked. The figures, the hon. gentleman says, include coarse grains, but the document says that it deals only with wheat.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. gentleman has not yet read the whole document. That document is divided into five different parts, dealing with wheat, with oats, with rye, with barley and with flax, and- he is reading from the one dealing with wheat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am reading from the end of it.
We shall be glad to furnish you with any further information regarding our inquiry, which you may desire.


James Garfield Gardiner: It deals only with wheat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly it deals with wheat, and it deals with eight million dollars. The resolution before the house contemplates the payment of "certain sums of money" to the wheat producers-how much? That is one of the things that is not stated in the body of the order. I think the resolution should contain a statement of the amount of the auditor's account.
Wheat Board


James Garfield Gardiner: It does contain it. If you will send it over to me I will get it and read it for you.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is getting somewhat muddled, if I may use that term. I said, the resolution. I was not talking about the report of the auditors. I said, the resolution, and it does not contain any such statement. If the hon. gentleman will send me one he has in his possession that does contain it, well and good, but that is not on the order paper. These exhibits show various operations during the period of five years with regard to' this matter, involving many pages. I am not going to take the time of the house to read them.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, if hon. gentlemen desire me to, I am quite capable of doing it.


Mr. EULER:: Have mercy!


Richard Bedford Bennett: General report, on page 34:
For the sake of completeness we attach as exhibit GI provisional balance sheet of the company relative to the crop of 1930 pool as at October 31, 1935, from which you will observe that the deposits on original margins amount to $23,790,000, carried in the joint names of the company and the Winnipeg Grain and Producer Exchange Clearing Association. At the same date the bank loans secured, in part, by stocks of grain, amount to $97,370,296.04 which on the books are segregated as follows:
Then follows a statement. Then they say:
As required in your letter of instructions the main purpose of this report and supporting exhibits is to place before you the fullest possible information on which to base a decision as to what amounts, if any, are due to the primary producers as a result of the operations of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited for the crop of 1930 pool.
The amount in this connection referred to in order in council P.C. 3199 is $8,262,415.37, made up as follows:
Wheat-Exhibit A IV
.Basis-
60 cents	$ 787,702 72
55 cents	 1,296,286 57
50 cents	 4,425,280 07

$6,509,269	36
Note.-Overpayments-
Basis 70 cents ignored.
Coarse grains	
890,658	44Expenses of provincial pool organizations	
862,487	57

From that there is no report that I can see stating that the amount of $8,262,415.37 is correct or incorrect, except that they say that it does include coarse grains, which was not the purpose of the order in council. The 
order in council deals with wheat, and the sum mentioned included coarse grains and expenses. It was for that purpose that the provision was made, as I stated this afternoon at the very beginning of this discussion, that there should be an auditor's report, and there was an auditor's report upon which this legislation is based. There is no reason why there should have been any legislation with respect to this question, none whatever, because I find this afternoon that the statute has not been repealed, and subsection (f) of section 7 provides that they may pay this money to the wheat producers on the basis of this act of last session. With respect to coarse grains there is no provision, and that might have to be the subject matter of legislation. On that point I express no opinion because the matter has not been directed to my attention at the moment. But in dealing with the order in council, which was the order in council that I believed, until this afternoon, was passed, there was no endeavour to deceive or impute fraud to the crown or anyone else. I repeat that as far as this report shows, the amount mentioned in the order in council, which amount was not accepted by the government of the day, but was made subject to investigation and report by the auditors, is a sum that does include coarse grains, and includes them improperly, ais was pointed out by myself; for the language of the order in council does not cover coarse grains. The important point was that there had to be an auditor's report with respect to those items and the .expenses that had been incurred, in order that there might be no question as to the correctness of the amount. I heard this afternoon strong and loud criticisms because the government of the day took steps to provide that before parting with any money with respect to these matters there should be a certificate given to the governor in council by the auditors. But what I am interested in is this. I asked as to the delay, and the minister said the report of the auditors was dated January 25, 1936. It is directed to the Minister of Finance, and perhaps he will inform us now what was the date of his letter of instructions, in order that we may have no misunderstanding on the question of delay. I pointed out the other day in a question to the Prime Minister that much dissatisfaction had been expressed on the part of those entitled to the money that they had not received it weeks and months ago. In view of the instructions referred to in this document we should at least know the date of such instructions, so that there may be no question as to what has caused the delay. I want to deal with the other phases of the resolution after we have disposed of this.

Wheat Board


James Garfield Gardiner: To answer the last
question first, so that there will be no doubt about there having been no delay as far as the present government is concerned, I have here a copy of the letter; it is dated November 5, 1935, addressed by the Minister of Finance to the auditors asking for the audit. That is just a few days after the present government was formed.
Dealing with the lengthy remarks of the leader of the opposition covering my own past training and the legislature from which I come and many other matters that probably have nothing to do with the resolution, let me say that I did have my political training in the same capital city as the right hon. gentleman himself. I consider it an honour to have had my training there. I do not think it comes in very good part from one who was in the legislature of the territories to begin with, in the legislature of the province of Alberta before coming here, since that time in the House of Commons as a private member, a member of a government on two or three occasions, and leader of the opposition and prime minister of Canada, to insinuate that in any legislature in Canada the rules are not adhered to just as consistently as they are in this or any other house. Such references have been made on two or three occasions, not to myself since I have been in the House of Commons but to my predecessor as premier of Saskatchewan, and while I resented them I usually considered where they came from, knowing something of the record of the gentleman who uses them, in the territories and in the province before he came here.
The suggestion was made a number of times during the last half hour that insinuations were made by me in regard to this particular order in council. Well, sir, I do not know how any more insinuations could be packed into half an hour than were made in the last half hour by the right hon. gentleman. Something was said to the effect that I had made some remarks which should not have been, made with regard to a committee of this house which sat last year, and many of the members of that committee were named. I want to say that on no occasion in my remarks did I refer to the committee of last year, all of which goes to show that the right hon. gentleman spent most of his time building up a case to suit himself and then knocking it down, putting into my mouth remarks that were never made, insinuating that I had said things that were never said, and building up a case for his own political purposes. At one point in his remarks he said he had asked a question, and then he proceeded to answer it. He had asked me a question as the minister in charge of this resolution and he proceeded
to answer it, and once he had answered it I had no right to discuss it at all. Well, that is a new doctrine to apply to the proceedings in any British parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not make any such observation.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the right hon. gentleman will have to read Hansard tomorrow.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have a fair memory. I made no such statement, and I ask-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take your medicine.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it is not a question of taking medicine. I did not make the statement the hon. gentleman says I did.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will accept the right hon. gentleman's statement, but still I have a good memory too. I sent for and got another copy of the order in council so that all my speech would not be on the other side of the house, and I would like now to read again what I read before, and to read it in the same way as I read it before. If the leader of the opposition will take the trouble to-morrow morning to read Hansard he will find that right at the very beginning of my remarks with regard to this order in council I stated clearly that legally it had not become an order in council until it was finally signed, and the transactions with regard to it thus far were such as to deal with the matter while it was being prepared by the government. That was clear to everyone within my hearing at that time.


James Earl Lawson: It my hon. friend will
pardon my saying so, it was not clear to me. I tried to get the floor several times.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was no such thing as an order in council.


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall try to make it clear by reading it over again, and saying as nearly as I can what I said before.


James Earl Lawson: I happen to be one of the five you involved.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; the hon. member has seen it, and he knows everything I have said about it is correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He does not.


Mr. ROWE (Dufferin):: That is another insinuation.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no insinuation about that.


Percy John Rowe: He just said the
opposite.
Wheat Board


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the point. Let us read it again. I read the order in council in full-


Mr. SPENCE:: Why lose more time talking about it?


James Garfield Gardiner: -and I stated, after naving read it, that this agreement had to have the approval of the governor in council before it would be legally binding. Then I read the approving clause:
Now, therefore, His Excellency the Administrator in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, is pleased to approve the terms of acquisition set out in the aforesaid letters, and they are hereby approved accordingly.
I went on to state, Mr. Chairman, that if this order in council had ended there, there would have been no necessity for delay; that the government then in power would have paid out the amount involved, namely $8,262,415.37, and that they would have lost no time in paying it out. But for some reason -and in answer to a suggestion by the leader of the opposition I went on to state the time that that was done-these words were added on:
Subject to the amount referred to in paragraph (b) page 2 hereof being verified by auditors' certificates.
I stated to him that this was the reason for the delay,

the reason, I assume, why his government delayed in the four days before the election, when they had time to make the payment, and in the few days after the election during which they held office. They delayed, apparently, because of the fact that they had put this rider on the order as originally drawn, before it was signed, and before it actually became an order in council. These words made it necessary for his government to get certification from the auditors before any payments were made.
I went on to say that when we came into office and read that order in council with chose words in it we in turn did issue instructions, through the Minister of Finance, to the auditors to have an auditors' statement made. The auditors' statement was made, and was brought down on January 25. We examined it in its particulars before arriving at a conclusion in regard to it, and then as a result of having studied it carefully, and as a result of those findings, we are bringing down legislation to deal with the matter in what we hope will be a conclusive manner.
While he was speaking I asked the right hon. gentleman a question or two with regard to his own intentions in regard to coarse

grains, because I have here at page 35 of the auditors' report, the page from which he was quoting a few moments ago, the statement of the auditors. The amount in this connection to which reference is made in order in council P.C. 3199, is $8,262,415.37. What is referred to in that statement? What happened with regard to this?
As required in your letter of instructions the main purpose of this report and supporting exhibits is to place before you the fullest possible information on. which to base a decision as to what amounts, if any, are due to the primary producers as a result of the operations of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited for the crop of 1930 pool. The amount in this connection referred to in order in council P.C. 3199 is $8,262,415.37 made up as follows:
I shall not read all of the items, but shall be content with giving the totals: Wheat, exhibit A-IV, $6,509,269.36; coarse grains, SS90.658.44; expenses of provincial pool organization for the year 1930-31, $862,487.57, making a total of $8,262,415.37.
I asked the right hon. the leader of the opposition a few minutes ago whether he or his government intended through this order in council to make payments for coarse grains. His answer was that they had not the intention of doing so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not speak of the intention; I said that they intended to do just what the order in council said.


James Garfield Gardiner: And the order in council called only for wheat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The auditor general would not make the payment otherwise.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am pleased to know that, because as a matter of fact the leader of the opposition read from the report a few moments ago in order to indicate that the auditors agreed with him. Turning to page 37 of the report, I read:
From the order in council attached to your letter of instruction we note that the wheat board has agreed, under the provisions of section 7(f) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act to take over the wheat stocks, and contracts on the basis of assuming the bank loans of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited in respect of wheat, and in addition to pay the sum of $8,262,415.37 to that company. In this connection section 7 (f) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act refers to the acquisition of only wheat and wheat contracts, whereas the amount of $8,262,415.37 which forms part of the purchase consideration, includes figures relating to coarse grains and expenses of the provincial pool organizations.
So that apparently the auditors had that view, too, namely that the act made provision only for wheat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It says so.

Wheat Board


James Garfield Gardiner: But there has not been any misunderstanding at all in the minds of producers in western Canada as to what they were to be paid for. There has been no misunderstanding at all. The statement has gone out in the press; in fact it went out on the very day that this order in council was passed, that those payments were to be made for coarse grains as well as for wheat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would like to see those statements.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have a copy of them here, and if it were not for the fact that my right hon. friend would have all my speech on the other side of the house, I would read it. However I probably will read it before the discussion is completed. The organizations concerned put that statement out at the time, and it was well understood that payments out of that money were expected to be made for coarse grains.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is another matter.


James Garfield Gardiner: Those are the reasons for the delay. I was simply trying to answer a question asked by the leader of the opposition a few minutes ago, and to explain to him that the order in council which he himself, or at least his government, put through before they left office made necessary a delay, in order that the auditors' report might be obtained. We now have that auditors' report, and are prepared to bring down legislation to provide for payments which we think ought to be made under it.


James Earl Lawson: As soon as the Minister of Agriculture took his seat, following his primary statement to the committee, I endeavoured to obtain the floor, because from the statements he had made I could not help concluding that aspersions had been cast against me, as one of the five who signed the minutes of council and a report upon which an order in council was based, or that in the alternative the clear aspersion was that the former Minister of Finance, one of my colleagues, in fraud of me had added something after my signature had been appended.
I wish to claim privilege in connection with this matter. At this time I merely wish to raise the issue, and to point out that if, after having an opportunity to read Hansard, I find that I am mistaken in my interpretation of my hon. friend's words, I shall have nothing more to say. On the other hand, if I was not mistaken, I want to preserve my right to raise the question before the Speaker of the house. I must confess that I find it difficult to understand that my hon. friend had no intention other
than to explain the delay. If the intention was merely to explain the delay it seems to me that a reading of the clause of the order in council would have served the purpose.
I will ask the hon. gentleman to consider, if his purpose was merely to explain the delay, why in the first place he outlined that there was in existence an order in council which, as he said had been, signed by five members of the council-I think he meant that the report, the minute, had been signed-and then went on to say that a change had been made in ink, and that that change was initialled only by one man who signed the report, namely the former Minister of Finance. I ask him, if his intention was merely to explain the delay, why he was so careful to point out that the amendment was written in with pen and ink. I ask him, if he was only trying to explain the delay, why he started in to impute motives to the former members of the government who were responsible for the order in council because he said from his place, "Had it been the intention of the government-"	But
before he could go further the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) took objection to the imputation of motive; there was some argument over that, and the minister discontinued that line.
Finally, I ask him, if his object was nothing but to explain delay, why it was necessary to read a telegram from one official of the Department of Finance in Toronto to another official of the Department of Finance in Ottawa. I ask him, if all he was trying to do was to explain delay, why he should make some imputation that I as one of the five, had been guilty of some wrong-doing or some wrongful act in having that change made in a report or minute of council which I had signed.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, just in
order that the whole matter may be properly before the committee-and I am quite sure Hansard will reveal that what I am going to say is correct-I would call the attention of the hon. member who has just sat down to this fact. I did refer to the condition at the bottom as having been written in in pen and ink and having been initialled by the then Minister of Finance, and I followed that up by the statement that the order in council or the report was signed by five members of council.


James Earl Lawson: You preceded it with
that.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, that was all in the explanation right through. The question was asked and I indicated-and I think it will
Wheat Board,

be found an Hansard, and if it is not there I want to say it now-that had the government intended to make the payment on the basis of that order in council there would have been no addition to the order in council before it was signed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not an order in
council before it is signed.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then I will say, the
recommendation for the order in council, or what became the order in council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is better.


James Garfield Gardiner: If these words had
not been added, and he had gone on from that point, the payments could then have been made, and there would have been no discussion about the matter at any time.
The exposition given by the leader of the opposition we are very pleased to have. It will serve its turn when we come to the second reading of the bill and perhaps will be justification for a considerable part of what is in the bill.


Mr. SLAGHT:: Mr. Chairman, I rise for a moment because the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), in the very vehement address to which the committee was treated this afternoon, undertook to give hon. members a disquisition on law and the rulings of judges. His law was entirely bad law, and were there only members of the legal profession in the house I would not have troubled to point out the misleading statements he made with regard to what the law is, but there are laymen in the house-


Mr. MacINNIS:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, has this anything to do with the subject matter before the committee? Is it a part of the debate on the resolution? I do not think it is. If the hon. member is speaking to a point of order we should know what the point of order is, but if not, and if his remarks have no relevance to the resolution, I do not think we should waste any more time on this discussion.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: The right hon. gentleman has found a new champion.


Angus MacInnis: I do not think the leader of the opposition needs any champion. He can defend himself.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Angus MacInnis: I think the leader of the government should take some action to get this debate in order.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: The committee listened for half an hour to the right hon. gentleman refuting a supposed imputation or insinuation which was never made at all by the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I think the phrase, "Methinks he doth protest too much," or as they put it in French, "Qui s'excuse, s'accuse," applies to his address.
Let me say, that when he indicated that the courts of our country never permitted evidence to be adduced to derogate from the contents of a document, he made a statement not only too broad, not only bad law, but entirely misleading.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what I said, but it is all right, coming from the source it does.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I have quoted the effect of what the right hon. gentleman said. I do not know how lately he has been engaged in active practice before the courts, but I would not accept his lecture on the practice of law before the courts as he endeavoured to impress it upon the committee. Of course, I would not attempt to vie with him or with the other gentlemen selected by his party in the matter of broadcasting, for instance; I would not vie with the right hon. leader of the opposition or with Mr. Sage, selected by his minister, to instruct the people through broadcasting. But I would point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that the courts invariably, where there are alterations in ink in typewritten documents, receive evidence as to when and how those alterations were made, and the only suggestion put forward by the Minister of Agriculture was that this disclosed, as it is perfectly clear it does disclose, that this was added afterwards and accounted in part for the delay and changed the effect.
There was no other insinuation. The hon. gentleman who last spoke (Mr. Lawson) was not touched at all by the matter. But one can understand the great sensitiveness on the part of the right hon. leader of the opposition when anything dealing with his administration of the wheat situation for the last three years is brought before the house.
There is just one other matter. The courts do, as I said, permit evidence to be offered on alterations in documents, and my right hon. friend suggested that no counsel would be permitted to put such evidence before the court.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what he said.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: He in effect said that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not in effect either.

Wheat Board


Arthur Graeme Slaght: That again, is entirely a misconception of the practice of our courts, if it is of any value at all in this discussion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not from that source.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Not from that source! I thank my right hon. friend for the compliment. He would probably know where as he asked himself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Ask Solloway Mills and Company.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I heard him mention himself, I think it was eighty-three times during the address he delivered this afternoon. Hansard will have to check that up. The great phrase "protect the public interest" bounded and rebounded across the chamber at least seventeen or eighteen times.
There is just one other matter to which I want to refer, a matter introduced by the right hon. leader of the opposition. I do not represent a constituency in Saskatchewan, but I have in that great province some friends for whom I have the most profound respect. I have in that province some friends who would possibly come under the definition "rural rustics" and who also are poor. From his place in this chamber the right hon. gentleman, with all the sarcasm and sneers he could command, replied to a question put to him by the Minister of Agriculture by saying, "Does the hon. gentleman think I am a poor rural rustic from Saskatchewan"? He thinks by that sneer and by that insult to the good people of that province he has made a contribution to this debate. Some of my rural friends in Saskatchewan may be unlike my right hon. friend inasmuch as they are poor, but I could bring a score or a hundred of them to this house who would not think of sneering at my right hon. friend and using any such miserable terms as he applied to them. I believe there are just as good citizens who reside in rural Saskatchewan and who are poor; I believe there are in the rural parts of that province just as loyal citizens and citizens who possess as much common sense as there are in any other part of the country. Common sense is all that is required in this debate. I think the right hon. gentleman ought to take the earliest opportunity of apologizing to the poor and rural rustics of Saskatchewan. He will have to do this before he will again dare to go into that great province seeking any support for any party which he may represent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The intervention into this debate of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Slaght) has not added anything to our knowledge although it may
have added something to the amusement of the chamber. The hon. gentleman has questioned my statement of the law. I will give him the decision. In the case of the Dominion Coal Company and the Dominion Steel Company the privy council held that proper communings with respect to an agreement could not be admitted in evidence, supporting the opinion of Mr. Justice Longley of Nova Scotia.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: That was having regard to the facts in that particular case only.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is more, they followed the decision of the House of Lords given by Lord Blackburn, whose eminence I believe even the hon. gentleman will admit in comparison with himself. But they went further. Sir William Van Horne was giving evidence as to an agreement that had been entered into. There was a document which was said to represent an agreement between the parties but which had not been signed. This was offered in evidence and the court said that it could not be received.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: It never was signed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly. The communings could not be received in evidence. I know the hon. gentleman is a past master in certain types of evidence. The criminal courts of this country give some proof of that. There are those in western Canada who became poor through the operations of Mr. Solloway. Money went into the exchequer of this company and was paid out for the purpose of enriching counsel.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My	hon. friend's
sympathy for the poor should begin there. Not only in Saskatchewan, but in Ontario are men who paid money to buy stocks which were never bought. This money ultimately was used for the benefit of counsel.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are other matters that might be referred to in that regard but we will leave them for other occasions.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. gentleman is referring to me, his statement is not correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am referring to the hon. gentleman and to the case of Solloway Mills. The money taken from these poor unfortunates in every province in Canada went to enrich c.ounsel instead of being used to purchase stock for the people who had paid their money for that purpose.
Wheat Board


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a question of privilege. The right hon. gentleman says that money went to counsel which should have gone to somebody else. I say that as far as I am concerned that statement is untrue and I ask that it be withdrawn.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is the decision of the Master in Ontario, but until that is read in this house I shall not deal with it. The hon. gentleman has said that it is incorrect and I am bound by his observation. Allow me to go a step further.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I ask that the right hon. gentleman withdraw his statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sorry, but I cannot withdraw any statement I have made. I accept the hon. gentleman's word as I am bound to do. I have made no statement that requires withdrawal, nor have I uttered any language that requires withdrawal. I accept the hon. gentleman's statement and that is all that is required by the rules. The words used were not imprudent or impertinent or anything of that sort. The hon. gentleman says that they are not true and I accept his statement, as the rules say that I am bound to do.
Whatever doubt there might have been with respect to this matter has been removed by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. He stood in his place and said that he understood the Minister of Agriculture to say what apparently everyone else understood him to say, namely, that there had been an alteration of a document. He referred to the alteration of a document and he used the word "afterwards." What does that mean? It means just what the Minister of Agriculture desired to convey in the election campaign in Saskatchewan, and there are people in this chamber who heard him do it.


James Garfield Gardiner: The right hon. gentleman is absolutely mistaken. I did not see the order in council before the election, nor did I make any such statement in the election campaign.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the by-election.


James Garfield Gardiner: Nor in the by-election.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The by-election in
Saskatchewan.


James Garfield Gardiner: Nor in the by-election either.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No statement was made insinuating that there had been an alteration in the order in council?


James Garfield Gardiner: I made exactly the same statement in the by-election as I made here this afternoon.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so; that is all I want.


James Garfield Gardiner: That statement does not include any insinuation. With regard to the matter of privilege which is before the committee at the moment, I want to say that in spite of what the right hon. gentleman says about the rules of the house, he has stated: that an hon. member took money that belonged to someone else. Under the rules he must withdraw any such statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what I said. I want to make it perfectly clear. I said that the money paid in- by poor unfortunates who thought they were buying stock never was used to buy stock; it went into the exchequer of Solloway Mills. The report of the Master in Ontario bears out the fact that this money went to pay counsel. If the hon. gentleman was one of them, I cannot help it. He says that does not refer to him and I accept his statement. That is all there is about that.
Let us go a step further. The hon. gentleman to-day has given his imprimatur to our understanding of the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture. He says that an alteration of this document afterwards would be susceptible of proof. Has anyone questioned that? I made no reference to that, nor did I think of doing so. I was discussing the fact that the minister this afternoon paused once, twice, thrice at the end of the word " accordingly," and then said, " If it had ended there, but there were added these words." These words were not added to the order in council; they were on the minute, the report, and it was part of the report. There never was an order in council until such time as it was approved by the governor general : and the hon. gentleman means either that when it was approved it did not contain these words and that these words were deceitfully and fraudulently added, or that they were part of the order in council signed. There is no option. The language is perfectly clear so far as that is concerned. He had to face that alternative and he said that we misunderstood him. But the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) told us how he understood it. He understood it to mean that it had been altered afterwards, added afterwards. After what?


James Garfield Gardiner: After it was typewritten.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now there we have
another instance; no wonder the hon. gentleman smiles. After the typewriting was finished,

Wheat Board
he says now; that is not. what the hon. member for Parry Sound says. He says that evidence is competent to be adduced, in a court of justice to prove the alteration of a document afterwards-after it is signed; those are the words he used.


James Garfield Gardiner: Who used?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what the hon. member for Parry Sound says is his understanding of what took place, and I ask him: Does he suggest that the order in council was altered after it was signed? Does he suggest that?


An hon. MEMBER:: No suggestion was
made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If he makes no suggestion, then his language is used to disguise thought and not to express it. But we get down to this, that the hon. member for Parry Sound has given his judgment, sitting here bhis afternoon, as to what he understood the minister to say; and then he says, "Of course, any court of law would receive evidence to show that a document had been altered afterwards." Of course it would; but it would do so on one ground, the ground of fraud or deceit upon the court or upon the parties to the litigation. If the document is partly in typewriting and partly in handwriting, and if there is an alteration or an addition or an interlineation after the document is signed, that constitutes fraud or deceit, proof of which has to be effected, by relevant testimony of course. But that raises the very issue I raised; and the statement made this afternoon by this eminent counsel proves what I desire to have proven, namely, that the whole purpose was by insinuation to make it appear that there had been a change or alteration in the order in council after it had been signed.


James Garfield Gardiner: I object to the word
"insinuation." I did not make insinuations; I made a clear statement of fact and it has got under the hon. gentleman's hide.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman
says that it was not an insinuation then it must have been a charge; then he charges that there was an alteration-


James Garfield Gardiner: A statement of fact.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -in that document. Now I want to put it clearly to him. It may not be a matter of importance to the member for Parry Sound-I can fancy it would not be-but it is to me and it is to the four other members of the council who had to do with the passing of that order in council. The
minister in his reply this afternoon used frequently the words "alteration" and "addition" to the order in council. There could be no such thing as an order in council until the governor general had given his approval to the order in council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend knows that frequently when one is speaking of a recommendation to council the words "order in council" are used. There was no misunderstanding in the house as to what was meant in that regard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With all deference to
the Prime Minister, may I say that if he had been here he would have realized what the minister did say. He used three words: "report," "recommendation," "minute," prior to the words "order in council." What is the procedure? I do say to the right hon. gentleman that we have sometimes to think of the future with respect to a matter of this kind.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not want the right hon. gentleman to put so many words into my mouth; I can use my own words. When he says that I continually used the words "minute" and "report," may I tell him that I used the word "report" when I read the telegram. The other words were used by other hon. gentlemen.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The word "recommendation" was used this afternoon by the hon. gentleman, and he used the word "report." The word "minute" was used by some member who spoke and it may not have been himself, but I certainly heard him say "recommendation" and "report," and he used the words "order in council." Now let us look at what the real mechanics of this matter were. First, there was the preparation of a report to council by the Minister of Finance; that is disclosed by the evidence produced by the minister. That report was sent to the Prime Minister, and apparently the telegram sent to the Department of Finance informed him that certain words should be added providing for an auditor's report being made. That was not the order in council; that had nothing to do with it until such time as the report was presented. Some call that a recommendation; some call it a report to council. The Minister of Finance made the report to council. The clerk then draws the order in council. Now the minister said-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I interrupt the right hon. gentleman?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely.
Wheat Board


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend says that the clerk then draws the order in council. What he draws is the recommendation to council, which is not an order in council until after it has been signed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly. There is no
reason why the hon. gentleman opposite should talk to himself. If he desires to insult me let him make himself heard.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Is the hon. gentleman referring to me?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


John Gordon Ross: I was first insulted by the hon. gentleman in this house. I happen to be one of the poor rustics from rural Saskatchewan-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


John Gordon Ross: -and while I am on my feet I would say that if we had more of them in this house we would get the business through a lot faster than having a bunch of lawyers splitting hairs all afternoon.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Moose Jaw has said he is a poor rural rustic; there is no reason why he should prove it. Now-


John Gordon Ross: As I understand it, the hon. gentleman has used that word as a term of contempt. If so, I accept it as such.


Charles Avery Dunning: He says, if it is a term
of contempt he accepts it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is
a better judge of that than I am. Let me proceed by pointing out that the proposed order in council is not drawn by the minister. The clerk of the privy council takes the recommendation and on the recommendation he drafts the order in council which is sent in to council.


Charles Avery Dunning: Order in council?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, which he sends in
to council.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. gentleman is
falling into the very error


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a proper term to
use-a draft order in council. When it is passed by council and signed by the president of the council it is still not an order in council; but when the administrator or the representative of the crown-whether the governor general or the administrator- signs it and marks on it "approved," then it becomes an order in council. The hon. gentle-
man this afternoon did assert in this chamber-and the hon. member for Parry Sound says that was his understanding of it-.that there had been an alteration of an order in council. I say that is not so.


James Garfield Gardiner: In order to get an
understanding of the matter, do I understand that the hon. gentleman wants me to bring down the original order in council?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: Is it that document he wants, which was typewriten first, an addition then being made in pen and ink and initialled by the Minister of Finance, and signed by four or five members of the council? Is that the document he wants brought down?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was made perfectly
clear-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Answer.
.Mr. BENNETT:	That, of course; that is
the report or recommendation to council. But what I desire to see also is the order in council approved by the crown based upon the report. I want to see whether there were any interlineations in that or not. I want to see whether there were any additions made to that or not, because, if there were, then no doubt you have another set of facts which bear out what the hon. gentleman has said, that they were made afterwards.


James Garfield Gardiner: I object to the right hon. gentleman saying time after time that I said things which I did not say at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, I am sorry.


James Garfield Gardiner: And he is just repeating it again.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will put it in this way. The hon. gentleman said that there have been changes made in the order in council afterwards. He read the order in council. He stopped at the word, "accordingly"; then he went through a number of explanations and said that if it had stopped there, so and so and so and so, and then proceeded to make the observation that these words were added to it. I want him to produce the report upon which the order in council was passed and the original order in council bearing the mark approved with the signature of the administrator on it, so that there may be no question as to whether or not the order in council was altered or amended or added to afterwards. That is all.


Charles Avery Dunning: No one ever said or
thought that it was.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On the contrary, the hon. member for Parry Sound so understood it in

Wheat Board
the speech he made this afternoon, and every one on this side of the house who heard him, whether they are associated with him or otherwise, so understood it. That is the position. You cannot say that order in council is amended afterwards without involving that there has been a change made to the document that is signed by the crown, and I do say that is a position which cannot be accepted. Now the hon. minister says that this order in council would, unless these words have been added to it, have involved payments for coarse grains. The document says that it dealt with wheat and wheat only, and it states further that the whole payment was to be subject to verification by the auditors. As a matter of fact the hon. gentleman asked me a question which I do not think he had a right to ask, as to what my understanding of the order in council was, and I certainly understood the order in council to deal with wheat, but I did not know what sum was covered by the word " expenses," and when I did, as has been said, suggest the words should be added that were added, it is because I did not know what was included for expenses. But I certainly did not believe, from reading the language of that draft report, that it dealt with other than wheat; neither did the Minister of Finance, as far as I know. Because as a matter of fact Mr. Hunter first came down the country to, I think, Cornwall or some point on the line and then went through to Toronto that I might have an opportunity of looking more carefully into the draft, as I did, with the addition of the words to the draft as indicated by the telegram for the purpose of securing verification by the auditor as to the account. I can only say, in view of the language contained in the order in council as produced, it is quite clear that the auditor general would not make payment for anything other than wheat; it is quite clear that nothing but wheat could be paid for as far as this country is concerned.


Charles Avery Dunning: My right hon. friend does not wish to go astray there, nor need I remind him that the order was not one that would involve the auditor general. That was an authority to the wheat board to pay, and consequently would not come within the immediate purview of the auditor general, from the point of view-


Richard Bedford Bennett: But copies of all these orders in council, involving payments of money out of the public treasury, were, I believe, sent to the auditor general.


Charles Avery Dunning: There was no payment out of the public treasury at that stage. It was out of the guarantee fund, the wheat fund.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the auditor general did not receive it, it is obvious that he could not report on it nor refuse it nor one thing oi another. He is very careful to have constitutional authority for any payments that are made. If he did not receive it, my point haf no value.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is not my point The order authorized the wheat board to pay. It did not involve a payment of public funds; it involved a payment of funds of the wheat board, which my right hon. friend will recollect are bank funds under government guarantees and do not involve the immediate supervision of the auditor general in the same manner as do payments out of the consolidated fund.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is perfectly true, but it is also equally true that the auditors themselves apparently would not have passed the account, because they have made clear in the report they made that it covered wheat and wheat only. That is the position as far as that is concerned. A firm of auditors would be liable in law for negligence, in spite of what has been said by the hon. member for Parry Sound, if they passed an account that was for wheat only and included other than wheat. The decisions on that point I think I can also give.
The next point I desire to have the hon. minister clear up is in connection with coarse grains. I want him to make clear to us how the liability in that has arisen, and what it is.


James Garfield Gardiner: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. There was a loss, then, on oats of about $200,000?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.
Wheat Board


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the hon. minister give us the exact figures, because I am rather curious as to this?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, they are in this report. On page 34 of the report, barley, there is a surplus of $15,482.58. On flax there is a surplus of $210,926.05. On rye there is a surplus of $124,276.02. On oats there is a loss of $200,037.90.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So that I was right when I said that there was a net profit on the transaction with respect to coarse grains.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, they are not dealt with in that way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there would be a net profit?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a net profit of $150,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, $150,000 odd. Now, the government is repaying the flax sellers or producers the surplus that arose from the operations of the pool?


James Garfield Gardiner: We are paying more than that. These are separate pools; they cannot be treated as all in one group, according to my understanding of the situation. We are paying back to the barley pool $15,482.58. We are paying to the flax pool $210,926.05. We are paying to the rye pool $124,276.02. Those three amounts are being paid back to those three pools, and the government, of course, is liable to the bank for $200,000 that has been lost in that oats account.
I should just like to add, if my right hon. friend does not mind, that I am rather anxious to get this legislation along. The discussion, of course, has taken a line that was not expected. The reason for being anxious to get it along is this, that seed grain has to be put out in western Canada within, the next few weeks, and if this $6,000,000 goes out to the farmers there, there is that much less to be paid by the government for seed purposes. I should like to get this up for second reading to-morrow, as it is just six o'clock, and if the committee would agree to allow it to go to second reading to-morrow I will undertake to see that all the information asked for by the leader of the opposition is brought down and is made available to the members of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As far as it may be possible to expedite it. I pointed out two weeks ago it should have been done long ago. As far as it may be possible I am only too glad to associate myself with the minister.

Certain further information must be received, but if second reading can take place tomorrow I shall not interpose any objection beyond carrying on the request for information which I hope to receive as the debate proceeds.


James Samuel Taylor: Shall the resolution carry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it is six o'clock and we said it should not.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand the leader of the opposition is prepared to waive any objection to-morrow if the information is obtained.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As far as second reading is concerned. I suppose the bill is printed. Any hon. member can interpose objections; I can speak only for myself. If the bill is printed I shall not take any technical objection.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course this cannot be without unanimous consent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say that as far as I am concerned I shall not interpose any objection.
Progress reported.
At six ol'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, March 26, 1936