Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Pringle. He also is a United States author. Pringle says of the Alaskan boundary dispute, at page 290:
The question was allowed to drift until 1902. Relations between the two countries had in the past been made none the happier by the extraordinary hostility toward Canada exhibited by American politicians. In 1867, Seward had urged the annexation of the dominion in payment for the damages caused by Great Britain's violations of neutrality during the civil war. Roosevelt himself had once made violent speeches urging that North America should be inhabited exclusively by citizens of the United States.
If Lodge and Hay were opposed to arbitration in the Alaska matter, Roosevelt was even more emphatic in insisting that the United States, alone, would settle it. Characteristically, although he must have known that the possibility of conflict was grotesque, he made secret preparations for war. In March, 1902, instructions went to secretary of war Root to have "additional troops sent as quietly and unostentatiously as possible to Southern Alaska." Root transmitted to the White House copies of the order dispatched to Brigadier General G. M. Randall, in command in the Northwest territory. In July, 1902, Roosevelt told Hay that arbitration was out of the question, that the Canadian claim was "an outrage, pure and simple . . . to pay them anything . . . would come dangerously near blackmail." A few days later the president said that he appreciated "the possibility of trouble . . . (but) Root had been quietly strengthening the garrison. ... In a spirit of bumptious truculence, which for years England had resisted . . . the Canadians put in this . . . false claim. They now say that trouble may come if it is not acted on. I feel like telling them that if trouble comes it will be purely . . . their own fault; and although it would not be pleasant for us, it would be death for them."
The biographer proceeds:
This treaty, and Roosevelt's conduct under it, placed the United States in a bad light throughout the world. If arbitration was out of the question, no reason for the treaty existed.
And at page 292:
In truth, Roosevelt's "impartial jurists" ill became a nation affecting to believe in arbitration. The president's attitude was similarly ungracious later in 1903. To reports that Great Britain might ask for postponement, he said that she "must be kept right up to the mark." He disliked "making any kind of a threat," but if England played "fast and loose" he would break off negotiations, send a special message to congress, and "run the boundary as we deem it should be run"; in other words, offer an insult to British prestige which might have meant war had the issues been less absurd.
There are also a number of other references. In the collated correspondence between Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge, contained in volume 2 at page 37, is a letter written by Roosevelt to Cabot Lodge.


Mr. LACROIX (Beauce):: But Roosevelt is dead.
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn)-: Has the hon. member just found that out?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Roosevelt says:
Now about the Alaska business. I have written Hay at once that England must be kept right up to the mark. I am by no means certain that I would acquiesce in deferring the matter until next summer. I do not want it hanging on during the presidential campaign. I dislike making any kind of threat, but my present judgment is that if the British play fast and loose the thing to do is to declare the negotiations off, recite our case in the message to congress, and ask for an appropriation to run the boundary as we deem it should be run.
I could make other references to historical works citing even some of the prominent members of the administration of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, some of his legal counsel, and others eminent in this country at the time. But I refrain from doing so. I have simply cited these-and the library has a number of other books containing similar ' historical evidence-in support of the truth of every statement which I have made.
' I therefore claim that the statements made by the hon. member for Parry Sound that I "insulted the United States", and that the statement I made with respect to the boundary line was an untruth and mere "fishwives' gossip in London", and that it was "a vile slander against the then president of the United States"; and that it was "a type of vile traducing of the head of a neighbouring friendly country", were not only insults such as should not have been permitted if objection had been taken, but were words which should be retracted by the hon. member and should be eliminated from the records of this house as a very serious breach of privilege.
I submit this therefore to you, Mr. Speaker, and ask you to take into your consideration in due time, as to whether, in view of the records which I have cited, these charges should not be eliminated from the record. In other days, years ago, perhaps I would have been tempted to reply in undignified and more severe language to the charges made. But as I grow older I am not so disposed to be vituperative as perhaps I once was, and therefore I submit the matter, sir, for your consideration.



ELECTORAL MATTERS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. E. BOTHWELL (Swift Current) presented the third report of the special committee on electoral matters, as follows:
The special committee on electoral matters begs leave to present the following as its third report:
Your committee has considered methods whereby the disposition of sums received and expended in promoting the return of members of the House of Commons may be readily traceable and due publicity may be given thereto;

Unemployed Single Men
also methods whereby the cost of elections to candidates may be reduced and the amounts that may be spent may be limited; and as the result of its deliberations, herewith submits a proposed draft bill to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, which draft bill it recommends to the favourable consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No 120-For the relief of Dorothy Boretsky Pozomick.-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 121-For the relief of Elsie Victoria Oliver.-Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 122-For the relief of Doris Mabel Casselman.-Mr. Bothwell.
Bill No. 123-For the relief of Kathleen Emma Gladys Smart Higginbotham.

Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 124-For the relief of Rose Edith Winer Bazar.-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City).

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

Mr. MacNEIL:: 1.	How many rebates have been made to the Canadian Atlas Diesel Engines, Limited, Vancouver, under tariff item 400-K, during the last six months, in respect of marine engines sold to fishermen?
2.	What was the amount of rebate in each instance?
3.	To what extent was the purchaser given the advantage of the rebate in each instance?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Five, (under tariff item 440k).
2.	$90.90; $90.91; 1181.81; $86.78; $173.58.
3.	No information.


CANADIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCES
Mr. LAPOINTE (Matapedia-Matane):: 1.	What is the total number of those who served overseas with the Canadian Expeditionary Forces during the great war, and how many of them were born: (a) in Canada; (b) outside of Canada?
2.	What is the total number of pensioners
who were in receipt of a pension under the Pension Act as at December 31, 1938, and how many of those were born:	(a) in Canada;
(b) outside of Canada?


Mr. RINFRET:: The information sought in this question is not on record and is not in the possession of the government. The cost of obtaining it would be prohibitive, and I therefore suggest that the question be dropped.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. DOUGLAS (Queens):: 1.	How much was paid for medical services in Prince Edward Island for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1935, by the following departments: Pensions and National Health, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Indian Affairs, and Marine ?
2.	What are the names of the recipients, and what amount was received by each from each department?


UNEMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North); Is the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) aware that single unemployed men in Ottawa upon applying for work at the local office of the employment service this morning were advised that there was no work and were almost immediately ejected by police action? Is such action in accordance with the policy of the federal government?
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): I am not aware that those applying to the employment office for work have been ejected !by police action. I am informed that on Monday of this week eighteen were placed in farm employment, in the previous week thirty-two, and at the present time the number of placements is well in excess of that of last year.
Mr. MacINNIS:: May I ask a question supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Vancouver North? In view of the fact that a number of these single unemployed men are without shelter in this city and that they have now been ejected from the employment bureau, has the minister any advice to offer as to where they may go for shelter or employment?


Mr. ROGERS:: These men, I can say definitely, were not ejected from the employment office because they went there to seek work in the usual way. No one would be ejected from the employment office for such a reason. So far as the rest of the question is concerned, I can only repeat what I have said before, that these men are eligible for such work as offers from time to time. As
Barter in Trade

regards shelter, their position is precisely the same as that of other single unemployed in Ontario.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Will the minister get in touch with the local and provincial authorities with a view to clearing up this situation, which is causing a great deal of discussion in the city and a good deal of distress to the men?


Norman McLeod Rogers: At the appropriate time, when my estimates are before the house, I shall be quite prepared to discuss the matter again with my hon. friend. The question of relief for single unemployed in Ontario has already been discussed. The time was extended to May 1. The practice followed this year by the provincial government, I am informed, is no different from that followed in previous years, namely, that single unemployed men are struck off relief in the spring.


BARTER IN TRADE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Leader of the Opposition) :: About a week or ten days ago I referred to an item that had appeared in the press to the effect that 100,000,000 bushels of grain were to be traded by barter from the United States to the British authorities in return for tin and some other products. At that time the Minister of Trade and Commerce said he would look into the matter and give to the house any further information that might be available. I should like to know what action has been taken and how the matter stands to-day.


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The other day I said the government had taken cognizance of the matter and was taking such action as seemed possible in the circumstances. I may as well add that we communicated with the high commissioner in London, but we have not yet received a reply.


UNITED STATES PERIODICALS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I wish to call the attention of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) and of the Postmaster General (Mr. McLarty) to the

fact that certain highly undesirable and disgraceful articles have been appearing in some Hearst newspapers and other United States publications. In the issue of April 22 of the Saturday Evening Post such words as "looted the U. S. Treasury" are used and attacks are made on Great Britain and France. The article in question discusses money which Britain and France are supposed to have borrowed from the United States, the charge being made that these debts have not been honoured, though funds can be found for rearmament and so on. It says:
It was the British government, commanding the serpent's-tooth rhetoric of Lord Balfour and the insulting tongue of a chancellor of the exchequer, that called upon the world to witness that America, the Shylock, valuing gold more than blood, sacrifice or friendship, was bleeding Europe white by exacting her pound of flesh in the name of war debts-*
And so on. The article is untrue and unfair, and in my opinion the publication, even if the statements were true, should be banned in days of stress such as these. In view of the action of the Ontario legislature may I ask what the government intends to do with regard to publications of this sort, and others? I submit that they should be prohibited.


COOPERATIVE WHEAT MARKETING
[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 82, to encourage the cooperative marketing of wheat.
Thomas Langton Church: I rise to a point of order. The question of marketing agricultural products and the matter of crop insurance have already been dealt with by this house. On Tuesday, February 14, a motion was moved by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. McDonald) and adopted, appointing a special select committee to investigate and report on the possibilities of endorsing a workable scheme of crop insurance for the three prairie provinces. That resolution embraced the very principle of this bill. It read:
That, in the opinion of this house, a special select committee be appointed to investigate and report on the possibilities of endorsing a workable scheme of crop insurance for the three prairie provinces, such scheme to become operative for the 1940 crop season.
I call attention to the rule. The house dealt with it and approved the appointment of a committee; the motion was adopted unanimously by the house, and the committee has never sat. The rule of anticipation is very clear: a government bill cannot pass until

Cooperative Wheat Marketing
a resolution has been adopted by the house on the same question. This bill is distinctly out of order. If we are going to have rules, let us keep to them. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the point, although you may not be able to give a ruling immediately. The bill is clearly out of order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I am of the opinion that the point of order is not well taken. The government has always precedence in these matters. The hon. member refers to a resolution on a similar subject which was moved by an hon. member of the house and which was subsequently adopted. But this resolution was simply an expression of opinion of the house. The government always has the right to bring in legislation, therefore I think the point of order is not well taken.


Mr. GARDINER:: I wish to raise a question of order before proceeding to discuss Bill No. 82. Last evening at the end of the sitting a group of hon. members representative more or less of the three groups in the opposition approached me to discuss ways and means of facilitating the discussion of four of these bills, Nos. 82, 83, 89 and 63. It was suggested that we might facilitate matters by having, on two of the bills, the greater part of the debate on the principle of the legislation, without too great restriction from the chair. As a result of those representations I am quite prepared, and I am sure the government would be, to have the discussion take place freely on bills 63 and 83, with the understanding that on bills 82 and 89 I would make an explanation and there would be a short discussion if necessary on second reading and rather free discussion in committee; then we could proceed to the other two bills and allow rather free discussion of the whole wheat question thereon. Before proceeding I should like to have that understood, if that is to be the procedure. Under the circumstances I would not make an extended speech on this bill at this time.


Robert James Manion: It seems to me the minister is putting the cart before the horse.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not my proposal.


Robert James Manion: No matter whose proposal it is, it seems to me that now, before any of the bills are discussed, is the time to make a complete statement on them all. I was of the opinion, although I was not consulted, that in respect to these bills, which are all interrelated, there might be one general discussion covering them all-I quite agree with that. But before any of them are dealt with, both the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce should make
their general statements, the Minister of Agriculture dealing with the three bills in his name, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce with his Bill No. 63. That would simplify the matter and I think shorten the discussion. If on the other hand we had a general statement made on Bill 63-


James Garfield Gardiner: Bill 82.


Robert James Manion: If we discuss bills 82 and 89 without having the general remarks by the two ministers, naturally there are many questions we shall have to ask, and it will lead to duplication and repetition. I say with all respect that the proper way to proceed would be to make a general statment now on all four bills; it would tend to promote a more informed discussion. For myself I am not as familiar with western problems as hon. members from the west, and I should like to have a general statement made on all the bills before I take part in the discussion. I am making this suggestion without consulting with the others, but it seems much the better way of proceeding.


Mr. GRAY:: I think the general arrangement suggested by the whips of all parties was that the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Trade and Commerce would make a general statement covering all the bills mentioned by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) and then following that statement the debate would proceed. That was our understanding of the suggestion, at least, -to bring down all the bills, in an attempt to correlate them as has been suggested by the leader of the opposition.


Robert James Manion: Did I misunderstand the Minister of Agriculture?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. The discussion last night took place with a group of half a dozen members who came over as a result of this understanding by the whips. Bill No. 82 does not come into effect immediately; it is the one which will come into effect by proclamation. It concerns a matter somewhat different from that dealt with in bills 83 and 63. I do not think it would interfere in any way with proper discussion to take Bill 82 first. The other bill, No. 89, has no connection with wheat; it has to do with the marketing of agricultural products generally other than wheat. It was thought that we might have bills 82 and 89 go through the second reading stage and into committee, and have whatever information is required by hon. members given at that stage, and then when other hon. members have had more time to read over the two bills distributed

Cooperative Wheat Marketing
last night, Nos. 63 and 83, which cover completely this question which has been under discussion for some considerable time, we could go into full discussion of the whole wheat question on these two bills.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I was one of the group last night that discussed this matter with the minister, and my recollection is substantially that of the minister rather than of the chief government whip. My understanding was that the two bills dealing with cooperative marketing, which would probably not require long debate, might be dealt with first; hon. members who have something to say bearing directly on those bills might say it in a comparatively short discussion, and then the major debate could take place on the other two bills. That was my understanding.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I also was one of those who discussed the wheat debate with the minister last evening. My impression was that there was no intention on the part of anyone to curtail discussion of the whole wheat problem. The government's concern, as expressed by the Minister of Agriculture, was that the discussion be facilitated as much as possible, in such a way as to cover all the ground and yet devote to it no unnecessary time. The impression I got was substantially what the minister has stated. He emphasized the intention of the government to refer bills 82 and 89, having to do with cooperative marketing, to the agriculture committee of this house-


James Garfield Gardiner: To the committee of the whole house.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: Yes, the committee of the whole house, for fuller discussion then. My impression is that the method suggested by the government would facilitate discussion rather than curtail it.


Mr. PERLEY:: Last evening at the close of the sitting I happened to notice a group standing together around the Minister of Agriculture. I went over and the discussion that took place was practically as stated by the minister and the hon. member for Rosetowm-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). I think possibly there was some reservation made. I have the envelope that I happened to have in my hand at the time, and the minister will recall that just at the close I put down the numbers of two bills and put a circle around them. The understanding was that bills 82 and 89 would be considered first, and the minister would make a general statement. Following that, discussion would be permitted in a general way on both bills, and then they would [Mr. Gardiner.)
be moved into committee. We would not be prevented from making a short statement, but there would be no lengthy debate on the bill following the minister's statement. As I understood it, the minister was to make a statement on these two bills before moving them into committee. Then when they were cleaned up, so to speak, bills 83 and 63 would be more or less considered together; bill 83 would be taken first and then bill 63 would be dealt with. That was my understanding.


James Garfield Gardiner: In moving the second
reading of Bill No. 82 I desire to say that it deals with a matter which has been the subject of general discussion in western Canada more or less since 1931, when the wheat pools which had been operating prior to that time found it necessary, because of financial difficulties, to cease operations on a signed contract pooling basis and to allow only voluntary pooling. That voluntary pooling was permitted until the appointment of the wheat board under the legislation of 1935. During that period there was carried on through the central selling agency of the three pools what has come to be known as stabilization activities. During the period of those stabilization activities some 20,000,000 bushels of wheat were delivered to the voluntary pools by the wheat producers, but since the time the activities in connection with the marketing of wheat were taken over by the wheat board there has been no pooling of wheat in western Canada. The discussion in regard to the pooling of wheat has continued, however, and I think I would be safe in saying that at least one-third of the farmers of western Canada still believe they can market their wheat to better advantage under a pooling system over which they themselves have control than they can either through the open market or by any other method that has been tried so far. I am of the opinion that it would be in the interests of the grain trade of western Canada to make it possible for that group of producers to satisfy themselves and the people of Canada generally as to whether or not their contention with regard to the marketing of wheat is reasonable and can be effectively put into operation.
Under this bill we intend to place at the disposal of farmers who hold the view that wheat can be profitably marketed through the pooling system, facilities and a means of credit under which that pooling system can be tried out. It will be remembered by those who are familiar with the situation in western Canada that when the pools were first organized, in 1923. they had no handling facilities.

Cooperative Wheat Marketing
They were simply organizations of producers who desired to pool their grain under contract; then, after it was marketed by their own selling agency, they distributed back to the producers any profits which were made as a result of the sale of the grain, over and above the initial payment. In due course, however, the different pools obtained elevators. The Saskatchewan pool took over the Saskatchewan cooperative; the pool in Manitoba took over a line of elevators in that province, and the Alberta pool took over a line of elevators there. So eventually, in addition to their central selling agency, these pool organizations had pool elevator companies as well. As a result of their activities a very considerable number of elevators were operated by these three companies.


Robert James Manion: Would the minister give the date on which the pools commenced operation?


James Garfield Gardiner: The pool in Alberta
began in 1923 and the pools in Manitoba and Saskatchewan in 1924. They all started their sign-up in 1923, but the Alberta pool was the only one that obtained sufficient signatures to get into operation that year.
The Alberta pool now operates 423 country elevators; the Manitoba pool operates 154 and the Saskatchewan pool 1,069. Since 1935 these pool elevator companies have been operating and disposing of their grain in much the same way as other elevator companies. Some of the other large elevator companies of the
west are as follows:
Number of
Name of company	elevators
Alberta Pacific	 339
Bawlf Elevator Company	 106
Federal Elevator Company	 390
National Elevator Company	 120
Northern Elevator Company	 149
Ogilvy's	 146
Patterson Elevator Company	 102
Pioneer Elevator Company	 215
Reliance Elevator Company	 162
Searle Grain Company	 347
United Grain Growers	 425
Western Grain Company	 238
That makes fifteen companies, each with over 100 elevators, operating in western Canada. Many other elevator systems also operate there, each with from less than 100 elevators down to one elevator; all told I believe there are some 153 elevator companies, but of these the great majority are small companies operating one or two elevators, quite often associated with local mills.
The purpose of this legislation, as I indicated in the beginning, is to make it possible for farmers who desire to pool their
grain to make use of the facilities now in existence in western Canada in order that their grain may be handled through these elevators, as they are accustomed to handle it, and turned over to one or more central selling agencies whose offices in all probability would be located in the city of Winnipeg, where most of the grain trade is located. So the bill provides that any cooperative organization-and a cooperative organization is defined-or any elevator company, which is defined as an incorporated organization which handles or controls 100 or more elevators, may come within the provisions of this legislation. It will be seen that this does not eliminate or exclude any of the smaller companies which may form themselves into an organization which will come within these provisions, for the purpose of accepting pool grain and delivering it to any central selling agency that may be set up on behalf of those who desire to pool their wheat.
The legislation then goes on to provide that any of these organizations, or any combination of them, may set up a central selling agency to take delivery of this wheat from the producers and to pool it. The only obligation assumed by the government in connection with any such agreement is that we are prepared to guarantee the financing of the initial payment provided that such initial payment is not more than 60 cents a bushel. The reason we have set the figure at 60 cents a bushel is the reason I gave the house when this matter was under discussion in the resolution stage, namely that it has been the experience of the last fifty years that in only one crop year has wheat sold on an average at Fort William at less than 60 cents a bushel. I may add, Mr. Speaker, that in only eight crop years in the last fifty years has No. 1 northern wheat sold on an average at Fort William at less than 70 cents a bushel. So that what the government is actually doing in proposing that we place in this bill an initial payment of 60 cents is to choose an amount which we consider to be safe as an initial payment in connection with an operation of this kind.
In order to make it clear why we found it necessary to do that, I would remind hon. members of the fact that when the pool was set up in 1923 an initial payment was established of, I think, 75 cents a bushel. That initial payment was raised in the next year to SI a bushel, and it was continued at $1 a bushel until 1928, at which time the pools ran into some financial difficulty in meeting their initial payments because of a fall in world market prices. In 1928 the payment was set at, I think, 85 cents a bushel. In 1929 it

Cooperative Wheat Marketing
was raised to SI, and there was difficulty experienced in meeting that payment. The result was that the three pools lost or paid out to the farmers $24,000,000 more than they were able to obtain for grain that year for the purpose of refunding to their bankers the money which they had paid out in their initial payment.
The direct result was that the three western provinces assumed the obligation of guaranteeing to the banks approximately $24,000,000 that had been paid out in initial payments by the pools during the year of the placing of that guarantee-in February of 1930. I believe the pools have been meeting their payments; I am sure the Saskatchewan pool has, and I think the others have been too. The pools have been meeting their payments through the years from 1930 until the present in order to pay off their part of that particular obligation of approximately $24,000,000 which was assumed by the three pools. I think I am stating what will be admitted by any of the officials of the pools, and by all those who have been associated with their activities in western Canada, when I say that the real reason the pooling activities of that time were not as successful in the years following 1929 as they had been in the years preceding 1929, was that in the years preceding 1929 the pools were operating on either a rising or a fairly stationary market price. But in the years following 1928, after the big crop of that year, the pools were attempting to operate on what was really a falling market, and they then experienced difficulty in persuading the signers of contracts in the western part of Canada, and persuading even those who were elected as delegates, and boards for the operation of the pools, that the price should be brought down as rapidly as the price was dropping in the world market. The result was that they eventually landed in financial difficulty, and this financial difficulty brought about the end of a number of what were known as contract pools.
With that experience behind us, we held the point of view that if a system of the kind is to be tried out again in western Canada it should be tried out on a basis which is considered to be absolutely sound financially. And in order to have it tried out on a basis which is absolutely sound financially we have considered it wise to get down to a figure for the initial payment which the government can safely guarantee, and which we can be reasonably sure will be met from year to year during the time of the operation of an organization of this kind.
Opinions have been expressed to' me by different persons who are concerned with the
IMr. Gardiner.]
operation both of line elevator companies and of pools in western Canada, since this question was first brought before the house, which have some bearing upon any action which might be taken by members of the house and which I think should be mentioned. One of the statements is to the effect that there would be no difficulty in operating the handling of pool grain by the same organization which is operating in the purchase and sale of grain in the open market. There might be some reason why the two things should not be carried on together, but in so far as the physical operation is concerned no difficulty would be experienced in doing those two particular things. Then, the opinion has been expressed to me, as well, that there would be no difficulty, beyond that of securing the cooperation of the boards of different companies, in setting up a central selling agency which might handle the grain of a number of companies, and that perhaps outside of business differences there should be nothing to prevent all the grain from being handled eventually under one central selling agency. But the measure does not make that essential to the carrying out of the objective we have in mind.
I have before me one or two communications which, in view of the understanding we have reached with regard to debate, it might be well to place before hon. members at this time. One of them comes from the Saskatchewan pool. I might add that since the letter was written I have had with those officials further discussions which have cleared up some of the points and have entirely removed from their minds some of the representations made. This letter, which is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture at Ottawa, Ontario, and is dated April 12, 1939, is as follows:
Re Cooperative Marketing Bill No. 82
Dear Sir:
The executive of the wheat pool have gone over this bill somewhat carefully to-day and we have the following suggestions to make: Section 2, subsection 1 (a), after the word "an" in the first line insert "incorporated."
ouusection , a) oi me same section delete. Subsection (i) of same section delete. Section 3, subsection 1, wherever "selling agency" appears delete and insert "cooperative.
Section 4, subsection 3 delete "selling agency" and insert "cooperative."
Section 6, delete words "or elevator company associated with such selling agency under a cooperative plan."
The comment on that is this:
The pool executive feel that if an act is to be passed to encourage the cooperative marketing of wheat it should definitely provide for

Cooperative Wheat Marketing
the operation of the cooperatives, and that no encouragement should be given to an organization unless it is an incorporated association of primary producers.
With the above alterations in the bill the pool elevator companies of none of the pools could operate a cooperative for marketing wheat.
I would emphasize the fact that the pools are not there saying that the line elevators should be eliminated and that they should not be allowed to operate. They are suggesting that under an amendment of that kind none of the elevator companies, including themselves, would be able to operate unless they first organized a separate cooperative. They go on to say:
It would have to be set up as a separate company controlled by producers, not controlled by a private joint stock company.
Then, from the point of view of what I have just said, the last paragraph is important :
They are not prepared to go so far as approving of the 60 cents as an adequate initial payment, but they are not taking any objection to it at this time. They do feel very strongly, however, about the act permitting any joint stock company operating a pool as they feel these pools should be altogether producer organizations.
Yours truly,
MacPherson, Milliken, Leslie & Tyerman.
This communication bears the initials of Mr. Milliken. It sets forth clearly the view of the Saskatchewan pool organization as of April 12, 1939.
Since that time, as I said a moment ago, I have met the representatives of this particular company and have discussed the matter with them. I have pointed out clearly what I pointed out this afternoon to the house, that the intention of this bill is not to ask the pools again to become cooperatives; the intention is not to ask the elevator companies to become cooperatives; the intention is not to ask those who are operating commission agencies to become cooperatives. The intention is to ask those who have control of the handling facilities, whether they call themselves pools or private elevator companies, to place those facilities under certain circumstances at the disposal of producers in western Canada through which they may pool their grain. In other words the intention is that the facilities be placed at the disposal of a group of farmers who desire for one year at least to turn all their grain into a marketing system at an advance of 60 cents a bushel; and if it is sold through one or more central selling agencies and it is found at the end of the year that a surplus has been accumulated as a result of the sale of that grain, 71492-224
it will be returned to the individual producers who have placed their grain in that particular pool.
That is the intention of the proposed legislation. There is nothing compulsory about it. It merely sets up provisions under which purely voluntary arrangements can be entered into.
The part which the government plays in it is this. We say to an organization that comes to us and places its facilities at the disposal of the producers of western Canada for the purpose I have mentioned: We are prepared to guarantee an advance of 60 cents a bushel. You ask me what is covered by that 60 cents advance. You will find on reading the legislation that the 60 cents is to cover the advance payment that is made at the initial point; to cover all the operating expenses of the central selling agency for the selling of the grain, and to cover all the storage charges in connection with the grain. With all the experience of the pools behind us and the information we have as a result of that experience, we know that it cost the pool in an average year three cents a bushel for carrying charges on the grain in an elevator; that is, it cost the elevator companies three cents. In one year it went to about five cents a bushel. So it may be judged from that, in order to make themselves absolutely safe, if they were to start a pool this year, with the price hovering between 70 and 60 cents a bushel, the pools could not make an advance payment at the initial point of more than 55 cents.


Robert James Manion: The minister did not include transportation costs in his statement of what the 60 cents covered. Should not that be included?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, transportation from the point of delivery; this is covered in the fact, that the basis is No. 1 northern, Fort William. There would be transportation and handling charges, in addition to at least three cents to cover storage, taken off the 60 cents to arrive at the price to the individual farmer.


Robert James Manion: I asked the question because the minister did not include transportation. It is 60 cents Fort William?


James Garfield Gardiner: Sixty cents; that is basis No. 1 northern Fort William.
To continue, the bill also makes provision under which a reserve may be set up. This reserve would be governed by the regulations provided in the latter part of the bill. This reserve, I presume, would be set up under conditions different from those of the present year. There is the possibility that none of

Cooperative Wheat Marketing

these companies may undertake to operate this year with the wheat board operating, but if we get back to a position where wheat is selling at a higher price than 70 cents a bushel, it would be possible for any company or any central selling agency operating under this bill to set up a reserve, and that reserve could be based on one cent a bushel or two cents a bushel, or any amount they decided upon. Provision is made in the bill that when a company has set up a reserve which is sufficient to satisfy the government that it would be safe to make the initial payment of 60 cents a bushel No. 1 northern at Fort William, the government may enter into an arrangement whereby the carrying charges of three to five cents a bushel could be taken care of out of a reserve set up by the central selling agencies themselves as a result of their operations.
I do not think it is necessary for me to say more at present, other than to indicate that in addition to the letter I have read I have received a lengthy statement from the United Grain Growers, which operate over four hundred elevators in western Canada, to the effect that they were very early in the field in advocating the pooling system of marketing, that they still agree with the cooperative marketing principle, and that under normal conditions they would be more than willing to try to operate a pool under legislation of this kind. But to be absolutely fair to them I must add that in the last few sentences of their memorandum they state that in their opinion it would have been wise not to attempt to have the legislation go further this year than the discussion stage, in view of the fact that we are still in an emergent condition, under which it would probably be veiy difficult to operate the legislation. With this last suggestion I am not in agreement. I think it is better to put the legislation on the statute book in order to have it before the public for discussion, to be made effective by proclamation. This would place the government in a position to consider all the facts in relation to it. Then when any organization comes to the government and says that it is prepared to try out once more the pooling system on the basis of the details of this bill, the matter can be discussed in a practical way and those who have been considering operating under this legislation can come to a final conclusion as to whether or not they desire to do so.
I want to say one word more with regard to the advance. Every farmer in western Canada knows what an advance is. He knows that an advance is not a price for grain. The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Fleming)

the other evening said that I was just splitting hairs when I made that statement, but what I want to say is this, that an elevator advance-


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: What
about the 1929 advance?


James Garfield Gardiner: This is not like the
1929 advance. I was going on to say that when you drive into an elevator with a load of grain, the elevator company decides in the light of its experience what it is prepared to pay to any farmer in cash as an advance, and it does not matter whether it is a pool or not a pool elevator. If I drive into an elevator with a load of grain and ask the elevator operator what is the price of grain, he tells me. If I am not satisfied I may say "I think I can do better later." But I have to pay my expenses of operation from seed time to harvest, and so I ask him, "What advance will you give me on my grain?" In a rising market the elevator companies have been in the habit of advancing up to about 60 per cent of the market price on that particular day. In a falling market they will probably not go so high as 60 per cent, perhaps only 50 or 40 per cent; and in years of low prices perhaps very much lower than that. But they have always been prepared to make an advance which they thought to be safe. Farmers in the area who have carried on their business over a long period of years with a particular elevator company have usually been able to get a higher advance than those just driving into the elevator irregularly to sell a few loads of grain. So that the regular customers of the elevator can sometimes get an even higher price than I have indicated.
But the advance made by the elevator company was always subject to three conditions: (1) you must pay interest on it from the day you got it; (2) you must pay storage on your grain after it has been in the elevator fifteen days; (3) when the price advanced to you, plus the elevator storage charge, plus the interest, came anywhere near to what the market price was on a certain day, the elevator company had the right to sell your grain at the day's market price. That is the way the advances always operated under the system of marketing grain in western Canada.
Now, what the government is actually saying under this bill is this. Based upon the experience of fifty years, in only one year has No. 1 northern wheat been below 60 cents at Fort William on the average throughout a crop year; and the government is saying to the farmers of western Canada that we are

Cooperative Wheat Marketing
prepared, because of that experience, to guarantee that initial payment of 60 cents. This means that when the guarantee is 60 cents on the basis discussed at the beginning, where possibly storage charges and interest and other charges are taken into consideration before the initial payment is made to the farmer, up to the 60 cents no further interest is added, no storage charge is added, and even if wheat drops for two or three days or a week or a month below 60 cents, the farmer is not sold out. He still has his wheat, and that wheat carries on into the succeeding months. If there is finally an accumulated surplus over and above the 60 cents, the farmer will still get his part of that accumulated surplus. In other words, there is an advance guaranteed of 60 cents, which the government considers to be a safe guarantee, the basis from which we can work in order to establish in western Canada not only an effective guarantee, but from which our financing can be done.
The greatest weakness of the financing in western Canada has been associated with the fact that wheat has been the one cash product which we have been selling from the greater part of the west; that we get that crop only once a year, and that it is impossible, or has been up to date, for farmers to finance storage capacity on their own land to take care of the wheat which they produce. The result is that about eighty per cent of the crop has been rushed to market in the three or four months of the fall, that such wheat as is not sold is stored in storage facilities, and that of necessity elevator companies must charge from three-quarters of a cent to a cent a bushel every month it is kept in those storage facilities. Being in that position, farmers have had in most years to sell out their entire crop immediately they delivered it in order to pay their expenses of operation.
What we are suggesting under this policy is that we lay down something which farmers throughout western Canada can operate towards and operate from. They can say: We have a fairly safe guarantee that if we market our wheat in a certain way, we can get 60 cents a bushel for it at Fort William, and we can-have that paid to us the day we are in a position to deliver our grain to any elevator anywhere in western Canada. Then they can say, in addition to that, under the other bill which we shall be discussing later, that that 60 cents per bushel is fairly well guaranteed up to a crop of about 12 bushels to the acre. In other words, they can figure in advance where the bottom limit of their financial position is, and during that part of 71492-224J
the year which precedes August or September of every crop year they can carry on in such a manner that they will know they can finance when they come into the harvest season. If it turns out that they get a good price, they are in a position to do what farmers have been able to do in every other part of the world; they can do the things which they have been inclined to do previously by going into debt. As a result of having got a better crop than they figured on getting, or of having received a better price than the bottom price which experience has taught us we can get any year over a fifty year period, they can finance to better advantage.
I believe that in five or ten years time, operating under a system of that kind, western Canada can put itself on a sounder basis than it is to-day. It can operate its farms in much the same way as farmers elsewhere have been able to operate theirs because they are selling their product over the whole year instead of selling it once a year. In other words, farmers can put themselves more nearly on a cash basis than they have ever been able to put themselves in the past. Through the operation of this bill, combined with the acreage payment plan, I believe that many farmers in western Canada who have financed up to the crop period in the hope that they would have a crop, and then, finding themselves without one, had to go on financing through the next year in the hope that they would have a crop, with the debt of a previous year piled up behind them, will in future be able to finance in the current year from what they have already in hand. Thus they can enter the next year in the hope, of course, of being able to take a crop off their land of the bountiful kind which they have reaped many years in the past, but with the assurance that if they do not, and if they finance in a reasonable way, they will not be adding unduly to the debt charges against their land. I believe that when all this legislation which we are going to discuss in the next day or two is placed on the statute book, we can a least start to work towards that end.
I suggest that this bill be placed on the statutes as the first of a group which will, I believe, make possible the objective I have outlined. When it is on the statute book, and when the measure is enacted which I hope to take up next, leading with the general cooperative marketing on a similar basis of other farm products, I think we shall be able to establish the basis of a farm policy which will be helpful to producers from one end of Canada to the other.
Cooperative Wheat Marketing


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I do not suppose the discussion of this bill will be protracted. I listened with a great deal of interest to the explanation given by the minister, and possibly, if the condition which we face in the wheat-producing areas were not something of an emergency condition, the arguments which he advanced would be much more valid and much more acceptable. The difficulty is-I am not going to discuss the price, because we shall come to that a little later; but since he mentioned it, may I say this-that what we call the initial price, with the huge world surplus which is piling up and in sight at the end of July, is in all probability likely to be also the maximum price.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: You cannot
guarantee it.


Major James William Coldwell: No, you cannot guarantee it, and you cannot guarantee that it will be the initial price only. I hope of course that it may be much below the price which the farmers will actually receive, but with
1,150,000,000 bushels, about the average of the estimates which have been made, as the possible surplus during the coming crop year, in all probability the initial price will be the maximum price. That, I think, is an answer to some of the things the minister has said.
As far as the legislation under this bill is concerned, it is an interesting experiment, and from that point of view I hope it will encourage our farmers to think and to act even more cooperatively than they have done in the past. But it seems to me that the bill ought not to be called a cooperative marketing bill, because after all it is a bill which more or less deals with selling agencies. To my mind the word "cooperative" is used in this country much too loosely, and I have often thought that we ought to have an act of parliament or of the legislatures in order to confine the term to what it really ought to mean.


An hon. MEMBER:: Political parties too?


Major James William Coldwell: Someone suggests political parties. Well, when a political party aims at really only one thing, the setting up of a society in which the principal means of production and distribution and so on, now monopolistically and privately owned, shall be owned and operated cooperatively for the common good, that political organization has a right to call itself a cooperative movement in the strict sense of the word.


Mr. MARTIN:: Except land.


Major James William Coldwell: The bill continues the open market institutions and open market operations, and I should like again to put this on record. Ever since I have been in western Canada, nearly thirty years now, I have found groups of farmers in ever-increasing numbers asking that their grain shall be marketed through a marketing agency which shall not be subjected to the speculative market and speculative institutions. This demand was insistent even before the great war and certainly at its close. I have here an interesting old document which I should like to read to confirm that point. It is an extract from the record of the 1919 convention of the old Saskatchewan Grain Growers' Association, in which a resolution was moved by Mr. C. C. Stoliker, of Wilkie, and seconded by Mr. Freeman of Parkbeg. Mr. Stoliker is still living; I am not sure about Mr. Freeman. The resolution reads:
Whereas the profits to the Canadian producer from the wheat crop of 1917 and 1918 were restricted by a fixed price which the federal government established in the interest of the consumer, and especially of our allies across the sea;
And whereas throughout the period of the war and at this time, the farmers of Canada, in loyal response to the government's call for greater production have incurred the consequences of poor farming methods in order to secure immediate results;
And whereas the cost of living, and of all commodities entering into the production of wheat, are now as high as, or higher than, at any time during the last two years;
And whereas these conditions of cost will prevail throughout the period of preparation, seeding and harvesting the 1919 crop;
And whereas the government of the United States has, by fixing the price of wheat for 1919, guaranteed the farmers of the United States against financial loss;
And whereas, in the absence of any assurance or intimation that the price of the 1919 Canadian wheat crop will be fixed by the Canadian government, there is much alarm and unrest among farmers, and especially among those who have suffered by reason of poor crops during the last two years;
How familiar that sounds!
Therefore be it resolved that this convention ask the government to take steps, without further delay, to fix the price of the 1919 crop on the same basis as that of 1918.
There is an interesting comment on this resolution from a gentleman who to-day is Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). May I read it:
I am in favour of the resolution. I am in favour of it for the reason that I think it of greater importance to-day than I did a year ago, to bring to the attention of the government and the House of Commons of Canada that the greatest industry in this country is in greater peril to-day than it has ever been in its history.

Cooperative Wheat Marketing
How much truer that is at the moment.
We are accustomed to put things up to the government. I think we have that habit overdeveloped and do not take enough responsibility ourselves. Remember that governments cannot do impossibilities. They have to deal with facts as they are. But I hold the view that the Canadian government has not attached and does not now attach the importance to the agricultural industry of this country that it should. My reason for saying this is this: A year ago I was asked to take the position of director of food production, to tell you men how to grow more wheat. I took that position because I thought it was a duty. You will remember I asked the Canadian government to get out of your wray, to get off your backs, to set you free to do all you could, to treat you as every government treated the munition manufacturer. How was he treated? He secured a contract with the government and it contained clauses protecting him-


Robert James Manion: Such as the Bren gun
contract.


Major James William Coldwell: -in case of cancellation of his contract owing to the cessation of hostilities. Not fully protecting him, of course, but making it sure that he would not go bust over the job.
I asked a year ago that in order to get more land broken up in 1918 for the 1919 production that they wanted me to do, that more men should be obtained to start in that business.
Here we see the origin of some of the troubles that we have at the moment.
I said that the farmer must be in a position to get credit to do the work and spend the money necessary. Surely that was reasonable and logical?
But it was too much, apparently, and the price of the grain for 1919 was not guaranteed. Anyone who says the Canadian government entered into a contract with the farmers to raise rvheat in 1919 is not stating the fact. I asked them to do that but they did not. The Canadian government asked us to grow as much wheat as we could in 1918 and in succeeding years on the ground that the wheat was required, and in reply to the request for the fixing of a price they said the world conditions would take care of that. But that did not go with the manufacturer. The government said the financial burden would be altogether too great on the country in case of loss, that it would go broke. Well, if all the farmers of the country go broke, it is just as safe for the whole country as it is for the farmers of the country. The load can be much more easily carried by the whole population than to make one industry the goat.
I conclude the quotatirn with these words:
I speak from my heart. There is no protective principle in this resolution. I have been over it very carefully and it is clear of anything of that nature. The situation is the most serious our industry has ever faced.
I wanted to read this statement in order to show the house, and particularly members from other parts of Canada, that the problem of the cooperative marketing of wheat and
the question whether we shall market in this way or through a single selling agency, a wheat board, is something that has not arisen out of the present conditions in western Canada at the present time but has been discussed for a considerable number of years. Part of the dissatisfaction that has been expressed recently regarding the proposed wdieat policy we are about to consider is due to the fear that the continuance of open market methods will interfere with producers' organizations and w'ith what we term orderly marketing.
This bill is called the Wheat Cooperative Marketing Act, 1939. In my opinion that is a misnomer.. The western producers have struggled for a great many years for an orderly system of marketing under their own control, and my criticism of the bill is largely that it tends to perpetuate the private interests and may create something of a chaotic condition in the marketing of western wheat during the coming year if the act is proclaimed. I notice that this opinion is confirmed in the second submission made by the western committee to the government. I turn to page 14 of that submission, a copy of which I was able to get, and there I find that the western committee on the federal wheat policy for 1939-40 met the government two weeks ago or so and made this statement with respect to Bill No. 82, the bill before us:
With reference to this bill the committee wishes to say that it is its unanimous opinion that under existing conditions the method proposed is impracticable and no organization could undertake to operate successfully such a selling agency as contemplated in the face of present marketing uncertainties.
That apparently was their considered opinion; and I believe it was presented to the government some days after the letter was written from the grain growers and from the pools to which the minister referred and which he placed on record. This, I understand was on April 24. Therefore it is the latest opinion of these organizations which are interested in orderly marketing and in the farmers' organizations all across the country; and even some of the elevator companies were represented on that committee. It states tersely the view which I held even before I saw that opinion.
I cannot say too emphatically that the bulk of the farmers of western Canada and the business men workers who are dependent on the farmers want an orderly system of marketing their produce; and they want a producers' marketing board. In common usage to-day, that producers' marketing board is spoken of as the wheat board, although when
Cooperative Wheat Marketing

we speak of the wheat board we think of something which will become much more comprehensive in the future. It seems to me-the minister will have opportunity to correct me if I am wrong-that under this bill the pools and groups of private elevator companies will be competing with the board, which will have the obligation of marketing the unsold 1938-39 surplus during the next crop year. To me that seems to be not a cooperative but a highly competitive system, one which will create a very difficult situation both for the board and for the others. If I am wrong I want to be corrected by the minister at the first opportunity.


James Garfield Gardiner: Does the hon. member mind if I correct it now?


Major James William Coldwell: I shall be glad.


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps I did not make that clear. This bill was proposed, of course, before the discussions took place with regard to the necessity for the wheat board to operate this year as a result of the surplus which may be in existence at the end of the crop year, and also without a knowledge of what the price situation may be for next year's crop. We are not clear yet on either of those points. My argument a moment ago was that this legislation should be on the statute book. There will be very little chance of its coming into effect if the condition which prevails at the moment continues throughout the next year, but there is always the possibility that circumstances may develop making it possible for some of these organizations to operate. All the different types of organizations have indicated that should these conditions disappear, which at the moment they do not expect will be the case, they would be prepared to operate under legislation of this kind.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, perhaps the other angle had better be discussed on the other bill. There are one or two questions on the other bill that the minister might clear up. I was thinking particularly of what is going to happen to the grain in excess of 5,000 bushels the limit provided in Bill No. 63.
One other thing I want to say in regard to the cooperative institutions of western Canada. Last night I listened attentively to the all too short and what I regard as one of the ablest addresses in many respects that I have heard in the house this session; I refer to the address of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore). But in the course of his remarks he expressed doubt as to the wisdom of such agencies as the western farmers have been trying to build up. For example he doubted the wisdom of endeavouring to market through
FMr. Coldwell.]
a single selling agency. He pointed out that in the last few years our economy has changed fundamentally; that industry all across Europe and America has built up its cartels, monopolistic enterprises which function not only within a nation but are international in their scope, and control prices not only through national monopolies but through international agreements among monopolistic enterprises. That, of course, is true; these cartels have been set up during the last twenty-five years or so. The hon. member went on to criticize the unorganized producers for endeavouring to protect themselves in the face of these huge combines, saying that in his opinion, from the point of view of the very countries in which these cartels are operating, it was inadvisable for a country like Canada to endeavour to set up single marketing agencies for the orderly marketing of grain and other farm products. To my mind cooperative selling agencies of a national type are simply logical developments on the part of producers to protect themselves and their commodities in a very highly organized world. I think this bill is weak, because it tends to perpetuate the competitive organizations and the competitive features that render the farmer more or less helpless in the face of organized industry and organized finance.
The hon. member for Ontario said last night that no state would allow its supply of bread to come under the control of a foreign organization. As I understand it, many states are to-day controlling their wheat and their bread, and in the face of what is going on in importing countries and other exporting countries Canada must organize its industry in order to meet the conditions with which it is faced in its marketing. The western pools were formed by farmers to handle their products cooperatively, and, what is sometimes overlooked, originally to find markets. The cooperative wheat producers did for a time spend a great deal of energy in finding markets. So that when we hear markets referred to as the possible panacea for the difficulties facing both agriculture and industry in this country, we have to bear in mind that the western producers who are to-day asking for some protection in their marketing did endeavour to find markets, and have urged that the government of Canada change its trade policies in order that markets may become available to them for their products. For, as we have said so frequently, we cannot overlook the fact that our imports in reality represent our income. It was because of the hard necessity of the years following the great war that the individualistic farmer, who had carved out his holding from the prairie by his

Cooperative Wheat Marketing
own individual enterprise, turned to the idea of cooperation. He saw, as the minister pointed out this afternoon, that when his products were plentiful and he had to market them all at once in the fall of the year, prices were depressed. The bulk of the grain was marketed in the three months following September 1, as a rule, and invariably there was some price increase in the months that followed. So the middleman profited at the expense of the farmer, who therefore believed -and still believes, if I may say so-that since industry was organized so that it could feed its products to the market in a fairly orderly flow, he ought to endeavour to organize himself, not in an endeavour to command an unduly high price but in order that he might be in a position to regulate the flow of his product to the markets so that it might proceed in a fairly orderly fashion also. As those of us who come from the west know, orderly marketing became somewhat of a slogan in western Canada. As was indicated by the old resolution which I placed on record just now, it was the actual experience of the operation of the wheat board of 1919 and 1920 that convinced the western farmers that there was a better way of marketing than through the futures system, the grain exchange and the speculative markets. Whatever may be said by royal commissions or by people representing the grain trade, as we call it, that sentiment is strong to-day, and it accounts for the determined fight that has been put up by the farmers of the west and the voluminous petitions we have received even from the worst drought areas, asking that the wheat board be continued.
I welcome any bill which will assist those who, because of weather and other conditions, lose their crops; but the point of view I am expressing is, I believe, the opinion of a majority of the people of that region, that the orderly marketing system, the wheat board, is of supreme importance and must be maintained at all costs. I know that is the tenor of letters I have received even from the most drought-stricken parts of Saskatchewan during the past few weeks. In 1922 the Liberal government actually placed upon the statute book legislation providing for the setting up of a wheat board, but that legislation did not become operative. It was because of that fact that the producers' cooperative movement, which the minister outlined quite correctly this afternoon, arose in western Canada, and established the wheat pools. But I would point out that the first love of the western farmer was always the wheat board. I remember how the hon. member who now sits for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) was elected in the city of Regina in 1921; I remember the great banner stretching from near the post office across to one of the financial buildings on the other comer, bearing in huge letters the words, "Vote for Motherwell and the wheat board." And Mr. Motherwell was the only Liberal returned from the province of Saskatchewan in the election of 1921, all others from that province being Progressives, who also were pledged to the establishment of a wheat board.


Mr. TUCKER:: He was elected at a byelection, was he not?


Major James William Coldwell: No, at the general
election of December, 1921. There is something else about the pools that I think should be borne in mind. They are ultra democratic, for every member of the pool enjoys one vote and can exercise only one man's influence, irrespective of his holdings or of the amount of grain he markets. I think that is something of a testimonial to the innate democracy of the people of western Canada.
As the minister said, at first these pools entered into handling agreements with private companies, and I would stress that point. That led to considerable dissatisfaction and to a demand that the pools, either themselves or through subsidiary organizations, operate their own elevators. That led to the organization of Pool Elevators Limited, now the largest elevator concern of its kind in the world, I believe. The minister gave the figures, which I jotted down. I think he said there were now 154 pool elevators in Manitoba. 1,069 in Saskatchewan and 424 in Alberta. According to the report of the pool for 1936, these elevators serve 76-19 per cent of the shipping points in the three prairie provinces. This indicates how determined the farmers were not to adopt a system of the kind suggested by this bill; but, since they could not get a wheat board to market all their grain through one channel, they desired if possible to devise a pool which would have the same effect, though the pools came into being only after the disillusionment of the farmers in regard to the possibility of getting a wheat board.
The wheat pools, these cooperative organizations, came into the field for one purpose, that of orderly marketing. It was not, I point out to the hon. member for Ontario, a monopoly or a cartel, nor did they desire to hold up the consumers overseas. The pools were organized to relieve the farmers of the necessity of throwing their grain into the laps of elevator companies, speculators, millers and exporters during the fall, thus depressing prices
Cooperative Wheat Marketing

unduly. I think perhaps there is one feature of this bill that may deserve commendation; it may have the effect of strengthening producers' cooperatives, but I do not like the other provisions with regard to the formation of what are loosely called pools but what in reality may be elevator companies. I would emphasize once more that the western producers never wished, nor do they wish now, to hold up the consumer nations. They simply sought to regulate the flow of their products to the market in order that they might obtain a reasonable return which would provide them with a decent standard of living. This bill creates a number of private associations and so-called pools which, as I said before, may come into competition with the wheat board or farmers' pools, but that is a matter that must be cleared up later in this discussion.
I do not think at this stage I need say more. I have outlined the point of view I hold with regard to this measure. The farmers of western Canada have to sell their commodity in the open markets of the world and have to buy their clothing, their gasoline, their oil and everything else in not only a closed market but, as the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) showed yesterday, a market in which the price is set by monopoly. So they want their wheat marketed through the agency of a national wheat board; they want a minimum protected price that will guarantee to them and to their families a reasonable and decent standard of living. They are persuaded, as I am persuaded, that the irreducible minimum which should be guaranteed by the government this year is 80 cents basis No. 1 northern at Fort William.


Mr. STEVENS:: On a point of order: Could the minister table the statement of the United Grain Growers, from which he quoted? I think that according to the rules the document should be tabled, and I am sure the minister would have no objection.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not really quote from it, but was content to summarize the effect of the contents. I have no objection, however, to letting the hon. member see it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It would be helpful.


Ernest Edward Perley: Mr. Sneaker, I do not propose to occupy much time in a discussion of the merits of the bill. The bill is not necessary. There is no demand for it, and already on the statute books we have machinery sufficient to take care of the situation the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has outlined. I believe as a

matter of fact the present machinery would do the work much better than that set out in the bill.
On February 16 the minister stated in the house that in due course he would introduce measures based on the recommendations of the Turgeon commission. I presume the bill now before us, which provides for the cooperative marketing of wheat, is to carry out the recommendation contained in the commissioner's report wherein it was suggested that small pools might be organized and operated. I suggest, however, that this bill goes much farther than any recommendation found in the Turgeon report. For instance, I cannot find where Judge Turgeon recommended, as appears in section 2, paragraph (d), that elevator companies should organize themselves into associations or what might be termed pools, and that these could be guaranteed against any loss on a price below 60 cents as provided in the bill. In two or three places in his report Judge Turgeon admits that the grain trade could not function in an emergency, and that the board provided under the Canadian Wheat Board Act was the one organization which could function. There is provision in the bill for declaring emergency years, and in those years the board should function.
Therefore at least in some sections of it this bill is really -.a act to succour the grain trade, to save it; so that if the bill becomes inoperative-which it may, when we have a return to normal times; a condition we all hope may develop, and the minister spoke very hopefully this afternoon of that condition returning-then these companies would be prepared to go ahead as usual. I do not know whether the minister provides for the dissolving of any of these cooperatives after they have been in operation for a year or so. Should they then dissolve, if we get back to normal conditions, and continue as they have been doing for twenty-five or thirty years?
On former occasions I have stated that the government cannot divorce itself from the marketing problem. The marketing of all our wheat cannot be carried on successfully, with fair remuneration to the farmer in the next few years, unless there is government support. Certainly this bill is providing government support to more than one organization. Under the Canadian Wheat Board Act we now have a wheat board, and through it we can get everything for the producer that this bill suggests. Why not be honest about it and admit that hon. members now supporting the government were wrong in opposing that measure? Admit it now, and fix a proper

Cooperative Wheat Marketing
minimum price for a period of years, as I suggested on one other occasion. Let the wheat board function, and do all it has the power to do under the act. It could take care of the situation for which the minister expects this bill to provide. Why allow the grain firms to form themselves into associations? Why allow them to incorporate themselves, as is provided in paragraph (d) of section 2?
Then the bill provides, further, under section 3, for initial payments to be made by the selling agency, and stipulates that that initial payment shall be 60 cents. I am not going to discuss that feature to-day, but I believe all are agreed, not only in the house but outside of it-and I refer to western Canada-that 60 cents does not meet the situation, even as an advance, as it is described in the bill.
The bill provides further, as indicated by the minister that there will be paid to the selling agency-
. . . the amount, if any, by which the initial payment together with storage, carrying and transportation charges and operating expenses exceeds the average sale price.
So there is not much encouragement there for the firms that will be in the association or cooperative to hold the prices up, because they are guaranteed against any loss they might incur.
Further, the average sale price is to be computed after the sale price realized by the selling agency has been adjusted in a manner to be prescribed by regulation, as if the wheat had been sold in store at Fort William. The bill makes the further provision that no payment shall be made to primary producers by a selling agency subsequent to the initial payment, unless such subsequent payment is first approved by the governor in council. Of course that would mean approval by the minister. To a great extent the working out of the act will depend on the minister. Here again is an instance of "heads I win, tails you lose," in favour of the grain firms which will form themselves into associations.
Why is it necessary for the government to bring in all this conglomeration of organizations and assist them to continue in business when it is recognized in the Turgeon report that in an emergency they cannot function properly? Why is it necessary to give assistance to them in order that they may carry on if we have as we have now, machinery under the Canadian Wheat Board Act to do all that is suggested in the bill?
From information I have received, and inquiries made particularly from individual farmers, I find that they are completely confused as to how the bill will be carried out. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has brought up an important question; in fact, he covered some of the points I had intended to cover. I shall not repeat what he has said. He did ask the important question, however, as to what the board's selling policy would be in competition with associations or cooperatives to be set up. The board will have a surplus from the 1938 crop, and we should know what it is going to do and what its policy will be in competition with the associations. It is important that hon. members have an answer to that question.
The minister insists that the bill be placed on the statute book, and there is no doubt it will pass. I think, however, that if the government is going to give support to cooperatives or associations, the first ones to consider should be associations of producers alone. Second, it should give consideration to the three pools in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta. They are deserving, and if it is necessary to succour any group, they should be saved. They are properly equipped and have rendered a great sendee to the producers of western Canada-there are, I might point out, 1,069 in the province of Saskatchewan- and are deserving of support in view of the services they have rendered. I refer particularly to the services rendered to the government of Canada by the three organizations I have mentioned in the period from 1930 to 1935, in the stabilization operations carried on under Mr. John I. McFarland. So I would say that if there is any organization to be saved it should be the pool organizations. They comprise from fifty to sixty per cent of the producers, particularly in Saskatchewan, and the producers have a capital investment in the pool elevators through the deductions which have been made in selling their grain over a period of years, and which represent an investment in the elevator.
I want to remind the house of what was in the mind of Right Hon. R. B. Bennett when it became necessary in 1931 for the federal government to make good the guarantees which had been given to the pools by the provincial governments. He had in mind th* saving of thousands of farmers of western Canada who had an investment in these elevators as I have just described, amounting in many cases to a good many hundreds of dollars. At that time he was criticized for coming to the rescue of the pools, by the

Cooperative Wheat Marketing

very grain firms which under the terms of this bill may organize themselves into associations; and he was criticized also by certain individuals who supported grain trading or open market operation. It was from these very people that we encountered the severest opposition when we were considering the Canadian Wheat Board Act. When the price was set at 87i cents for the 1935 crop the greatest objection and criticism came from these same companies. They maintained that 70 cents was a sufficiently high price.
This legislation gives the minister very wide powers. Under it he may prescribe rules and regulations and take unto himself almost unlimited power.
I think a definite time should have been fixed for the act to come into force. I note that the United Grain Growers think that this is not an opportune year to commence operating under this legislation. With all the machinery we now have to take care of the situation which this bill proposes to take care of, the bill is in my opinion unnecessary and should be withdrawn. It does not help individual producers very much, and we have other legislation under which marketing facilities can be provided.
The bill also discriminates against small elevator operators and certain independent dealers in western Canada. I have on my file a letter from an elevator company in Fort William which will not be able to join in any of these associations, and they say that there are more than twenty such firms in western Canada which will automatically be put out of business in favour of the big corporations. The track buyer, the commission man, and the local grain dealer serve a useful purpose in western Canada, but this bill discriminates against them all.
I took a few notes while the minister was speaking and I want to refer to one or two things he said. He pointed out that this bill was designed to place facilities at the disposal of farmers who wished to continue pooling operations. I say that we already have the necessary machinery.
He stated that in only one crop year in the last forty years has the price been below sixty cents, and in only eight years during that period has it dropped below seventy cents. I should think that the results might vary considerably with different companies, and that there would be difficulty in adjusting the final average selling price.
I would also ask the minister who will dictate, more or less, the selling policy. We want an orderly marketing policy, but I do not think this legislation will conduce to that end.

The minister referred to the objection made by the pool. They do not, of course, approve the 60 cents. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has quoted from the submission of the committee that interviewed the cabinet on April 24, and it is quite apparent from what the committee say, on page 14 of their submission, that they are not in favour of Bill No. 82. Nor do the United Grain Growers think it advisable to proceed with the bill this year.
I do not think it is right and proper to place upon the statute book a bill which is to remain there indefinitely and be the subject of so much criticism and discussion that finally no one will know whether it is good, bad or indifferent, with the likely result that the position will be about the same one year from now. regardless of conditions in the country. It is true that the bill can be considered in more detail in committee where we shall have the oppotunity of asking questions, but I do not think the bill is necessary at all. Following the statement made by the minister on February 16. this measure and others dealing with agriculture should have been brought down shortly thereafter and referred to the agriculture committee, where there would have been opportunity for careful consideration and hearing representatives of the grain trade and others interested in the legislation. But in view of the lateness of the session it is impossible to proceed in that way now. I regret that a bill of this importance has been introduced in the last few days of the session when it is impossible to give it proper consideration.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself largely in accord with the two previous speakers, but I wish to deal with the bill from a slightly different angle. We in this group have received letters and resolutions from various parts of Alberta asking for a continuation of the wheat board, and also that the wheat board be declared a 100 per cent marketing agency. This bill is for the purpose of helping to establish a voluntary system of pooling of wheat by guaranteeing a minimum initial price of 60 cents a bushel. It is quite evident that the minister's objective is the elimination of the wheat board as a marketing agency. From the very first the minister has shown his dislike of the wheat board. One of the minister's first actions, or perhaps I should say one of the first actions of this government, was to sabotage the wheat board in 1936 by passing order in council No. 2202, and that action undoubtedly cost the farmers of western Canada many millions of dollars.

Cooperative Wheat Marketing
The minister has referred to the high prices which the farmers received for their wheat in 1936-37. When, in his speech in this house on April 5. he referred to that matter, I interrupted to point out to him that the greater part of the wheat had already passed out of the farmers' hands before those high prices were obtained. The minister replied:
No. I intend to place on Hansard a list of prices throughout the period, and the answer to my hon. friend's question will be found in those prices.
All the minister did was to put on Hansard a list of prices during the year. I took the question up with the bureau of statistics, and I find that, by the end of November, 130,000.000 bushels of the 202,000,000 bushels of wheat had already passed out of the farmers' hands. In November the price of wheat had reached only $1.08. but by the following July if. had gone as high as $1.50. So that, instead of the farmers of western Canada benefiting by these high prices of wheat, we find that the majority of them received below $1.08, which gave an average of about 85 cents street price, and it was the grain trade instead of the farmers that benefited by the higher prices.
I have always been a strong supporter of the wheat pools; but owing to the wheat situation which exists to-day I do not believe that a voluntary pool can adequately deal with the situation. I do not believe that we shall ever be able to put the wheat-growing industry on a sound basis until we establish a 100 per cent marketing agency, a wheat board with producer-representation thereon. I am aware of the fact that the Turgeon commission advised against a 100 per cent wheat board, mainly upon the ground that the farmers were not unanimous in their demand for one. That stand, of course, is absurd, because the people of any country are rarely unanimous in their demand for anything. I would say that in a properly functioning democracy it is the duty of the government to bow to the will of the majority of the people and to introduce legislation which will be most beneficial to the greatest number of the people; and I am satisfied that so far as western Canada is concerned the majority of farmers are in favour of a 100 per cent wheat board.
In so far as the commission's report is concerned I have little faith in it. It showed a weak and timid attitude. It told us practically nothing new. It made no really constructive proposals. It cost the country in the neighbourhood of $114,000 and provided the government with an opportunity of squandering the taxpayers' money. I say that because this government has repeatedly
71492-225J
taken the stand that the only money which is available to it is the money which it can tax from the people's pockets, and to-day we have a sales tax of 8 per cent which falls heaviest upon the poorer classes. Therefore I can find no justification for this government taxing the people to that extent to pay one man connected with that commission $200 a day plus expenses, as was done in the case of Colonel Ralston, at a time when wheat was around 55 cents a bushel.
What is the real problem which confronts us when we approach the question of wheat marketing? I would say it is, how can we market on a fair basis a commodity which is surplus to world requirements and one which, under normal conditions, is likely to remain surplus? Some hon. members may wish to challenge that statement, so I should like to quote briefly from the proceedings of the conference on markets for western farm products. I quote first of all from a statement by Doctor C. F. Wilson, of the bureau of statistics, to be found on page 21. He stated:
The unusually large world production of 1938 has once again upset the balance, and a world carry-over in 1939 between 1,000,000,000 and 1,100,000,000 bushels appears almost inevitable.
On page 25 he states:
Again, it so happened that 1938 acreage and the 1938 yield have produced considerably beyond effective consumption requirements, and excess supplies have again accumulated.
Further down the page he refers to the farm outlook for 1939 as indicated by the United States department of agriculture, and
says:
The present world acreage of wheat, approximately 285,000,000 acres, is about 15,000,000 acres or 5 per cent above that necessary with average yields to produce a crop equal to the usual needs.
Then Doctor Wheeler, of the United States department of agriculture, states at page 81:
The wheat surplus producing countries of the world are raising more wheat than the importing countries of the world are willing to take. That is the essence of the world wheat problem.
Those statements show clearly that not only have we a surplus but that under normal crop conditions and yields that surplus will continue to grow. The reason why such a condition exists is put forward very clearly by Doctor Wheeler at page 82 of the report. He states:
In the 1920's the exporting countries were producing on the average around 750,000,000 bushels of wheat for export. The importing countries were prepared on the average to take this much, or more, wheat at what would seem now to be fairly high prices. In the present crop year the wheat exporting countries of the world will produce something over 900,000,000

Cooperative Wheat Marketing
bushels of wheat for export, but in the meantime the requirements of the importing countries have fallen around 550,000,000 bushels. In other words, while exporting countries have increased the available supplies by 150,000,000 bushels annually, in years of ordinary weather, the world import requirements have fallen by at least 200,000,000 bushels a year.
Then on page 89 he sums up the situation as follows:
That is the picture of European wheat imports as I see it. My conclusion is that exporting countries cannot count upon a return to the level of the 1920's in the European or in the world import requirements for wheat. If this is the correct picture of the situation it is important to consider it with respect to available present and future surplus supplies of wheat in the exporting countries. That subject does not fall within the scope of the present discussion, but I should like to suggest, on the basis of considerable study of the matter, that the present wheat acreage of the exporting countries will in years of ordinary weather conditions, such as 1938, produce at least
250,000,000 bushels more than the importing countries are prepared to take. With the maintenance of the acreage in the exporting countries anywhere near the level of 1938, the only thing that could prevent such excessive production would be the kind of droughts over extensive areas that occurred in North America in the period from 1933 to 1937.
It is interesting to note that the condition is becoming further aggravated in the European countries. I noticed in the Evening Citizen of yesterday the following statement reported from London:
Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith, minister of agriculture, announced in the house a bonus scheme to bring 250,000 acres of pasture land into production. A bonus of two pounds ($9.35) an acre will be paid for grass land ploughed under in 1939. The idea behind the bonus scheme is to increase the arable land of the country so that in war time it could be used to grow food.
This is not a very bright picture from the point of view of the grower, and I do not believe that there is before the house at the present time or on the order paper one bill which will deal adequately with this situation. I say that in spite of the flood of bills which we have before us at this time.
During the years of the drought the minister and the members of the government were continually stressing the fact that our main problem in western Canada was one of drought. Now that the drought is gradually coming to an end we are told that our main problem is a surplus of wheat. When we are growing an abundance of wheat the problem is a surplus, and when there is a light crop of wheat the problem is drought. It seems strange that this government cannot introduce a policy that will deal satisfactorily with normal conditions.
IMr. Quelch.] .


An hon. MEMBER:: Will you tell them how to make it rain.


Victor Quelch: The problem is not a lack of rain. The fact is that we are growing more wheat than the government knows what to do with. Does anybody advocate that we should pray for a drought in order to do away with our wheat problem? It seems that the attitude of the government is that they can deal satisfactorily with our problems only in times of scarcity, but in times of abundance they are bogged down in confusion. The proposal seems to be to allow the price of wheat to fall to the lowest figure in the history of the world, at least in the past forty-nine years with two exceptions. It is true the government had a slight change of heart and now they intend to raise the price to 70 cents a bushel, although this measure allows only GO cents. But the minister will boast nevertheless that under his policy wheat will be allowed to go to the lowest figure in forty-nine years with one or two exceptions. I fancy that is intended chiefly to satisfy the people of eastern Canada, because I cannot understand how the people of the west would be pleased to be told that the guaranteed price proposed will be the lowest in the history of Canada in the past forty-nine years except for two years. It is strange that the minister should broadcast that fact in western Canada. Perhaps he thinks the vote he will get in eastern Canada will more than compensate for the loss of the votes in the west. Someone suggests that the government have lost all support in the west already and I am inclined to agree with that.
Other exporting nations of the world to-day are taking steps to bonus agriculture. In the United States there is a subsidy of 30 cents; in Australia, by monetary action, they have raised the price of wheat by around 15 cents; and of course in England and the European countries they are carrying on an extensive system of subsidies. Apparently the only reason that can be given the house by the minister and the government is that we cannot afford to pay 80 cents. We do not hesitate to entertain a monetary policy that costs the western grain growers in the neighbourhood of $47,000,000 a year; we do not hesitate to maintain a tariff policy that costs western Canada about $55,000,000 a year, nor do we hesitate to subsidize Canadian National bondholders to the extent of $43,000,000, although that means maintaining high freight rates. But when it comes to guaranteeing western agriculture a price equal to the cost of production, then we begin to hear a howl that we cannot afford it.

Cooperative Wheat Marketing
Let me say that just so long as the farmers of western Canada are compelled to pay highly protected prices for practically all the commodities they have to buy, there is every justification for their demanding a protected price for those commodities which they have to sell, and no question of discrimination can arise. I would say that Canada will have to find ways and means of affording it if confederation is to remain an actuality. The only reason why we cannot afford to take care of agriculture adequately is that we are refusing to discard the discredited policies of the past. We allow the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) to sabotage industry by a cruel, barbaric, deflationary policy, sowing the seeds of dissension from one end of the country to the other.
There are on the order paper at the present time no bills to deal adequately with the problem. It is true that a guaranteed price equal to the cost of production will not solve the problem. I stressed that fact when I spoke in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It is not a solution, but it is a step that will have to be taken until a solution is found.
What is the major wheat problem? The problem is that we are producing a commodity that is surplus to world requirements, and the only way in which we shall be able to solve that problem permanently is to take over complete control of the buying and selling of wheat. That necessarily entails international cooperation. I stressed that fact in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
The four major exporting nations supply about 86 per cent of the imports of wheat, and I would urge that Canada adopt an aggressive policy to try to bring about international cooperation. We heard in the house the other day that a conference was being held, but I believe it has broken down. I trust that before the discussion is over we shall receive from the minister a statement indicating how that conference came into being and what instructions were given to our delegates with respect to their participation therein. Were they instructed, for instance, to explore every means by which it would be possible to control exports of wheat from the various nations in an endeavour to stabilize prices at a higher level? I hope the minister will deal with that point before this legislation is finally dealt with.
In the past, I know, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has taken the position that it is up to the United States rather than Canada to initiate an aggressive policy of international cooperation. But it is a far
greater problem so far as Canada is concerned. It affects Canada more vitally than it does the United States. The United States exports approximately only 9-8 per cent of its wheat, whereas we export over 60 per cent of ours, and already the United States has given the lead by bringing about a reduction in acreage. It seems strange that in this country we always have to wait for some other nation to give the lead. We depended on the United States to lead us out of the depression by means of monetary action, and now they are taking the lead by bringing about a reduction of acreage.


John Gordon Ross: Is the hon. member in favour of that?


Victor Quelch: In the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne I emphasized the desirability of controlling exports. I said that we should follow the advice of Dean Kirk and take marginal lands out of production, which would help to reduce acreage. Let me quote what Dean Kirk says at page 209.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Suppose other countries will not cooperate?


Victor Quelch: All one can hope to do is to have a conference and work to that end. One cannot force any nation to do it, but it will never be accomplished until an aggressive policy is carried out.


James Garfield Gardiner: Under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act we are taking out some marginal lands.


Victor Quelch: But at the rate at which this government is doing it, agriculture will be completely bankrupt before a solution is found. Moreover, the discriminatory attitude of the government towards Alberta is adversely affecting that province.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why do they not cooperate?


Victor Quelch: It takes two to cooperate. Let me now quote the views of Dean Kirk, from the proceedings of the western farm products conference. At page 209, dealing with this same subject, he says:
From looking at the wheat markets I would not be surprised if in the next two or three years we are not compelled to take out of cultivation a good deal of land, say one million to three million acres. That is quite a possibility, and I believe even if it were unnecessary to reduce wheat acreage it would be advisable to take out a fair amount of the poorer lands, particularly lands subject to drifting, and gradually such grass lands scattered about on different farms would provide feed reserves which are now much needed. Eventually, after four or five years, they would have some effect
Cooperative Wheat Marketing

on the price of live stock; but so far as I can see our future markets for additional live stock are quite as promising as our future markets for surplus wheat.
I have repeatedly stressed in the house the need for adopting a more aggressive policy in the drought areas. In the permanent drought areas I would say there are two alternatives possible, either to enlarge the farm unit or put in irrigation. To suggest that we can ever go back to the half section farm in the drought areas is rank nonsense.
To deal adequately with this problem we must have a 100 per cent wheat board. I am convinced that the majority of the farmers, if given a chance to express themselves, would be in favour of that. It is all very well to say that when the voluntary wheat board operated, many farmers sold their wheat outside it; that is true, I did so myself. That is only natural when the outside price is higher than the guaranteed price. But many of the farmers who did that will say they are in favour of a 100 per cent wheat marketing board.
Therefore we urge that sections 9, 10, 11, 14 and 16 of the act be proclaimed. And we in this group feel that this bill could very well be dispensed with; that everything that can or would be accomplished by this bill can be accomplished by the continuation of the wheat board, and that action in itself will greatly help to restore the confidence of the people of western Canada in the future.


Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: I do not intend to make any extended remarks at this time, because the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has covered the subject very well, and other hon. members who have spoken since have expressed the views I had in mind. The statement of the minister this afternoon that this bill would be put on the statute book without any immediate idea of its being proclaimed would rather give the impression that this is perhaps not regarded as a very important bill and that we ought to pass it by and get on with more important legislation. To my mind, however, it is most important, if we consider what it is based upon. This bill undoubtedly envisages the elimination of the wheat board. May I remind the house that this is what the minister said on February 16, as reported at page 1037 of Hansard, when he first outlined the wheat policy of this government-


Walter Edward Foster: I do not think the hon. member may refer to a previous debate.
{Mr. Quelch.l


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It refers to the same subject, but it was not in a debate, it was on the estimates. He said:
Realizing that the present legislation-
He was talking about the Wheat Board Act of 1935 and subsequent amendments-
-does not oiler a solution for our marketing problems and does not provide a means of dealing equitably with the difficulties which stand in the way of home building on the prairies, we intend to introduce legislation which will carry out as far as possible the recommendations of the Turgeon commission, which were:
First, that the government should remain out of the grain trade and our wheat should be marketed by means of the futures market system.
Second, that the grain exchange should be placed under proper supervision.
Third, that encouragement be given to the creation of cooperative marketing associations or pools.
It is the first to which I wish to call attention. While the minister has skated round it and hinted at it, the fact remains that, while the bill may not be proclaimed this year, it is setting up the framework of what the government proposes shall take the place of the present wheat board. The wheat board will either be eliminated, if the government think conditions warrant such action, or be made inoperative as it was in 1936-37. There is no use thinking that the two schemes can operate side by side. If the wheat board is there, willing to pay a fixed price of 70 cents, and also give participation certificates which will enable the farmer to derive benefit from any increase in price, he is certainly not going to sell to any association of pools at an initial price of 60 cents. This legislation is clearly the government's alternative policy to a 100 per cent pool or even the type of pool that we have at the present time.
For that reason I must certainly oppose this measure. This is a fundamental issue. Perhaps the government would have been further ahead had they clearly said that the wheat board is no longer to be part of a permanent policy, but is to be used this year under difficult circumstances and to be eliminated as soon as possible and replaced by the type of system outlined in this bill.


Mr. EVANS:: Is the hon. member against cooperative marketing?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I certainly am not, but I am very much against a system which is called cooperative marketing but is not cooperative marketing, and which will supplant the only thing we have had which has come reasonably close to cooperative marketing.

Cooperative Wheat Marketing


Charles Robert Evans: That is only the hon. member's idea.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I point out further, as the minister himself said this afternoon, that it is not required under the legislation that there shall be one central selling agency; it will be possible to have a number of cooperatives or associations or pools each with a different selling agency. The minister envisages a time when they might finally centralize in one selling agency, but after the putting into operation of this bill there will probably be a great number of selling agencies all in competition with each other, with most disastrous results in terms of price and of the standard of living of the people.
While this may be called a bill to encourage cooperatives-although I think it is more likely to discourage them-certainly it will not encourage producers' cooperatives. I cannot see much coming from any cooperative in which groups of line elevator companies are included. I cannot envisage some of the large grain dealers and elevator companies listed this afternoon by the Minister of Agriculture contributing very much over a long period to cooperation. I do not think the minister needed to travel all this long roundabout road to deal with the problem which he mentioned on February 16. He pointed out very properly that the present wheat legislation has not been equitable in its benefits; I think we all agree with that. But instead of throwing it away for something that is not nearly as good, we would much better have kept the wheat board with a fixed minimum price and participation certificates, and enacted legislation giving proper crop insurance to take care of those people who, because they had no crops, did not benefit under the Wheat Board Act. Early in the session a resolution favouring crop insurance was moved by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. McDonald) and passed by the house. I think most hon. members favour some type of crop insurance. These two projects together, the Wheat Board Act to take care of the man who has a crop, and a crop insurance scheme to take care of the man who has none, would have levelled out any inequalities. But this bill envisages throwing out the Wheat Board Act, which has perhaps done more to guarantee some measure of stability in western Canada than any other single agency in a good many years.
There is one other matter, which comes under Bill No. 89, but I do not want to take part in the discussion at that time. It seems to me that for products other than
wheat, rather than setting up these little associations and pools that are going to be difficult of operation and control from this distance, the government might well consider something similar to the natural products marketing legislation, with this difference, that there would be inserted a provision that it would become operative in each province only when that province passed enabling legislation. Legislation is already in operation in British Columbia, New Brunswick and I believe another province-


James Garfield Gardiner: Six provinces.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It seems to me that it would not be very difficult, in view of the experience the minister has gained in the last few years, to draft a federal bill which would enable the respective provinces to fit into a gigantic cooperative scheme right across Canada that would respect the rights of both federal and provincial governments. I think that could be done, and I believe it would be very much better than trying to set up these associations and pools, which, in my opinion, will not only be unworkable but at the same time be so numerous and so lacking in uniformity as to be almost impossible of operation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Is there any particular
reason for limiting an elevator company for the purposes of this bill, in paragraph (d), to a company operating or controlling 100 or more country elevators?


James Garfield Gardiner: The main reason has been given by almost every speaker who has taken the other side of the question. The suggestion has been made that there is an argument against having too many pools, and this provision does limit that number to fifteen, plus any others that may be organized into groups of at least 100. This could result in the formation of something like twenty pools. That would be the limit. If there were no provision of this kind there might be 153 pools.


Ernest Edward Perley: Has the minister had any representation made to him in regard to discrimination against two or three firms at the head of the lakes and other private elevator interests which will not come under the bill?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I had a letter,
probably from the same company to which
Cooperative Wheat Marketing

the hon. member refers, the Fort William Terminal Elevator Company or some such name, suggesting that they might find it difficult to operate under the bill. I had the fullest possible inquiries made, and the opinion is that they could operate under this bill. I do not think there would be any great difficulty about entering into an agreement provided they could get their commission men organized to operate under a bill of this kind. The main difficulty would be a practical one. If a farmer pools his wheat he can have it all handled through the elevator. If he deals with a commission house, in all probability he would load over the platform. I can hardly conceive that any considerable number of farmers would want to shovel their wheat out of a wagon into a car and also back into the ends of the car in preference to putting it through an elevator under a pooling arrangement. I think those who do pool will put it through an elevator.


Ernest Edward Perley: What about the private
elevator operator? There is one at Pense, as the minister knows, another at Estevan and another at Wolseley. What is going to happen to these small fellows?


James Garfield Gardiner: They would operate
exactly as they did when the pools were in existence, Then they had an agreement with the central selling agency whereby they took delivery of the wheat of any farmer and delivered it to the pools. They would do the same under this legislation.


Ernest Edward Perley: They could deliver it to any of these companies?


James Garfield Gardiner: To any of the pools. They would make an arrangement with one pool and would deliver grain to that particular pool.


Mr. HAYHURST:: Is it the intention of the government to retain the wheat board as the central selling agency of these pools?


James Garfield Gardiner: The wheat board, of course, is operating as a central selling agency now for all those who delivered under the wheat board method of marketing. Our experience during the years we have had the wheat board has been that there is very little delivery, if any, when the price is above the initial payment, probably for the reason given a few moments ago by the desk-mate of the hon. member, that the individual himself feels he does not really want to pool. I can hardly conceive of that individual entering into this pooling arrangement. If a man is not convinced that he can get better 
results over a term of years out of pooling than by following another method, he is not likely to continue to pool his grain.


Victor Quelch: What benefit could you
get under the pooling arrangement that you could not get under the wheat board? In both instances you receive an initial payment and then the balance on the average over the year. I cannot see any advantage in this method.


James Garfield Gardiner: Except that under this legislation you can get an organization similar to the pool you had previously. You can have a contract pool, but with the present wheat board you cannot have that.


Victor Quelch: But surely the minister
will agree that when the government is guaranteeing a payment of only 60 cents, which means about 37 cents to the farmers, they cannot afford to pool their wheat. With all their expenses they cannot wait until the following spring for the balance. Whether or not they want to join such a pool they will not be able to do so under such a low guarantee.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course a man does not enter into a cooperative arrangement of this kind unless he is completely sold on the idea and feels that over a term of years he is going to make more money by this method. While there may be some truth in what the hon. member says, I think he will agree that my original statement was in accordance with the facts. That is, a man can put wheat in the ground and take it off again at the prices that have been discussed here. He cannot, of course, build up a home and continue existing year after year at that level, but he can pay the cost of putting the grain in the ground and threshing it.


Victor Quelch: Provided be has not to pay for any machinery.


James Garfield Gardiner: He pays for his
machinery in years when he makes some profit on his crop.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This discussion has to do with section 2, but if I may be permitted I should like to ask a question in regard to section 3. From the question asked a moment ago I gather that the hon. member takes it that there is really a guaranteed price of 60 cents. That is not so under section 3. Does it not say there that it will be done by agreement, that the initial payment may not exceed 60 cents but may be less? I think that is a point which should be made perfectly clear.

Cooperative Wheat Marketing
Another question I should like to ask the minister is this:	The average sale price is
to be fixed in a manner to be prescribed by regulation; that is, the determination of what is the average sale price will be carried on in a manner to be determined by regulation. Does that mean by regulation as it is interpreted in a subsequent clause, by the government by order in council, or does it mean by a regulation of the pool itself?


James Garfield Gardiner: Regulation by order in council.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Should not the principles
upon which that average price may be determined be set forth in the bill? As it is, it leaves wide open the matter of what will constitute an average price. Let me illustrate what I mean in a few words, if I may, because I do not wish to detain the committee. We will say that an initial price of 60 cents has been paid, less, of course, all charges including freight, commission to the agency and so on. In the first few months, as the minister intimated, there may be a drop, which is likely to be the case when the flush delivery comes on the market. Later on, in November, December, January or thereabouts, the price may rise. It is quite competent under subsection 2 of section 3 for those in charge to say that the man who delivers in the early part of the season shall not participate to the extent to which the person who delivers when prices are higher may participate. There is nothing to hinder them from determining that the principle which will fix the average price shall be on a dual basis. Some would participate on a scale fixed on a lower price, and some would participate on a scale fixed on a higher price; the whole matter would then become most confused, and a most discordant note would be introduced.
The section provides the decision of the minister shall be final, which, I should say, places the minister in a most unfair and awkward position. It would be much better if we could introduce into section 3 some principle similar to that which was worked under the old wheat board, where participation certificates were given. That is a principle which is known, which has operated and which has been accepted. That would be better than leaving the matter open, because one pool may have one form and another a different one. All of this is under agreement between the pools and the minister, and there is no determining principle in the measure to guide the minister or to indicate to the pools what their rights may be. That is the point I am trying to emphasize.


James Garfield Gardiner: Would the hon. member leave the discussion of that until we reach section 3?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I thought we were on
section 3.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Initial payments paid to selling agencies.
James Garfield Gardiner: Section 3 reads in part:
(1) The minister may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, by agreement with any selling agency, undertake that if the average sale price of all wheat of any grade grown in a crop year delivered to the selling agency under one or more cooperative plans is less than a sum certain per bushel-
I would point out that the average sale price comes into that determination and, as the hon. member for Kootenay East knows, there are many grades of wheat. Speaking from memory, I believe there are forty-two different grades. Of course 60 cents is taken as the figure with which you start, but the sum certain for any particular grade is figured from that average. These questions with regard to regulation have to do largely with that matter, namely the matter of determining the relationship between 60 cents and the price of some other grade. Someone has to have the final say in a matter of that kind as to whether or not a company has kept the agreement, and the bill provides the minister shall have that final say.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister has missed my point. My point is that the question of an average price was the gravamen of this section. What is the average price? From this bill, when it becomes law, no one can tell.


James Garfield Gardiner: They have to show from their accounts what the average sale price was.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister says that, but the bill does not say it. Subsection 2 reads:
(2) The average sale price shall, for the purposes of this section, be computed after the sale prices realized by the selling agency have been adjusted, in a manner to be prescribed by regulation-
"In a manner to be prescribed by regulation," not "in a manner that is computed on the actuarial determination of price disclosed in the accounts of the company or pool." It does not say that. No principle is indicated. In my opinion, it leaves it in a confused and open condition.
Cooperative Wheat Marketing


James Garfield Gardiner: I would point out, only in arguing the point, of course, that it states:
The average sale price shall, for the purpose of this section, be computed after the sale prices realized by the selling agency have been adjusted-


Henry Herbert Stevens: All right; it is all right to that point.


James Garfield Gardiner: And it continues:
-in a manner to be prescribed by regulation. . . .


Henry Herbert Stevens: Exactly.


James Garfield Gardiner: And the regulation will simply set up the method by which that adjustment is to be made.


Henry Herbert Stevens: True; but what method?


James Garfield Gardiner: "As if the wheat had been sold in store at Fort William." Some of that wheat may go to Vancouver, or some of it may go to a mill at another point. This section simply says that the value at that particular point shall be computed in relation to shipments of similar amounts of similar grain to Fort William. That cannot be put into legislation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, I will not labour the point, but I submit that it is not dealt with in that way.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the intention of it, and that is the way in which it was previously dealt with in the pools.


William Hayhurst: In section 3, proceeding from the point where the hon. member for Kootenay East left off I read:
. . . there shall be paid to such selling agency the amount, if any, by which the initial payment together with storage, carrying and transportation charges and operating expenses exceeds the average sale price aforesaid.
My question is this: In the event of the wheat price going down and the farmer receiving the initial payment, who would pay the storage charges?


James Garfield Gardiner: It would be involved in the initial guarantee.


Mr. SPENCE:: Who pays everything?


Charles Edward Johnston: But the initial guarantee may possibly be less than 60 cents.


James Garfield Gardiner: It may be less to the individual farmer. That is, the initial starting point may not be 60 cents.


Charles Edward Johnston: What price would he get, then? The farmer should know
that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I believe I dealt with that point when discussing the bill previously. However, from the experience of the pools it would work out about this way, that in the average year there would be about three cents required to take care of operating and storage costs. In one year of the operation of the pools the costs ran to about five cents. It is possible that if pools were starting to operate again under this bill, and if they started in a year like this they could start at only 55 cents, instead of 60 cents. Our hope is that when the bill comes into operation we shall be in a more favourable year than the present one. The wheat board is operating this year, in the manner in which it is, because of the emergency that exists. If we come to a time when people generally think an emergency does not require further operation of that kind, this bill might come into effect to cover a large percentage of the crop. Under those circumstances I would hope it would come into effect in a year when the price was much better than it is to-day, in which event, under this measure, we would enter into an agreement with a company to set up a reserve, which would make possible the payment of the full 60 cents. Instead of providing two or three cents or five cents below, they would provide a reserve above 60 cents, and that reserve would take care of carrying charges.


Charles Edward Johnston: Until that reserve is built up, the farmer will receive 60 cents, minus handling, storage and transportation charges?


James Garfield Gardiner: He would have to, if it was set up in a year like this.


Charles Edward Johnston: Then it would be considerably less.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


William Hayhurst: Is there no possibility of increasing the minimum price of sixty cents? A price increase has already been made in the bill of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have here a resolution from the Alberta board of trade and agriculture, one paragraph of which reads:
If economic forces throughout the world were allowed free play, low grain prices would drive a large percentage of the producers in marginal areas in certain countries into other pursuits. Thus the present burdensome surplus would disappear. But no hope of any such natural adjustment may be entertained until competing countries discontinue subsidization.

Cooperative Wheat Marketing
That means, of course, countries like Britain and Germany, and as regards Britain the hon. member for Acadia mentioned this afternoon that 250,000 acres of grass lands would be cultivated there this year. We realize that substitutes are largely taking the place of many of the food products we produce, and others are subsidized in different countries. It must be remembered that our western grain growers have no other means of livelihood open to them than agriculture, and it is necessary to have some price fixed for wheat. It does seem to me that 60 cents is too low. If it could be raised to 70 cents I would appreciate this legislation more.


James Garfield Gardiner: On the second reading of the bill I tried to explain as fully as possible why it would not be advisable to set the advance higher than 60 cents in a bill of this kind, the chief reason being that we have already had experience in trying to maintain under the pooling system an initial payment that was at a level higher than the world price happened to be for the time being. We had that experience in 1929 and 1930, and it resulted in a loss of somewhere between 24 and 25 million dollars on wheat and coarse grains to the three western pools.
" I said this afternoon that I thought it would be agreed by all those who were interested in the pools at the time that the main reason for their difficulties was that they were not able to reduce their advance payment as rapidly as the world market price was falling. I think, too, it will be agreed by all those who have had experience with the pools that if they were to start to operate again they should operate from a price base as safe as one can make an advance payment of this kind. I read this afternoon from the opinion of the board of the largest of the three pools, the Saskatchewan pool, to the effect that while they are not prepared at the moment to say that they agree to 60 cents they are not asking us at this time to increase the 60 cents fixed by this bill. I think it would be wise to put the bill through the house with the price left as it is, and to have the bill discussed on that basis. There are some chances that the bill might operate in relation to the marketing of a portion of the crop this year, but that is not likely with the situation as it is now, and parliament may be in session again before the bill gets into operation. I think it would be well that the bill should go through with the 60 cents standing as it is, and if there is a real desire in western Canada to open up the pools we can discuss the matter from the point of view of a price that is absolutely safe from the point of view of the pools themselves.


Mr. NEEDHAM:: I should like the minister to explain the real object in putting the bill through at this session. He told us this afternoon that the legislation was not likely to operate this year, that the wheat board would continue, and he hoped that the market price would be higher before the bill was proclaimed. It may be several yeare before that happens, and I am wondering why the bill should be pressed through at this session.


James Garfield Gardiner: If it is several years
before the price goes higher we shall need to put many more things than this bill through the house, but our experience over the yeare would indicate that the price has been very close to the bottom this year.


Ernest Edward Perley: Does the minister not
think that the board could take care of the situation just as effectively as the associations or pools proposed to be set up under this bill?


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course there is a
considerable opinion in the western part of Canada, I do not say a majority opinion but a considerable opinion, that some agency, which is not of necessity controlled from the central parliament of Canada, should eventually be set up to handle the marketing of the grain of the three western provinces. The reason for that is that about 25 per cent of the population of Canada are involved in the production of western wheat, and it is difficult, except under emergent conditions, to handle, from the central government of Canada, an organization which would be at all times satisfactory to the people who are producing the crop. There are many who think we would be in a much better position so far as our grain is concerned-and the time may come when this will be the case-if we had an organization of producers from the area where the wheat is produced controlling the marketing of their own crop, and I consider a piece of legislation which makes that a possibility for the future is advisable.


Ernest Edward Perley: Is any provision made for a grain firm withdrawing from one of these associations? One firm may go with twenty others to form one of these associations, find it unsatisfactory and want to withdraw. Is provision made for that?


James Garfield Gardiner: That provision would
be in the agreement between the companies themselves. If they get down below one hundred they would not be able to operate under this bill, but if there were 125, the agreement among the companies would take care of the situation my hon. friend suggests.
Cooperative Wheat Marketing


Mr. FAIR:: The minister continually
stresses the 825,000,000 loss in 1929. But at the beginning of the 1929 crop year the price was close to $1.50 a bushel, and it was only the faulty administration of our banking and monetary systems that put the pools and other organizations in the position in which they found themselves a little later.


Victor Quelch: I am a little puzzled at the attitude of the minister on the question of price. Am I right in understanding that he takes the stand that the government would not be justified in setting a price which might entail a loss? In other words, he is opposed to giving the wheat growers a subsidy. The minister has referred to the loss which the wheat pools suffered, but I do not see how he can make such a comparison because the pools had no funds to draw upon. The government is in an entirely different position. Surely we realize that, on account of the fact that western Canada is suffering the penalties of monetary reaction, fiscal reaction and various other things, it is entitled to some form of compensation. Therefore I feel, and I think the government should feel, that the farmers of the west have a perfect right to a set price which may involve a loss to the government, simply to return to western Canada something equivalent to the cost of production.


James Garfield Gardiner: The government quite
agrees that some means has to be found of taking care of the difficulties which have resulted in western Canada from eight crop failures. In the past we have been taking care of that through the giving of relief and paying for that relief out of the treasury of Canada. We are providing, to an extent at least, in another piece of legislation which will come down in due course and will be discussed, for taking care of that problem. We are not attempting in this bill to take care of that problem. This bill is simply an attempt to set up the basis of a method of marketing wheat, and the attempt is being made to make that basis sound financially.


Victor Quelch: The minister will agree
that Bill No. 63 will not in any way affect this bill. If prices go down to 20 or 30 cents a bushel, neither of these other bills will help at all.


James Garfield Gardiner: If wheat went down to 20 or 30 cents a bushel and this particular bill was in operation, it would take care of those who marketed under it to the extent of 60 cents a bushel.


Victor Quelch: The street price would be
only about 37 cents if No. 1 at Fort William is 60 cents.


John Gordon Ross: My hon. friend
and other hon. members have said on two or three occasions that the average price would be 37 cents. They are gauging that because, they say, last year, with wheat on an 80-cent basis at Fort William it returned 57 cents to the farmer. But they surely know that if there had been no 80-cent basis this last year, the return to the farmer would not have been 37 cents, it would have been, at the lowest, 42 cents.


Victor Quelch: Why?


John Gordon Ross: Because the
average price never got below 65 cents for the year, and therefore the price to the farmer would be the 23 cents under that, of which he speaks. Even if there had been no set price this last year, the world market price which was reflected back into Canada was an average of about 65 cents, and under a board they would not have got any wheat at 60 cents.


Victor Quelch: That was because there
was a set price of 80 cents.


John Gordon Ross: Not at all. Why did it not stop above that, then?


Robert James Manion: If the committee would
allow me, I should like to ask a question with regard to section 2. I was unfortunately called out of the chamber.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Robert James Manion: As regards section 2, I
wrote to the minister, but I did not have a chance to ask him, about the definition of elevator companies. I believe that some explanation was made, but perhaps he could in two or three sentences explain to me the position with regard to such a company as the Fort William Elevator Company, which has no country elevators. He understands the case, I believe.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. That is a question, I believe, which was asked by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle with regard to the same company; I had just forgotten the name of it. I stated on that occasion that they wrote to me direct as well as to the leader of the opposition and apparently to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. I have had the matter examined into carefully with the intention, had it been necessary, of bringing down an amendment, but I am informed that it is not necessary, that under the cooperative acts of

Cooperative Wheat Marketing
the provinces it would be possible for these groups which are interested to set up an organization under the first definition of cooperative, under a cooperative plan, to operate if they desire to do so under this bill. There would, of course, have to be a number of them somewhat similar to the number of elevators before it would be acceptable, but they could operate in that way.
There is a practical difficulty in connection with the matter, and it is this, that most of the pooling is done through elevators. When a man drives into a country elevator he simply dumps his wagon load into the pit and that is all he has to do. If he deals through a commission man, very likely he has to load over a platform; if he loads from the platform he shovels his wheat with a scoop into the car, and then he gets into the car and shovels it back into the end of the car.


Ernest Edward Perley: Sometimes he gets better weight in that way.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, sometimes he gets better weight, or he thinks he gets a better price. But if he is going to pool his wheat along with 10,000 other farmers, and 9.999 of them put their wheat through the elevator, he will not go to that extra work of shoveling his wheat into a car in order to pool it along with the other fellow and take the same price. In other words, that practical difficulty would probably result in very little wheat being pooled over the platform. There may be some way of overcoming that. A commission man does not necessarily have to buy over the platform; he can have his wheat put through an elevator by paying the charges of putting it through.


Robert James Manion: The company seems to be afraid of being put out of business. Is it likely to be put out of business through this legislation?


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, no. There never was- at any time more than about 50 per cent of the wheat of western Canada handled through the pools, even when the pools were going at their strongest. I assume that this company was operating then-


Robert James Manion: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: -and probably got
wheat to the same extent as it gets it now. I think that if the pools were operating, at least half the wheat would probably be going through other channels.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Assuming that this bill is proclaimed and assuming that these cooperatives and pools are set up; what would be their relationship to the wheat board?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, of course the
wheat board might be constituted by agreement the central selling agency. So long as the wheat board was operating I assume it would be acceptable to all as the central selling agency.


Victor Quelch: It would cease to be a buying agency?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It would cease to take delivery of wheat?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, they would take delivery of pool wheat from these particular organizations. That is, that part of the wheat which went into an elevator to be pooled would be marketed by the wheat board; they would be the central selling agency.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But they would not take wheat direct from the producer and issue participation certificates as the act now provides?


James Garfield Gardiner: The position would be this, that in all probability wheat would be above the set advance. That is to say, the set advance now in the bill which the Minister of Trade and Commerce has introduced is 70 cents. If the price were 75 cents, then all the elevator companies would be buying grain and getting delivery of grain from farmers at 75 cents; but they would be open at the same time to take pooled grain; the pooled grain would go to the wheat board, and the farmers would get the advantages of the participation certificates which are provided for in the wheat board bill, just the same as they did previously from the wheat pool. In other words, there is nothing in this 'bill to prevent the wheat board from being established as the central selling agency and everybody who enters into a pooling arrangement sending his grain to that organization.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There is
nothing to guarantee it, though, in this bill?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, there is nothing to guarantee it; but there is nothing to prevent it, either.


Mr. MARSHALL:: Am I correct in assuming, from the remarks made by the minister a few minutes ago, that this bill will entirely eliminate the track buyer? The reason why I ask the question is that I have had some letters from track buyers, and they have that fear.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, this bill would not eliminate any grain dealer who can deal in grain now. It is purely a voluntary measure, and only farmers who desire to deal with the

Cooperative Wheat Marketing
pool would deliver to that particular organization; all others would deliver their grain just as they have been delivering it, to track buyers or anybody else.


Ernest Edward Perley: Would the minister indicate the date when we may expect that the average sale price will be arrived at and when there will be payments subsequent to the initial payment? I think some date should be fixed whereby the farmer will know when he may expect subsequent payments.


James Garfield Gardiner: The " crop year " means a period of twelve months commencing on the 16th day of July in any year and ending on the 15th day of July in the following year. These settlements would be made just as they were under the provincial pool legislation, in the middle of the month of July.


Ernest Edward Perley: One final payment?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. There is provision made that there may be an interim payment, with the consent of council, or more than one interim payment, and then a final payment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Let me come back to the question I was discussing with the minister. He suggested that the wheat board might become the central selling agency ?or these respective pools and cooperatives. If that were done-he does not give any guarantee that it will be done-while it would be in harmony with the statement he made earlier in the year in regard to the Turgeon commission's recommendation that the government should remain out of the grain business, I believe that most people in western Canada are anxious to know, and it would be fairer to all concerned if they were told, what the government has definitely in mind. Is the board merely to be held on to for another year because the situation is abnormal ; or is it to be kept in the background so that it may be resorted to and made operative in any year in which we are faced with a disastrous price drop; or is it to be eliminated altogether; or, as the minister has suggested, is it to become the central selling agency for these organizations-or, in other words, is the government going to remain partly in the business? The minister should make some statement with reference to the government's policy and the future operations of the wheat board.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is difficult on this
question as on many others to say very far in advance what government policy ought to be in relation to some particular features of the matter. In so far as the wheat board is concerned, it has been said on a number of

occasions that the board is necessary in order to deal with an emergent condition such as we have at present. That was stated a year ago and we continued the wheat board then. It has been stated again this year and we are continuing the wheat board for the handling of this year's crop. This particular piece of legislation which we are now putting on the statute books, as I have indicated on a number of occasions during these discussions, will probably not come into effect as long as the price remains at the level at which it has been during the last number of months. It is on the upgrade at the present time-it was 66 cents to-day-and there is a possibility that it may reach, some time during the next year, a level where all those interested, the producers and those who have been handling the grain by one method or another, might want, to sit down and discuss the question as to what would be the proper future policy with respect to the handling of our grain.
We have still in existence the wheat board under Bill No. 63. We have set up under this bill the possibilities of organization based upon the pooling idea, and there is, in the legislation which has been before the committee on agriculture during the past week or two, provision for the regulation of the grain trade as it has been operated since 1904. With all that legislation provided, along with the bill now before the committee, we shall be in a position to give every consideration necessary to the future handling policy for the marketing of wheat; and if it is considered wise by all those who enter into these discussions that the proper kind of selling agency to have is an agency operated under the direction of this government through the wheat board, then that possibility can be taken into account. On the other hand, if the western producers, because of the experience they have had with the whole handling of grain, feel that they would rather have some sort of central selling agency over which they will have absolute control as producers, then it will be possible to consider that point of view. But there are no possibilities that are headed off by the legislation before the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It does not seem fair to the idea of orderly marketing that the wheat board should be used only on a falling market and be discarded for some other form of marketing the moment we get on to a rising market. I do not think any argument has been advanced by the minister or the government to show why it would not be possible to continue the wheat board and to continue taking delivery of wheat. If a rising market is to be expected, all the better;

Cooperative Wheat Marketing
but there is no reason why, during the period that the price goes above the guaranteed price, a reserve could not be built up. Provision could be made so that instead of the participation certificates giving back to the farmers all that accrues to them, a part be given back and the rest used to build up a reserve, so that when the price begins to drop again we will have a wheat board that will not make too great a drain upon the dominion treasury, a board that will not bring orderly marketing into disrepute.
One of the things we have been most unfair about with regard to the wheat board is this: It has been given a black eye because it has been used only in bad times. If it were a permanent policy it would commend itself to the people of eastern Canada as well as to those of the west. The people of eastern Canada have a wrong impression of the wheat board because it has been used only in bad times. I think the minister should give us the reasons that impel the government to desert the idea of the wheat board as a permanent policy. I do not believe the minister would say now that it was inequitable because only the farmer who has a crop gets a return. The crop bonus scheme will take care of that, and it is good supplementary legislation. At any rate, it has not been explained why the board as a permanent policy should not be continued.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is really only one reason why the wheat board might not be continued as a permanent means of marketing the crop of western Canada, and that is exactly the same reason why the pool was not continued beyond 1930. I explained that this afternoon. The pool was not continued beyond 1930 because we as farmers, we as pool signers, insisted on such a high initial payment for our wheat in 1929 and 1930 that the world market would not pay that price, with the result that the wheat pools lost between $24,000,000 and $25,000,000. We have had a similar experience with the wheat board this last year. Everyone knows that no one was satisfied last year when the price of wheat was set at 80 cents. No one expressed immediate satisfaction with that in western Canada-at least very few did. There was just as much agitation for 87 cents or higher one year ago as there is now for 80 cents or higher, and the government set 80 cents, which was a reduction of 7J cents.
There is only one reason why there is agitation to-day for doing away with the wheat board as a means of marketing the crop, and that is the fact that they paid out, through that marketing, something in the neighbourhood of $48,000,000 more than they could have got during the same period for the wheat they took in. The dominion as a whole, eastern Canada and western Canada alike, has taken the position that it is not too much to pay $48,000,000 to western Canada this year in order to assist in reestablishing the wheat growing area of western Canada. But everyone outside western Canada, and most of those who live in the west, most of the farmers themselves, have criticized the fact that a large proportion of that $48,000,000 went to the people who needed it least in order to reestablish themselves, and the people who certainly needed it got very little or nothing of it. That has been the criticism.
In answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Weyburn I venture to say that no government would be permitted to carry on in this country very long which would set up that policy as a permanent method of dealing with marketing the wheat of western Canada. It is with a view to establishing a sounder basis for the marketing of the wheat of western Canada, a basis that will be acceptable to the western fanners themselves as a whole, that will be satisfactory to business people in general throughout Canada and acceptable to agricultural people in other parts of Canada, that we are attempting to set up something which is at least more sound than the method followed last year.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Is it not a fact that if the price of wheat is set by the Minister of Trade and Commerce at 70 cents, as proposed, if in October it goes up two or three cents, gets over 70 cents, the board will get no wheat so far as this year's crop is concerned [DOT] it might just as well go out of existence? The only way whereby you could get the farmers of western Canada to deliver their wheat to the board would be by regimentation and compulsion.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, that has been the experience up to date. It is not the fact that the government, whether this or any past government, has a particular line of policy that brings about the delivery of wheat to the board; it is the attitude of the farmer himself. When the previous government brought in their grain board legislation in 1935 they made delivery compulsory, and they met with some opposition in trying to put the compulsory measure through this house. When the bill finally went through it was made voluntary, with a set price and the provision that the government take the loss on sales below that price, and participation certificates issued for any surplus above that price. The government gets no wheat unless the market price
Cooperative Wheat Marketing

is below the established minimum or established advance. In this year, when the market price has 'been continuously below the advance price, the government gets all the wheat, which puts all other parts of the grain trade out of existence. But in a year like last year when the average price was $1.31, even had the government taken no action at all the wheat board would not have got any wheat, they would have been sitting on the side lines. It goes without saying, I think, that this house would not be satisfied with setting up and paying for two sets of organizations in Canada to handle grain, only one of which functions. We should have some system which at least gives the farmer when he comes to the elevator a choice to say what he wants to do.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What the minister says now pretty well contradicts what he said this afternoon. He pointed out then that often the farmer goes to the elevator, decides he does not want to sell his wheat, but gets an advance on it. Here is the very same thing.


John Gordon Ross: No.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon.
member does not even wait to hear what I am going to say.


John Gordon Ross: You say it is the same thing; I say no.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon.
member comes from a farming community; no doubt we shall all be glad to hear what he has to say later, without his interrupting someone else.
There is no guarantee that because the price is higher than the fixed minimum the farmers will not deliver their wheat to the pool. As a matter of fact, many will do just what the minister said this afternoon; knowing that through their participation certificates they will benefit from any further rise of price many of them will be quite willing to deliver their wheat if the price is at all reasonable.


Mr. McNEVIN:: Is not the experience
exactly the opposite?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No; they will wait and take whatever profit there may be on the participation certificates. If that is not true the whole purpose of this pool bill is removed. These people want to get 60 cents from the pool or cooperative and then take any other benefit that comes along. The same will be true under the wheat board.
The minister says that the main reason for not carrying on the wheat board as a permanent policy is the same reason that

caused the wheat pool to stop in 1929, and points to the loss last fall, which he puts at $48,000,000, although the Minister of Finance provided for only $25,000,000. I do not think any person can say the loss is $48,000,000, because that wheat has not yet been disposed of. Just now the market looks promising.


James Garfield Gardiner: Even if it is $25,000,-
000 the same argument applies.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, there
may be a loss. But had the wheat board been allowed to operate in 1936 and 1937 there might have been a profit; and they might have had a reserve fund to meet this loss.
The next thing the minister gives as a reason is that this $25,000,000 to $48,000,000 went to the wrong people, those who needed it least. There the minister is confusing two things. You cannot confuse relief for people who have no crop with marketing assistance for people who have a crop. When the minister's acreage bonus plan comes down, then we shall be talking about relief, but now we are dealing with marketing. You cannot expect a man who has a crop to produce for less than cost in order to do something for the man who has no crop. I still contend that, as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle said this afternoon, all the things the minister has said that we want to do we can do under the Wheat Board Act and do much better than under this bill.


William Daum Euler: Might I make a suggestion?
I do not know that this is the time to discuss the Wheat Board Act, but my hon. friend has been continually asking why the wheat board should not be continued as a permanent institution. One answer that I would give to that is that it was inaugurated by the former government in the first place to deal with an emergency. I do not think it was ever intended for anything else.


Ernest Edward Perley: It was intended as a permanent thing.


William Daum Euler: I disagree with my hon.
friend. Then a royal commission was appointed to make a report on the whole situation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: By this government.


William Daum Euler: Yes, by this government.
That commission reported and recommended that the government get out of the wheat business and encourage the formation of pools, which is what is being provided for by the legislation introduced by my colleague.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is not
a reason for the government doing it.

35S3
Cooperative Wheat Marketing


William Daum Euler: 1 should think that is a
very good reason.


Thomas Langton Church: I intended to speak on
the principle of this bill on second reading, but I was told by the whip that we should have an opportunity in committee. I wished to raise the principle of section 3 before Easter, when the minister spoke for two and three quarter hours and then moved the adjournment of the debate so that no opposition could be presented.
In my opinion, under section 3, initial payments paid to selling agencies, and the decision of the minister to be final, this is nothing from beginning to end but a political bill. I do not wish to delay the close of the session, I should like to see it closed before the king comes. But the opposition should have proper opportunity to present their views, and I wish to present my views for a few minutes, because ever since I came to the house in 1921 I have taken an interest in and made a study of the grain growing industry. I helped a great newspaper to spend a large sum of money for a survey on the prairies to find out the facts about this industry.
So far as I am concerned I am absolutely opposed to the principle of the bill as set out in the explanatory note. The explanatory note has to be read along with section 3. One notes from the last section that the bill is to come into force on a date to be fixed by proclamation. In other words, this is simply the first of a series of Santa Claus bills. Before Easter the minister said these bills could be read together and we could present our views in opposition to all the bills at the one time. I do not wish to delay the committee, but I believe the principles underlying all these bills are entirely wrong. Hon. gentlemen opposite condemned the late leader of the party to which I belong in connection with his wheat policy, although he knew more about the grain industry than the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and all his staff put together. Mr. Bennett utilized the credit of the whole country to hedge the grain and saved the country from bankruptcy at a critical time, which I believe was far better than the minister's half-baked schemes.
Last night the hon. member for Parry Sound referred to the "old gang." Well, Mr. Chairman, I could tell him something about the old free trade grain gang, both within and without this house that ran the grain business on the prairies-the free traders and their allies. That old gang is still in business; some of them have been canvassing and lobbying me for the past four weeks here in connection
with these bills. The minister was a free trader on the prairies, but now he is the most advanced protectionist in the country. He wants to give this industry more protection than it is given in any other country to-day. I agree that it is in the interests of the whole country to have agreement in regard to this great national industry, because, after all, the grain business is linked up with the railway business and the railway and banking problems. Hon. members to my left said they hoped to get some of our foreign markets back. Let me say to them they will never be able to do that, or get back what we lost. 1 do not wish to be unfair to the minister, who has a hard proposition to handle, but he is proceeding on the wrong basis.
Hon. gentlemen opposite condemned the late leader of this party for issuing blank cheques. What is this but a blank cheque? And then we give the minister power to bring the bill into force by proclamation. What is the wheat policy of this government? No one knows; it is here to-day and gone to-morrow, a policy of fits and starts and nothing long. Where is the money to come from to pay for this pegging, these bonuses, subventions and subsidies? It will come from the industrial workers of the two central provinces who compose over 50 per cent of the population of this country. Their income and sales taxes will pay for this bonus for one section of the country at the expense of others.
It is said that this legislation is being brought in to implement one of the recommendations contained in the Turgeon report, but it goes much further and deals with matters not mentioned in the report at all. Why was not section 3 of this bill referred to the law courts? This is a form of insurance, as are all these bonuses, subventions and all that sort of thing. The government asks the industrial workers to wait until the report of the Rowell commission is presented. The 'briefs presented to that commission by the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta all made reference to the very subject matter of this grain bonus legislation. If it was a good thing that the industrial workers, 51 per cent of our population, who have to pay the shot for this sort of thing, should be asked to wait for the report of the Rowell commission, why should it not be a good thing also to ask those engaged in agriculture to wait for the same thing?
When first I came into the house I introduced resolutions dealing with this very question of aid to agriculture, but at that time members from the west believed in free trade and the law of supply and demand. Now,
Cooperative Wheat Marketing

however, they have dropped that; now they want stabilization, bonuses, pegging and so on. In my opinion there is another way of meeting the situation, along the lines suggested by Mr. Bennett. I believe it would be far better and it would cost less and be a long range policy to nationalize agriculture than to have the system now proposed, which the Minister of Finance says will cost the country $25,000,000. I believe it will cost from $50,000,000 to $75,000,000, or if such an emergency as war should arise the cost may run to $100,000,000. The chief difficulty, as I see it, is to find a way to handle crops like wheat and com, of which we produce far more than we can consume under existing conditions. The obvious remedy, of course, is to increase the purchasing powers of the industrial workers to the point where they can consume more of our agriculture produce. Pending that happy day, however, the administration has a right to ask the farmers to assist by curtailing the production of those crops which cause most of the trouble. Why would it not be a good idea for the government to authorize definite steps along these lines:
1.	Buy directly from the farmer the wheat and corn needed for the domestic market at an adequate price, giving each farmer his proportion based on what he has been producing in recent years.
2.	Close the grain and cotton exchange and forbid all speculation in the necessities of life.
3.	Require millers, cotton manufacturers and other processors to buy what they need from the government.
4.	Permit the farmer who desires to produce more than his quota to sell his surplus in any market outside Canada. The government might even assist in forming cooperatives to facilitate such marketing, but it should not assume responsibility for the price received.
I realize, of course, that the farmer has the right to demand from the rest of us a fair reward for producing those things which we must have if we are to live. He should get that price, and no chiseling middleman or speculator should be allowed to deprive him of any part of it. The only way to assure that result is for Canada to do the entire job, from start to finish. If the farmer insists on producing more than is needed in this country he should be willing to take his chance in the world market.
That is very similar to the policy proposed by my late leader, who wanted to nationalize the grain crop in the grain bill of 1935 through a grain board. Hon. gentlemen opposite, then sitting in opposition

opposed it bitterly; they would not allow him to do that; they brought in an amendment to the grain bill, and made a great deal, both within and without the house, of talk about issuing blank cheques. This series of bills is in my opinion, worse than a blank cheque because they lead nowhere. The purpose of this legislation is said to be to assist in increasing the revenue of the farmers. We should not take these bills at their face value. It is proposed to guarantee a minimum price to primary producers who link themselves together in cooperative associations. According to this bill the initial price is not to exceed 60 cents. I think Mr. McFarland did splendid work for the people of Canada, under conditions of economic emergency, and when the orderly marketing of wheat was most necessary. He met with great difficulties in a world that was topsyturvy with over-production, loss of markets, over-acreage and falling prices. Mr. Bennett saved this country from bankruptcy by hedging grain at the head of the lakes. He brought great credit to the country. The industry was supported, and Canada was saved from bankruptcy. It was most fortunate then that with that huge surplus the price went up, and Canada was saved a loss of $150,000,000. That saving was brought about because of vision, and a careful handling by a man who understood the grain trade.
It was thought that the emergency would not be of long duration. Unfortunately, on account of greater uncertainty and greater difficulty, in these days of 1939 the outlook is still cloudy and unpromising, and I have great doubts and fears as to the possibility of any long-term adjustments. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has said we want a long-term policy. He is now going to have the wheat board competing with the pools and the cooperatives. How he is going to handle it, I do not know-in view of the falling prices, and with France, Germany and Italy off the market growing a big acreage, thus eliminating nearly one-third of what we generally send overseas of our exportable surplus.
The future is cloudy. It is fortunate that in 1935 the Conservative government did not listen to the clamouring and agitations that were then made. The minister at first suggested that the government should remain out of the grain trade completely. Then the policy was changed and the grain board retained. This policy of pegging and bonuses and subventions was supposed to be only temporary, and it was thought that the gov-vernment could in time get out of the business altogether, because in reality we have power to act only in an emergency.

Cooperative Wheat Marketing
This is only a Santa Claus bill, a political bill, introduced to tide the government over the next election. It may run into a loss of money, and particularly to the National railways. The minister has provided for a grand total deficit of $55,000,000; and to that amount must be added $25,000,000 which can be traced to these Santa Claus bills. And before the government is through it may go to $55,000,000 or $100,000,000. I say it is simply a bad gamble. The Minister of Finance figured that $25,000,000 would cover the expenditure. AVhere is the money to come from? Who is going to pay it? It must come out of income tax; it must come out of the sales tax. It will be taken from the industrial worker, and from the farmers of Ontario and Quebec who do not get five cents worth of protection.
I was canvassed by some of the lobbyists down here. I never saw such a lobby in my life-and I have been in Washington-as has been going on in this building in the last three or four weeks. Premiers and others from the prairies have been lobbying members of parliament and ministers to fix the price at 40 cents, 50 cents, 70 cents, 80 cents, or whatever it may be. As the minister acts the part of Santa Claus, it puts me in mind of Christmas and Santa Claus, and in mind of little Jack Horner sitting in his corner eating his Christmas pie. He puts in his thumb and pulls out a plum and says, "Oh, what a good boy am I."
Let me say to hon. members opposite that if this is the policy they are going to follow, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) will have to double his sales tax and his income tax. A few days ago I saw the line-up of poor working people-old people and younger people-paying their income tax. In Toronto they will have to pay for all this hand-out.
I hope I may be pardoned if I speak a little longer than I had intended, although I know we are in committee. However, we were told we could speak in committee, and if that were the procedure the bills might pass more quickly. As I have said, I do not wish to delay the session; in fact, I should like to see parliament prorogue at the end of next week. I am not joining to-night in that noble army of martyrs who wish to keep us here next June and July when the temperature is running 95 degrees in the shade.
The whole policy of the government is wrong, and if we support that policy there will be no end to it. May I ask the minister this question: Why did he not accept the policy offered by the government of the United States with regard to the orderly marketing of wheat on the north American
continent? He has said nothing about it. The department of agriculture at Washington asked the Canadian government to meet them to discuss the question of the carry-over. That carry-over will get worse as time goes on. We know this pegging business is in its infancy, but it will never be abandoned. Once they get their feet into the treasury down here, it will be a continuing offence. From an economic point of view it is wrong, and it is opposed to everything which hon. members who used to come from the prairies proposed. They will bankrupt the country. If these moneys were to go to the poor man who grows the grain I would not say anything about it. But it is in contradiction to the principle of confederation-each for all and all for each. No east and west about mel The people of the east have done their duty. There is a warm feeling in Ontario towards the people in want in the west. We can remember that a few years ago western people criticized people of the east for opposing legislation. We are not opposing aid in an emergency. I would say that people east of the great lakes have been better friends to the farmer on the prairie than have some of the hon. members opposite and some of the free trade premiers of the prairie provinces.
People from the east suffered in flesh and blood in the northwest rebellion. I remember not long ago reading where a regiment from Toronto went to the Northwest Territories, and, while there, saw one of the first wheat crops in that part of the country at Fish Creek. They went out to the west, across the lakes, when the temperature was 60 degrees below zero-and they do not now get a copper of pension. Why, they cannot get even a pension from this country; men who suffered thus cannot now get even a pension.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: Well, I admit that is
pretty close to the border, Mr. Chairman. But those people saw the first grain that was produced out there and saved Canada from being dislocated. They saw it, right up in the minister's own constituency, if I am not mistaken. Yet they did not get even a five cent piece of aid.
As far as this particular bill is concerned- well, who prepared this bill? Who asked for it? Why, it would take a Philadelphia lawyer to know anything about all these bills and resolutions. The resolution on which this bill is based was discussed before Easter. It took two hours and a half for the minister to explain it, and then he moved the adjournment of the debate. He then took the train
Cooperative Wheat Marketing

to Regina, and was allowed by the head of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr. Brockington, who, by the way, was counsel for one of these very agencies, to speak over the radio on his bill; and he preached from the housetops about the prairie provinces, and about what he was going to do on the prairies for the poor, suffering farmer. Santa Claus is outdone.	All we	are	asking	is	thatthere might be a	day of	reckoning.	I	was
saying only the other day that there will be a day of reckoning, so far as the railway situation is concerned, and one when this loss is added up.
This will not be only 825,000,000; nobody knows where it will stop. This bill should never have been	introduced.	Had	it	notbeen for the government tiying to get from under their abandonment of the six cents preference policy for Britain, a policy which assured a steady	market	in	Great	Britain
on a six cent preference, we would not have seen this legislation. I believe if that arrangement had continued there would have been no necessity for this Bill No. 82.
This is one of the worst things the prpsent government has done. It is done to bolster up [he mistake it made when it abandoned a preference it will never get back, because other arrangements have been made in the meantime. The government have this Tur-geon report; are they carrying it out? No. Is this bill as a result of the Turgeon report? No. I have read that report from beginning to end. It did recommend something about cooperatives and something about the retention of the wheat board, and all that kind of thing. It did make a recommendation with respect to the orderly marketing of grain. I was reading marine returns where it was stated that ir a week or two a good deal of this grain will be out of the elevators at the head of the lakes, and when it is out the ships will be laid up for a part of the season on the lakes, owing to the United States treaty. If that is the way the government are going on. I protest against it. This is the opening of the baseball season, and the best battery is Hepburn and Duplessis. This parliament does not give Ontario wheat growers anything like 60 cents a bushel. They have to take 36 cents a bushel or market prices. If there is an emergency, this legislation should apply also to the grain growers of Ontario, but this is only a local bill for the prairies, and, as I see it, a local bill is against the British North America Act, because it is not of general import, and is certainly against the Turgeon report.


Robert Fair: In discussing the 825.000,000 loss in 1929, the minister stated that signers of wheat pool contracts wanted a high initial price. Let me say that the lending banks wanted to pay 70 cents as an initial price, and the pools would not accept more than 60 cents because the price was going down at the time, and later it went down to 55 and 50 cents, but if the advice of the lending banks had been accepted the pools would have paid a price of 70 cents. I want the record kept straight.


John Gordon Ross: They paid one dollar that year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Assuming that a pool is formed by the line elevator companies. as is provided for here, and the producers deliver their wheat to that pool; would the producers have any control over the selling of that wheat? How would the officers controlling the selling agency be set up? What supervision would the government have over payments that might be coming back to the producers? Would the minister give us some idea of what he has in mind?


James Garfield Gardiner: A central selling agency may be set up under the first two definitions
of the bill, which read:
(a)	"cooperative association" means an association of primary producers having for its object the marketing, under a cooperative plan, of wheat grown by the aforesaid primary producers;
(b)	"cooperative plan" means an agreement entered into by primary producers for the marketing, on a collective basis, of the whole or any part of the wheat grown by such producers in any crop year.
A cooperative plan would apply either in the case of an association composed entirely of producers or in the case of elevator companies organizing themselves into a pool. If the farmers of western Canada desire to do so and organize all three provinces into pools, they would have full control over the organization of their own central selling agency. On the other hand, if the elevator companies at the same time organized on a cooperative plan to handle grain, they would have a central selling agency of their own or they would appoint a producers' organization as a central selling agency to sell their grain. If the producers had an organization of their own the farmer would make his choice whether he wanted to sell through an organization entirely his own or through an organization partly controlled by the elevator people.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the
government exercise any supervision to ensure that there was a proper relaying back to the producers of any surplus that might accrue?

Cooperative Wheat Marketing


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a section of the bill which provides for a monthly audit of the accounts of any organization with which an agreement has been entered into.


Ernest Edward Perley: I want to correct a wrong impression which the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave to the house a few moments ago when he said that the Canadian wheat board was intended only as an emergency measure. I happen to be the only member here who was a member of the committee to which that measure was referred. At the final sitting of the committee on the night of July 1, 1935. we finally drafted a bill, and if hon. members will look up the records they will find that Colonel Ralston moved that the bill be not operative after the 16th day of August, 1936-that was the following August- other than for the purposes of winding up the operations of the board. Of course that motion was rejected, and the bill came back to the house and was passed. The bill came into being following the experience which the government had had in four years of stabilization operations. It was intended as a permanent measure, and it is a permanent measure. It was made inoperative by order in council in 1936, and again in 1937; but it was used last year, it is on the statute books, and is there yet as a permanent measure.


William Daum Euler: It was used last year because there was an emergency, and in the years when the price was high it was not operative, showing conclusively that it was an emergency measure.


Ernest Edward Perley: It was made inoperative only by order in council, contrary to parliamentary procedure.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It was inoperative because the government chose to make it inoperative.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Regulations.
Mr. ROBICHAUD:: I suggest that the word "next" in the last line of page 2 of the bill be replaced by the word "last." I may seem fussy and technical, but every time I see the phrase "next preceding section" I get a mental jar something like that produced by traffic lights, which the hon. member for Parry Sound was speaking of yesterday. The minute I see the word "next," that is a green light to me and I look forward. Then right away I come up against the word "preceding" and I have not merely to stop but put my gears in reverse. It seems an unnatural phrase
to find in a statute. Should it not be "last preceding" or "next following"? If the minister is agreeable I move accordingly.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: I think the dictionary will show that "next" has the meaning "nearest." It might be well to look it up before deciding.


Mr. POWER:: And last has the meaning of
"latest."
Amendment (Mr. Robichaud) agreed to.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May we take section 4, paragraph by paragraph, Mr. Chairman?


Thomas Langton Church: The minister is being given wide powers under this clause to make regulations with respect to any agreement made pursuant to the preceding section, the price per bushel to be fixed by the agreement, variations from initial payment, terms and conditions incidental to the establishment by the selling agency of a reserve fund, the manner of adjusting sale prices, and with respect to any other term of condition of the agreement deemed advisable or expedient. Regulations of this kind were condemned in another bill the other evening because, according to the leading authorities, regulations made under statutes passed by parliament have the force of a statute. The powers asked for under this section would make the minister lord high executioner of this particular bill, with power to make regulations with regard to price, selling agency, different kinds of wheat, and so forth. I can find nothing in the report of the Turgeon commission to justify :placing these wide powers in the hands of the governor in council,-that "political institution," as Sir Robert Borden called it. It amounts to a blank cheque. It goes further than a blank cheque. It makes him a ministerial officer to say who shall get relief under this statute and who shall not. It shows what kind of a political business this bill is and all these bills are. And the industrial workers will pay for it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I may just say in answer that all of these provisions which are here to be dealt with by regulation must of necessity be dealt with by regulation. They are now so dealt with under the Wheat Board Act. There would be no other way of dealing with them. They are conditions which arise from time to time and must of necessity be dealt with by regulation.


Frederick George Sanderson: Carried?
Cooperative Wheat Marketing


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I thought we were taking a clause at a time. If we are not, I should like to ask about subsection (a), clause (iii).


Frederick George Sanderson: Clause 3 is carried.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rose some time ago and asked that this be taken a clause at a time.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member refers to paragraph (iii) of section 4?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am talking about section 4, subsection (a), clause (iii):
The terms and conditions incidental to the establishment and maintenance by the selling agency of a reserve fund as may be agreed upon;
Just what does the minister mean by that?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the provision of which I spoke this afternoon on the second reading. The established advance is 60 cents, and provision must be made, in a year like the present, if this bill were to come into effect, to take care of the storage charges within that 60 cents. But if this bill were coming into operation in a year when the price was above 60 cents, the only thing to do would be to ask the agency to set up a reserve fund so that the basis upon which the initial payment to the farmer would be made, would be the entire 60 cents, and the carrying charges of the grain through the year would be taken care of out of the reserve fund. This gives power to the minister and, through the minister, to the council to determine what the conditions of that reserve would require to be before the government would permit of the carrying charges being taken out of the reserve rather than the 60 cents.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would this provide for any supervision by the minister of the policy to be followed by these respective selling agencies, particularly in the case of either the primary producers or an association of these line elevator companies? Will they each follow the selling policy which they think best, or will there be any centralization? It seems to me that if there is not, we are going to have confusion worse confounded.


James Garfield Gardiner: The boards or the central selling agencies would have to be allowed to use some judgment in connection with the selling of grain. Supposing there are just two central agencies, one representative of the elevator companies and the other representative of the producers themselves; I would imagine there would be some competition as between the two of them in trying to give the best possible service to the producer and
[The Chairman.]
that the one which gave the best possible service would probably get the most wheat the next year. I do not think there would be any great difficulty in allowing them to use some judgment in connection with a matter of that kind. The check which would be made by the government would be through the audit which is provided for in section 6.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But there
might be a great many more than two selling agencies. There might be fifteen. That is the difficulty.


James Garfield Gardiner: The same thing would apply.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Competition might have the effect not only of giving better service but also of beating the price down considerably.


John Gordon Ross: There are
hundreds doing it now.


James Garfield Gardiner: The government, in making the guarantee in connection with the initial payment, would keep all these matters in mind in entering into the agreements. I do not think they would enter into so many agreements as to endanger their own guarantee.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 5-Officers, clerks and employees.


Thomas Langton Church: This section reads:
The governor in council may appoint such officers, clerks and employees as may be deemed necessary for the efficient administration of this act and such officers, clerks and employees shall hold office during pleasure-
That is, until after the election, when the pleasure is over.
-and receive such salary or other remuneration as may be fixed by the governor in council.
Are there not now sufficient officers, clerks and other employees in the minister's department to administer efficiently this measure? I call the attention of the committee to the departmental estimates for 1940. Department of Agriculture, amount to be voted, 1939-40, page 4, $9,744,310.27; authorized by statute, $12,000; total for 1939-40 for agriculture department, $9,756,310.27. Last year it was a little more, $9,937,592.06. That is a decrease of $181,281, but the total amount is nearly $10,000,000. Has the minister not sufficient officers and clerks and other employees in his department to handle the administration of this legislation at the head of the lakes and elsewhere?
I would also draw to the attention of the committee that the very same clause as this section has is in both Bill No. 83 and Bill No.

35S9
Cooperative Wheat Marketing
89. The minister has provided in the main estimates for a small standing army. How many armies of officials is he going to have to administer this measure? It is utterly impossible. Great Britain, with a population of forty-six or forty-seven million, can get along without such expenditures as this. Parliament should handle business of this kind. The departmental staff, with such agencies as they have at the head of the lakes and on the prairies, and with the assistance of such federal departments as happen to be coordinated with them, could handle a matter like this. Yet we give a blank cheque and more employees are engaged. Who is going to pay for all this? Is there no notion of economy in the department? There is none in the government. I believe there should be a stop to the employment of all this army of people in this particular department.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Inspection and audit.
William Daum Euler: That in clause 6 the words "a chartered accountant" be deleted and the words "an accountant or auditor" substituted.


Robert James Manion: What is the purpose of that?


James Garfield Gardiner: Just to use the one word "accountant" discriminates against those who are known officially as auditors. Some of them are designated as auditors and perhaps may not be members of a chartered accountants' association. It is thought to be a discrimination.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is highly desirable, in a very important public bill of this kind, involving large expenditures, possibly huge expenditures, and complicated agreements requiring a chartered accountant's knowledge of commercial law, that it should be "a chartered accountant."


James Garfield Gardiner: I would agree.


Mr STEVENS:: I think the amendment is a decided weakening of the bill.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then leave it as it is.


William Daum Euler: I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.


Mr. STEWART:: This section brings up a point which probably has been raised in connection with the previous section. Both sections start out by saying that "the governor in council may" do certain things, may make certain appointments of officers. In section 6 authority is again given to the minister, the approval shall be that of the minister. Why
not say, "approved by the governor in council?" The same thing occurs in section 4; again the minister may do certain things. Why should not this approval be by the governor in council instead of by the minister? Is there any reason why, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Kootenay East, an appointment like this should not have behind it the authority and the approval of the governor in council rather than of any individual minister? That is not a reflection on the minister.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have no objection to its being the governor in council but I presume the reason why the words "approved by the minister" are put in the bill is that it would be much handier in administration to have it in that way than to have everything of that kind referred to council. However, I have no objection.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister is a party to the agreements that will be made and certainly he could not appoint the auditor to audit his own accounts.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am agreeable to the suggestion.


Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: Just before
this wheat argument is concluded, may I say a few words for the rest of Canada. All we have heard, as I have sat here day after day, is about wheat. Does the government think there is only one way in which they can win the next election-by fixing a set price for wheat, in other words, pegging wheat? There is the rest of Canada to be considered. There are the provinces of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. In the last few days we have heard of nothing but wheat. We are now endeavouring to shorten up the session so that Canada may have the honour of having the king prorogue parliament. In my opinion we are wasting time in an endeavour to secure the west for the Liberal party.


Frederick George Sanderson: I must point out to
the hon. member that he is out of order. He must confine his remarks to section 6.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: He means it will give
security to the west.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: Then may I
say a word by way of resentment on behalf of the rest of Canada. If the government would make some effort to ameliorate conditions for the industrialists and the industrial workers of Canada, if they would pay a little

Agricultural Products-Marketing
more attention to the rest of Canada than to the middle west, they would be doing something commendable.
Amendment (Mr. Stewart) agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


PENSION ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved the third reading of Bill No. 6, to amend the Pension Act.
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 89, to assist and encourage cooperative marketing of agricultural products.
He said: In moving the second reading of Bill No. 89, I may explain that the principle is identical with that of Bill No. 82 which has just been passed. The terms of the legislation are pretty much the same. Provision is made for the setting up of cooperative organizations with guaranteed initial payment for the marketing of farm products of all kinds with the exception of wheat, which is provided for in the bill just read the third time.
Hon. members will recall that the Natural Products Marketing Act of 1934 was placed upon the statute books and operated for two years. During the time that legislation was in operation a number of organizations were set up across Canada having as their objective the marketing of certain farm products. In 1936 that legislation was declared ultra vires of this parliament, with the result that no legislation for the promotion or encouragement of cooperative organizations throughout the country has been enacted by this parliament. It has been thought advisable at least to lay the foundations for the building of cooperatives in different parts of Canada in connection with the marketing of farm products other than wheat.

To illustrate what this bill may accomplish in that direction I may point out that one group of farmers living in a well-defined community in western Canada have already inquired as to the possibility of their operating under this particular bill. In all parts of Canada there are other organizations that could operate under this bill. There is at least one packing plant that is set up on the cooperative basis. There are a number of organizations handling milk and milk products on a cooperative basis. Practically all our cheese factories throughout Canada are now operating more or less on a cooperative basis. This bill could be made to apply to any one or any combination of these organizations from one end of Canada to the other. The bill makes it possible for agreements to be entered into between the government of Canada and, say, a group of creameries or cheese factories-
Paul Joseph James Martin: Or corn growers.


James Garfield Gardiner: Or com growers, as my hon. friend indicates, who are located in two of the counties of Ontario, or to any other group of producers.


William Hayhurst: Does this include cheese?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; cheese is a milk product.


William Hayhurst: Does it take in peas and beans?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; it says all grain other than wheat, and then goes on to enumerate the others, milk and milk products.


William Hayhurst: It says "other than wheat, milk and milk products-"


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, it is all grain other than wheat. We have provided for wheat in another bill.


William Hayhurst: I think the wording of the bill is not very accurate.


James Garfield Gardiner: It seems that the comma should be taken out.


Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: And some other things put in.


James Garfield Gardiner: Any organization set up to market any of these farm products could have a guarantee up to 80 per cent of the average price in the preceding three years. Otherwise the principle of this legislation is identical with that of the wheat legislation. The reason it is not possible to set any specified initial payment, as in the case of wheat, is that there is no basis such as we have in wheat, on which to fix an established price. So we base it on the average of the preceding three years.

Agricultural Products-Marketing


Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: I have listened with great interest to the brief explanation of this bill by the minister. He related this bill somewhat to the Natural Products Marketing Act, which, he says, was declared ultra vires shortly after the present administration came into office. First I criticize the administration for waiting until the dying days of this session, four years after the Natural Products Marketing Act was declared ultra vires, before passing legislation which, he now says, is designed to carry out some of the provisions of that legislation, and assist organizations which were built up under that act.


An hon. MEMBER:: What did you do about it?


Mark Cecil Senn: We kept it in effect as long as we were in office.
The heading of this bill declares that it is "an act to assist and encourage cooperative marketing of agricultural products." I say frankly and honestly that so far as this bill will assist agriculture I am very much in agreement with it. Under this bill the definition of an agricultural product seems to include nearly every kind of product, except wheat, that is grown on the farms of Canada. So I suppose the bill is intended to apply to all lines of agricultural production. Certainly the mixed farming industry of Canada is desperately in need of some aid in its marketing problem, because marketing continues to be the major problem which faces agriculture in this dominion.
There are a number of reasons for that. The unit of production on the farms of Canada is small. Under modern conditions it is practically impossible for the individual farmer to process and distribute his product. As a result of this there has gradually grown up throughout the dominion, as in other countries, a lucrative and thriving business carried on by organizations which collect, process and distribute the farmer's product. Unfortunately there has developed at the same time a gradual widening of the spread between producer and consumer prices. When the farmer's product leaves his hands, it may, in many instances, be regarded as raw material. Its transformation into consumer goods necessitates costs of collection, of manufacture or processing, freight to the ultimate market, commissions to dealers and commission men, or profits made by those who are handling farm products to the consumer. In many instances, because of these costs the farmer gets a much smaller share of the consumer's dollar than that which goes to the middleman. This condition has grown up through the years.
I have said already that the farming industry is composed of small individual units, and for that reason the individual farmer has little or no bargaining power. He has to accept for his goods prices which are set or determined by a great number of factors, and rapid and violent fluctuations in the prices he receives are constantly taking place. The farmer has to make his plans at least a year before his goods are ready for market, and in the interval prices which were adequate when his plans were made often drop far below the cost of production by the time the goods are sold. Much of the farmer's products, such as milk and fruit and vegetables, are perishable and must be marketed immediately ; his live stock must be sold at a certain stage in their development otherwise they deteriorate and the cost of carrying them in the hope of higher prices is excessive. So it seems apparent to even the casual student that the first and great need of the farmer is price stability.
I am sorry that I cannot see in this bill a solution of the farmer's marketing problem. I have already said that so far as it is a solution and so far as it will benefit the farmer I am in agreement with it. But there is in this bill little if any provision whereby agriculture as a whole will secure what is most necessary, namely, the power of collective bargaining. I am afraid that this bill has been brought in at the present time more as a gesture to influence the votes of the mixed farming industry in Canada on the eve of an election than for any other reason. Any scheme which will permanently benefit the dairy industry, the live stock industry, poultry raising or any other line of farming, should be comprehensive in its scope. No small group of farmers organized into a cooperative association can prevent price fluctuation, nor can they keep farm prices in line with costs of production-and by that I mean costs of efficient production-unless it be in some branch of agriculture which is local or where production is comparatively small.
The whole scheme which is proposed in this bill, and also in the bill for bonusing cheese, seems to me haphazard, piecemeal and ineffective. No doubt the minister feels that because of the assistance which is to be given to the western wheat growers, as outlined in the bill just passed and in a number of others which are now before the house, some consideration should also be given to the mixed farmers of Canada. Undoubtedly they are desperately in need of assistance to solve their marketing problem. But it is to be regretted that the minister did not give greater



Agricultural Products-Marketing
consideration to his proposals before advancing them in this bill and the bill to bonus cheese; for even the most casual observer must admit that such assistance as these bills offer will be entirely inadequate, and their futility leaves the minister and the government open to the suspicion that these measures are purely political in their inception and effect, as I think the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) stated earlier in the evening.
Any scheme for the marketing of farm products must, in my opinion, be broad and comprehensive enough to control a sufficient percentage of any given product to influence and govern its price. It should be sufficiently powerful and should have adequate machinery to lift our surpluses of domestic products off the market and dispose of them without depressing domestic prices. To this end I believe some system should be set up in this country to deal with surpluses of farm products. Such a system should be broad enough not only to finance the removal of these surpluses from the market but also to see that the highest possible quality in any given line of farm products is shipped into the markets of the world. Unless and until some such scheme is devised and carried out, measures of the sort we are now discussing will be abortive and will not accomplish the end we have in mind, an end I am sure everyone desires to see attained.
I want it distinctly understood that in proposing such a scheme as, we will say, an export board, or some other organization to lift these surpluses off the market, I am expressing my own views entirely. I believe, however, that such a board should and could operate in conjunction with these cooperative associations which probably will be set up sooner or later under this scheme. These associations, by means of advertising and in other ways, may help the farmer to direct his production into the lines best calculated to yield the greatest return and eliminate these unmanageable surpluses. I think it has already been demonstrated beyond question that if too much butter is manufactured, the whole dairy industry suffers. On the other hand it is also apparent that our hogs are often marketed in a way that is detrimental to the industry. During certain periods of the year hogs come out too readily; during other periods there is a scarcity, and as a result there is altogether too much fluctuation in price.
It seems to me that a number of other matters must be considered before a workable scheme for the marketing of farm products

can be carried out in this country. I do not wish to delay the second reading of this bill. I simply repeat that I think measures of this kind will be impotent and futile unless something further is done, and that they may result in worse confusion than we have at the present time. Any further remarks I have to make I will leave until the bill is in committee.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberai):: With the consent of the house I should like to ask the minister a question. If I leave it until we go into committee it might be out of order, because it deals with the principle of the bill. No doubt this bill is more or less founded on the Natural Products Marketing Act of the Bennett government. If I remember correctly that bill covered more than agricultural products. Why cannot this bill cover the cooperative sale of fish, for instance?


James Garfield Gardiner: A bill is being brought in by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) dealing with the sale of fish.


Alan Webster Neill: But that deals only with salt fish.


James Garfield Gardiner: If any bill were to be extended, that would be the proper one.


Mr. A. G. SLAGHT (Parry Sound):: I have a suggestion to offer the minister for his consideration, and also a question to ask as a matter of information. The suggestion is: Can he not include pulpwood within the provisions of this bill? In certain areas pulp-wood produced and sold by the settler contribute largely to his livelihood, and for the last few years he has found great difficulty in securing for his product a price which will return a living wage. I should like the minister's viewpoint on that.
The point on which I desire information is in the explanatory note, in which I see that the legislation applies only in the event that a proportion of primary producers within a certain geographical area, or a proportion of the product produced in such area, is in the opinion of the minister sufficient, and so on. I should like the minister to indicate what is meant by a geographical area; whether it is a province, a district such as Parry Sound, or a group of districts and counties which will be taken into account in determining the number, the volume and so on. That is important to my people.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, this is another of the bills dealing with agriculture brought into this house in the dying days of the session. No doubt this is a most important and conspicuous piece

Agricultural Products-Marketing
of legislation. It is important because it deals with an industry that is fundamental to any hope of prosperity in this dominion, that is essential to any security for the empire either in peace or in war. It is important because to-day we are challenged in the marketing of our surplus products by changed world conditions.
It is not my desire to delay this house at any great length, because no one is more desirous than I am of concluding this session in time to give a proper welcome to Their Majesties the King and Queen. But, Mr. Speaker, a problem ten years old, an issue that has been before the people of Canada for such a long time, a problem which this government promised to solve, should not have been left by this floundering government until the eleventh hour.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: My hon.
friends opposite laugh; the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) smiles. Oh, yes; he has been here a long time, and I trust that he may live a long time yet. He is one of the most delightful men in public life to-day, but I say to him that after the next election I think he will be asking me how my government is getting along.
To continue, Mr. Speaker, I say this measure is conspicuous because of its introduction at this time, and also because it gives the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) more power than it gives hope to the agriculturists of this country. It does not even analyse the problem, let alone offer a solution. I have no apology to offer for my position with reference to cooperative marketing in this dominion. Some of the older members in the house will recall that ten years ago I suggested to the government of the day, as I later suggested when my own party was in power, that the time had come when we should meet the problems of world competition and face the challenge presented to us as agriculturists by establishing an export marketing board to deal with the marketing of our export products. Agriculture has been long since in Canada a loss leader to a haphazard economy.
I am glad at this time that the government, even in these last days of the session, even in the last hours of the session, are turning their eyes at last towards the mixed farming problems of Canada. This is the eleventh hour-the dying days of the session. As the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. MacMillan) said the other night in another debate, if I may be pardoned for referring to
71492-226J
it:	"It is better to have a death-bed repentance than to have no repentance at all.1' Even he knew that this is the last time the government would have a chance to repent.
So I am glad to see that at last the Minister of Agriculture has turned his eyes towards that great, fundamental, basic feature of Canadian agriculture, namely, mixed farming in Canada. It is strange that we should have this hysterical stampede towards a solution, just before an election. He tries now to solve a problem which should have been solved long ago. Someone may say to me: "What about your party some years ago?" I say we tried to solve the problem, but that the party now in office found our panacea unconstitutional. If I were as good a lawyer as the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght), I would question the constitutionality of the measure now before the house. But, Mr. Speaker, I have no apology to make for the policy which has been followed by the Conservative party. Two wrongs do not make a right.
This problem is ten years old. It has not been solved in the past. I say again, if it will bear repetition-and I know it will-that Canadian agriculture has been a loss leader to a haphazard prosperity in Canada, It has been a loss leader to a haphazard economy or, if you will, a haphazard depression-and I know whereof I speak. I believe I know the man on the back concession as well as does any other hon. member in the house. I know that in that circle of enterprise in the dominion there have been men and women who in the last few years have fought a battle such as people in no other enterprise in Canada have fought. I know of men who have worked to keep their families on $20 a month, men who have toiled from the rising to the setting of the sun, and for less wages than the amount that would be accepted by many men in the cities for relief. Had it not been for agriculture acting as a loss leader to Canadian prosperity, this country would be bankrupt to-day.
I realize present conditions do not offer much hope. Every hon. member within sound of my voice, every businessman in Canada, knows that Canadian agriculture has borne the brunt of the times. The bricklayer has quit his work and has joined the relief ranks because he can not get $1.25 an hour. But the farmer has toiled from five o'clock in the morning until seven o'clock or eight o'clock at night for $20 a month; and, in some instances, boarded himself and kept his family. His poor wife did not know what it was to have the fineries even of the wives of the men on relief. I know how men in that great

Agricultural Products-Marketing
old historic province of Quebec have sacrificed in these times of depression more than has been necessary at any time since the great war.
At the present time the distress signal is flying from the bam of almost every farm in Canada simply because we have had a government that has failed and has been unprepared to deal effectively with the problem. And when I speak of the problem and about conditions now prevailing in Canada among the farmers, I do not for one moment say that they are paupers or that they are in any way an economic menace. I know those people; I know them to be jealous of their independ-ance. They are thrifty, industrious, resourceful, strong, virile and ready to meet any situation which may arise. It is not always lack of ability or effort on their part that is :esponsible for their condition. Some of the hardest working farmers are to-day the worst off. The fact remains, however, that in the present state of affairs, a state of affairs which cannot be ignored much longer, if we are going to make agriculture the subject of a federal subsidy to be supported by taxes from the treasury of this dominion then it is only reasonable to expect the dominion government to find markets for surplus products. If we are going to consider Canadian agriculture there must be a frank realization that while wheat is a tremendously important crop in Canada, no longer can we live by wheat and wheat alone.
To-day little more than one-third of our wheat crop is consumed at home; the bulk is exported from the dominion. It is true that sales abroad mean wealth to the people of Canada. In the past few years there has oeen a contraction of the export market for this great Canadian commodity, and that contraction has affected not only the growers out the prosperity of the dominion as a whole. To-day, however, we must realize that the channels of international trade are broken in many places. International credits have been suspended. Trade has been abused and restricted by quotas, licences, barter agreements, controlled currency and other impediments which check trade channels and financial and commercial enterprise. Under these circumstances I believe the only thing to do is for us to put our house in order. Consideration must be given to other branches of agriculture, but we must direct our attention to a national policy of substitution for rather than subsidization of products which we can neither sell nor consume. The bountiful Canadian wheat crop of years gone by, the excellent world prices, coasting along with

world prosperity, seem to have created in Canada a wheat-minded approach to agricultural problems.
May I remind hon. members that the value of our wheat production in Canada in the last ten years has been between only 18 per cent and 20 per cent of the total agricultural production. I have been in the house for fifteen or sixteen sessions, and from the beginning to the end of that time I have heard nothing but wheat, wheat, wheat-morning to night-wheat in the committee on agriculture-wheat in the House of Commons; one would imagine it was the only problem that people engaged in agriculture had to face.


Charles Edward Johnston: It is what keeps you fellows alive down here.


William Earl Rowe: But I say
we have kept you fellows alive. Many of your citizens would have starved to death had it not been for our people in eastern Canada. I say in all fairness that we started you in western Canada, and we survive you. I say we produce five times as much in agricultural products as do the wheat producers of this dominion; let there be no misunderstanding about that. Let us face the facts. We have been wheat-minded; we have been wheat-conscious. We have imagined we controlled the bread-basket of the world. But I say to you that for ten years western Canada has not produced 20 per cent of the total agricultural production of this dominion. We in the east have maintained the security of Canada, in mixed farming production.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: There is no quarrel
with that.


William Earl Rowe: There is no quarrel with that. The only sound basis for agriculture in any country that has survived the days of exploitation of the fertile soil of pioneer states is the development of mixed farming. Do no let us have any misunderstanding about that. Wheat is an important asset. I come from an agricultural family and I have grown wheat; I grew more wheat last year per acre than any of my friends to my left grew from three acres.


John Horne Blackmore: How many bushels?


William Earl Rowe: I am not boasting, but I am interested in wheat production, and I realize that one cannot rob the soil continually and expect to produce good crops. The fact that I produced fifty bushels to the acre last year was as a result of feeding the soil rather than robbing it.

Agricultural Products-Marketing
No country has sustained a successful agriculture without handing back to the soil something of what you rob from it.
Every country in the world in the last few years has changed its economy. From Scandinavia in the north to Italy in the south we have seen import restrictions imposed, land reform, bonused production, and other devices which have changed the whole front of the wheat market of the world. A greater degree of self-sufficiency seems to be considered sound economics in the different countries of the world to-day. Security of supply in the face of a possible world crisis seems to have been the dominant factor in the policy of Germany and Italy and even the old land herself. Europe has almost ceased to buy our wheat, and we are challenged to find new markets and substitutes for our wheat. State after state, faced with the problem of disposing of its surpluses, have established virtual monopolies in marketing services with the whole resources of the country behind them.
We have now before us Bill No. 89. I am not going to censure the Minister of Agriculture for introducing this bill. I know he is trying to do something. Heaven knows that after four years in power, and now facing the people, he would at last try to do something. But I wish to point out to him that the venture of this dominion to control the world price of wheat a few years ago did not succeed. The coffee venture of Brazil to control the price was not very successful a few years ago. The control of cotton prices in the United States was not very successful a few years ago. Now we have before us a bill which will not solve the problem. Costly and ineffective price-fixing systems, to be applied to local conditions, cannot be undertaken without adding to the load of the already over-burdened taxpayers. The money necessary to guarantee minimum prices and to make grants in aid will certainly come eventually from the farmers by visible or invisible taxation.
This is typical pre-election legislation, a bid to everyone, a gesture to all. This bill vests in the minister power to make regulations governing its operation. For example, the minister, and the minister alone, can say where and how the statute shall be applied. He, and he alone, may make regulations prescribing the manner in which the average price for a product shall be ascertained. The minister, and the minister alone, may establish the proportion of primary producers in any one geographical area the products of which are to be marketed under a plan of a guaranteed
initial price. The minister and the minister alone, shall decide the proportion of an agricultural product, in any designated area, that shall be marketed under a system of a guaranteed initial price. The minister, and the minister alone, shall decide the time or times when payment subsequently to the initial payment shall be made. The minister, and the minister alone, is given full authority to extend or withhold the legislation if and when he sees fit.
This bill is nothing more or less than a blank cheque for the minister to fill out in expedient rations as he sees fit. It substitutes government- by arbitrary will for government by law.
The purpose of Bill No. 89 is to guarantee to primary producers who bind themselves into a cooperative association an initial price for their products not to exceed 80 per cent of the average wholesale price of such products over the three years preceding the year of production, and if, on account of uncontrollable conditions, the market price obtained for such products falls below the established minimum figure, the difference will be made up by the treasury. When the market price is higher than the guaranteed initial price, the producers in the cooperative association are to share in the surplus.
Under this bill, worn-out acres will compete with fertile soil; the scrawny and thin hog will compete with the fat and finished hog; the diseased tree will compete with the healthy tree; and the market will be flooded with inferior crops, all of which will be harder to dispose of, bringing a lower price and accordingly demanding a greater share of this peculiar federal assistance.
A few of the needs of agriculture may be alleviated by intelligent legislative control but by and large the salvation of the farmei is to be worked out in one spot alone, and by one person alone, namely, the farmer himself on his farm. The biggest thing this government can do is to help the farmer to h Ip himself, by assisting him, not only to produce better products but to market them in better ways to meet world competition.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the
home market?


William Earl Rowe: What have my friends opposite done for the home market? They have allowed foreign countries to build up their markets instead of helping us to build up our home market here.
The soundness of a policy such as is incorporated in the bill is questionable because it is a policy that puts all the

Agricultural Products-Marketing
emphasis on a fixed price at home instead of upon quality abroad. It may be good politics in an election year to guarantee a local price at home, but it would be better economics to guarantee a national quality abroad?
This bill provides for government by individuals rather than government by law. It is an effort to "goose-step" the individual to an election tune rather than organize the nation to meet a world challenge. It is "tail wag dog" economics, fixing prices not by the law of supply and demand, not by quality, not by service, but by the arbitrary will of this new political Prince of the Prairies, who now asks this house for a blank cheque on a treasury that is struggling under a fifty million dollar overdraft. In the wake of this "new comic form of political genius" we can anticipate more wasteful expenditure in the future, more unbalanced budgets, and heavier deferred debts for our children and our children's children.
And now with our Minister of Agriculture and the government facing an election year, without any proper or sound diagnosis of the case we have before us this "gunshot" prescription of a political doctor in an election year, in an effort to save a floundering government. This bill does nothing to solve the very crux of the problem. I ask any lion, member within the sound of my voice who knows anything about agriculture in Canada to tell me what it does to standardize quality in the markets overseas. Will the minister himself tell me that?


James Garfield Gardiner: We do that under another bill.


William Earl Rowe: You do it in anoiner bill. Again, evidence of "gunshot" prescription. He has something for all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Are you against the bill?


William Earl Rowe: His department should be called the department of political expediency, because it has a "gunshot" prescription for everyone. The minister tries to please my friends to the left, and he tries to please my friends on the right.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: With indifferent success.


William Earl Rowe: He has not pleased you and he has not pleased me, and after the election he will not have pleased himself. I ask him what he has done to regulate supply? There is not an hon. member who does not know that for ten years, independent of what party has been in power, we have shut our eyes to the problem of meeting world conditions. We have told the
flVlr. W. E. Rowe.]
world that they must pay what we asked them for our wheat. We fixed the price of our wheat and they bought wheat from the Argentine. We haphazardly marketed our bacon and they bought Danish bacon.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Are you against the bill?


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friend from Essex East does not know anything about the bill. Someone says he does not know a horse from a cow. I do not know whether he does. In all fairness, Mr. Speaker, let me say that we have in this country a problem which is beyond joking in this house. I say we must face this problem. I so pleaded with the government which has gone out of power. I am pleading with the government which is now going out of power.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Which is going back into power.


William Earl Rowe: I say to the minister, who probably would make a better leader of the government than the right hon. gentleman who is absent, that the chief reason why his government is going out of power is because it has failed to face this problem. I ask, Mr. Speaker, how long do you expect Canadian agriculture to be the " loss leader " of the type of economy we have in this dominion? How long do you expect the farmer to work for ten cents an hour while he	pays the	price	for	the man whoworks for	a dollar	an hour?	How long doyou expect him to pay the penalty of protected industry?	How long do	you	expect him tocarry on	and to	save	this	country from
collapse? He has saved it through the most difficult years of its existence. We must meet him part way.
When I asked the Minister of Agriculture what he had done to standardize our agriculture in world markets, he said it was done under another bill. Surely there are no more bills coming. Why are they brought in during the dying hours of the session? Why were they not brought in years ago?


James Garfield Gardiner: That provision has been on the statutes for years.


William Earl Rowe: Yet we find that Denmark, in her supply of bacon to the old country markets, varies not five per cent from week to week, while under our present administration of the Department of Agriculture our supplies to the British market vary up to 55 per cent.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are the best in quality that they ever were.

Agricultural Products-Marketing


William Earl Rowe: Why should they not be? Progress knows no retreat.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Hence this bill.	.


William Earl Rowe: What has been done to meet world competition? The Minister of Agriculture changes his policy from day to day. He raises his ante in election bids from week to week, and now asks for a blank cheque in order that he may homestead on the back concessions, looking in election year for votes at home rather than for markets abroad.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have no concessions in our part of the country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Are you against the bill?


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


William Earl Rowe: We cannot expect, by giving the minister any such arbitrary powers, to restore the levels of farm incomes. We need an aggressive and consistent national policy which recognizes the difficulties and complications of changed national and international conditions. We must give first consideration to home markets for our own farmers. Surely there is no one who will disagree with me when he realizes that we in this country consume approximately 85 per cent of all that we produce. The greatest market for agriculture is the home market. Therefore we must foster our home market first. Then there are the secondary markets for our surplus foodstuffs, particularly within the British empire.
There is a feeling in Canada to-day that our government must offer subsidies to our farmers. I have no strenuous objections to that, provided the subsidies are in the national interest and are made under a defined national plan, and provided the federal treasury can afford to make expenditures of this type. I believe it is important for the government to make certain that the investment shows some sign of returns in prospect. Some years ago I suggested that we should have a national export board in Canada and that we should have a bonus policy for high grade products so that they could be placed on the markets of the world in competition with the rest of the world. Perhaps my suggestion fell on deaf ears. But it seems to me that the present policy of the government is to stay on the back concession lines and bid for the support of men under local conditions rather than meet world conditions.
If we are to embark upon a policy of farm subsidies the government, I submit, should plan to give some consideration to the following requirements. It should give some consideration to a diversified and intensified agriculture, not to wheat alone. It should give some consideration to soil improvement. Inducements should be offered to farmers who put a larger proportion of their acreage into legumes and fertility restoring crops. Improvement payments should be forthcoming to farmers who take measures to prevent further destruction of the soil by erosion. Inducements could be offered to farmers to produce products which Canada now imports from other countries, because we do import considerably from other countries. Despite the fact that we are floundering along, trying to find markets overseas, we import thousands of head of cattle and thousands of dollars worth of animal fats. Some consideration should be given to the transference of marketable crops into industrial consumption. But what this country needs more than anything else is a national export plan to sell our surplus products on the markets of the world in face of organized international competition.
These suggestions would require no coercion or control. Farmers would simply have the choice of taking advantage of the inducements or of following their usual routines in accordance with modern supply and demand.
It is questionable whether we can offer the farmers of Canada permanent relief through any process of purchasing their surplus crops and holding those surpluses as threats over future crops.
A national export board rather than a local control board is justified at the present time. We must meet world challenges rather than consider domestic expediency. We must face new problems in new ways; we must meet national challenges with national policies. New nationalized marketing policies of almost every supply country in the world constitute a practical competitive condition such as Canada has not been forced to meet before on the export market. This militant competition of state-directed marketing monopolies has already demonstrated its ingenuity and efficiency in world markets. We, therefore, must find a sound, sane and comprehensive plan to distribute our surplus products more systematically in face of this new form of state-assisted competition.
Local organizations, inspection and different forms of competition are all important for our domestic markets. But may I suggest that they are more or less provincial, in authority and in constitution. I believe it is the responsibility of the dominion government to coordinate provincial organizations towards a greater nationalized plan to dispose of our surplus products.

Agricultural Products-Marketing
The bonuses, subsidies or subventions which may be necessary must be directed nationally to encourage in our agricultural export products higher quality, more standardized grade and greater regularity of supply.
Our agriculture has been haphazard in the past and it has now become local. It is sectional so far as western wheat is concerned; it is seasonal for the live stock producers in the east. It has grown to be almost political. We must encourage mixed farming by means of a national policy applicable to all parts of Canada, designed to stabilize prices in our great domestic market through the necessary national export assistance which we now know is so essential to meet the new form of competition in world markets. It is all very well in these last days of the session to let things go by the board and to neglect those issues that touch the very heart of Canadian prosperity. Do hon. members realize that even in old England they have spent $40,000,000 to subsidize agriculture? Do they realize that in Italy and Germany, indeed in all the old countries of Europe, the governments have had bonus policies and have endeavoured by every means possible to make their countries self-sustaining? They have introduced a nationalized export policy with the result that to-day we in this dominion are faced with a situation such as we have never had to contend with in the past. Do hon. members know where Canada will sell its wheat in the future?


William Hayhurst: This bill deals with products other than wheat.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: My hon.
friends laugh. Let me say to the hon. member who has interrupted me that I have listened to his group talking wheat morning, noon and night.


John Horne Blackmore: That is what we came here for.


William Earl Rowe: Then you represent only one-fifth of Canadian agriculture. I have every regard for the wheat grower of western Canada-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: -and perhaps I have grown as much wheat as some of these hon. gentlemen who are laughing and who talk so much about it. But let me tell them that this country cannot survive by wheat alone. No country in the world which has had success in agriculture has depended upon wheat alone.
.


Leslie Gordon Bell: It is Canada's greatest source of new wealth.


William Earl Rowe: It may be Canada's greatest source of new wealth for a few years, but I am reminded of those countries that have survived for 1,200 years in the production of agricultural commodities, countries that have maintained the fertility of their soil. I well recall a friend of mine who was here long before the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) became a member of parliament, and one night he said to me, "Earl, you don't know anything about western Canada-"


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friends are laughing. I have been through western Canada and perhaps I know more about the west than some of them. This man said to me, "The day will never come when we will take less than a dollar for our wheat, nor will the day come when we shall be producing less than thirty-five bushels to the acre." Well, what has time proved? A few years ago he told me that his farm had been practically blown from under his feet.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: It must have been a
pre-election year.


William Earl Rowe: Time will test the accuracy of the statements of these prophets from the prairies. I am truly amazed to find my hon. friends still clinging to the old and dusty doctrines of the free trade school. If ever a country stood in dire need of an economic council which would ascertain what was wrong with it internally, that country is the Dominion of Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is true.


William Earl Rowe: Well, I
am glad we are agreed on one thing at any rate. I suggest that the day has come when we should make an independent survey of this sort. That survey should be made not by the Liberals, not by the Social Credit party to my left, not by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, but by the greatest party this country has ever had, the Conservative party. An economic council should survey conditions in Canada to find out whether it is wise to carry out a sectional policy for wheat for three or four provinces and a seasonal policy with regard to other products, whether it is wise to give a bonus for this or that product-


An hon. MEMBER:: Or tariff protection?

Agricultural Products-Marketing


William Earl Rowe: What
Canada needs is more courage in relation to the tariff.


Mr. WARD:: Are you opposed to the
tariff policy?


William Earl Rowe: I certainly am not. I have heard you bark from different corners of the house under that old and dusty banner of free trade. I say to my hon. friends, if there is a man in this house who is prepared to stand up now and say that he advocates free trade I will pause and wait until he identifies himself. But there is not an hon. member who does not know that the most antiquated thing politically in this country is free trade. Who is there in Canada who will say that he is a free trader? Will any member of the government rise and declare for free trade? Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce rise in his place and say that he stands for free trade?


William Daum Euler: No.


William Earl Rowe: Will the
Minister of Justice rise and say he stands for free trade? No; he says no.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, no;
he said nothing.


Charles Gavan Power: If you will stand up and
say you are for high protection I will stand up and say I am for free trade.


Ross Wilfred Gray: He fought a platform on it
-what happened?


William Earl Rowe: Even the
hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) would not rise and make such a declaration. He knows he would not rise again in Parry Sound if he did. Will the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) rise and say he is for free trade? Why, Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that free trade is the greatest piece of political camouflage in Canada to-day. There is not an honourable free trader within sound of my voice to-night- not one. They are afraid to rise, because they know that by export restrictions, by all sorts of quotas, by the militant attitude of various countries that have their backs to the wall to-day, there can be no such thing, either in logic or in sound common sense, as free trade. My hon. friends are therefore, veering round to the old Conservative policy, trying to steal the idea that they have so long condemned.
May I say in conclusion that the farmers of this country-


Walter Edward Foster: Order. The hon. member's time has expired.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Walter Edward Foster: With the unanimous
consent of the house.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Did the hon. member go
before the national convention of the National Liberal-Conservative party-


An hon. MEMBER:: You have the wrong name.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Did the hon. member try
to get the convention?


Robert James Manion: No, he did not; he was
helping me.


Mr. POULIOT:: It is surprising the hon.
gentleman was elected.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Will the hon. member for
Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) permit a question with reference to his observation that his party will be successful in the next election. For the benefit of hon. members on this side of the house will he indicate whether, in the policy which I understand his hon. leader has been persuaded to adopt, he had a green light out for truth or a red light out for romance.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to finish what I was about to say?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


William Earl Rowe: I should
like to reply to the hon. member for Parry Sound. He is a genial gentleman for whom I have a great regard. But when he talks about the green light out for integrity and the yellow light out for romance, I would ask him to let his mind go back to the last provincial election in Ontario, and he will find that he had little romance and less integrity. He told the people of Ontario that if they voted for Earl Rowe their stocks would drop 15 per cent-


Ross Wilfred Gray: They did.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, but
they did not vote for me; they voted for his friend; he was elected, and their stocks dropped 30 per cent. So when he talks about the green light of integrity he can get no comfort out of that, but he might find some out of the yellow light of romance.
In conclusion, I wish to urge this house to consider carefully, and I want to urge on the Minister of Agriculture, independent of politics-


Walter Adam Tucker: Is the hon. member against the bill?



Agricultural Products-Marketing


William Earl Rowe: Yes, I am against the bill. I am against the bill because it is a goose-stepping plan for the individual rather than one to meet world competition. The minister should know, and if he does not there are in the gallery a number of officials from his own department who would tell him that our first duty in this dominion in the interest of agriculture is to find a way to meet world competition, to get rid of our agricultural surpluses rather than dance our people to an election tune to win votes. We must find means of placing our agricultural surplus. Every country in the world has subsidized its exports, and I will support the Minister of Agriculture in any legislation he brings down to establish an export marketing board and give a bonus-which will cost much less than this measure-to high grade quality only, equal to the best quality produced anywhere in the world, for that market. If he does that he will start at the right end, the economic end, and I suggest that he do that instead of playing politics.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): The oration just delivered by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) was most interesting. Of course something was hurt; I do not say someone, it did not hurt any one of our colleagues but I fear the hon. member hurt his desk badly by banging it so loudly and so many times. He spoke at length of "loss leaders" and also repeated the expression that we used to hear from the lips of his lamented former leader, "those within the sound of my voice." He repeated that so often that it probably gave him the illusion that he was someone other than himself.
There are of course great experts in agriculture in all countries of the world. I had the privilege of listening to one in England, the Right Hon. Mr. Morrison, a remarkable man who is now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I heard him prescribe two diets, one for peace-time and one for time of war. The peace-time diet was meat and the wartime diet was wheat. As the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe has no interest in wheat and probably is a great admirer of Mr. Morrison, who was a prominent Tory in England, it may mean that as we shall have no exclusive wheat diet for some time we shall have peace. As the wheat diet is the diet for war and as the hon. member is not for it, we shall have peace and a meat diet. This is just as serious as what the hon. gentleman has said.

The hon. gentleman says that he knows something of the province of Quebec. He does not know anything of it. He says he knows the people of the back country.


William Earl Rowe: I was back there.


Jean-François Pouliot: He may know a few, but I can tell him that any single farmer of the back country of my constituency knows more in his little finger about agriculture than the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe knows.


William Earl Rowe: The hon. member does not know enough to judge.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know a great deal about agriculture because I have learned it from the farmers of my constituency.


William Earl Rowe: You mean you have farmed the farmers.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will the hon. member speak intelligently and audibly? I cannot hear him. When I listen to him I have the impression of hearing a movietone, and of course that is pretty hard on me. I am not very familiar with the English language and I expect everyone to speak his native tongue audibly.
Agriculture is a very serious matter, and is not to be treated lightly.


William Earl Rowe: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am glad the hon. gentleman says "hear, hear," because I have spoken lightly for two or three minutes in answer to him. But now I want to speak seriously; probably he will not see the difference, but that is of no importance because I do not try to convince him. I want to speak seriously about a grave problem in this country. Of course, when one lives in a rural district, meets the farmers and is interested in their needs, their difficulties and their progress, he can learn a great deal if he is willing to learn.
It is true that in our part of the country, in the eastern provinces, we have mixed farming. Most of the farmers there have the spirit of pioneers. And there are some of them who deserve even more credit than the ordinary farmer; they are the settlers who clear the bush in order to cultivate the land. The farmers of eastern Canada, having the spirit of pioneers, at first did not lean on any government for help. They -were making their own roads and carrying on their affairs without any subsidy or any help. But with the coming of harder times they have had to rely to a certain extent on government assistance, and their point of view now is that what

Agricultural Products-Marketing
is done for one part of the country should be done for other parts. If it is good for one section of the country it must be good for the other; that is their point of view. May I repeat something that you, Mr. Speaker, know very well; it is that the farmers of eastern Canada deserve as much help as those of the west. And the situation is not always agreeable for them. They strive hard, they have difficulty, and they expect someone to come to their assistance.
Of course under the British North America Act agriculture and immigration are, in the first place, provincial matters. The dominion and the provinces have joint jurisdiction in those two fields only. As time went on, there were many changes, and little by little the dominion has been doing more with regard to agriculture by way of experimental farms and by assisting farmers. I wonder what is the practical difference in the way the dominion and provincial departments of agriculture are operated. It must be very slight. Would it not be better to keep the experimental farms and illustration stations throughout the country under the administration of the dominion government and then give the provinces a subsidy, in proportion to their population, which subsidy would be under the control of the provincial governments? Then no one could complain that more was done for one section of the country than for another.
Further, I wonder if the creation of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan was in fact a good thing. There is no doubt that Sir Wilfrid Laurier meant very well; he wanted to see this country larger and more populous, but now that the western provinces are costing Canada so much by way of loans, grants and guarantees I wonder if in regard to the dominion these western provinces do not occupy the same position that Newfoundland occupied with regard to England, and if it would not be better to return those provinces to the territories they once were, with a commissioner in charge. That would be a simple way of managing the business of those provinces. A petition could be addressed to the imperial parliament requesting the repeal of the Westminster statutes that were passed thirty-three years ago. Then those provinces would be in the same position as Newfoundland, until their prosperity was restored. I wonder if that would not be a good thing. They would have a fine territory; they would be happy and contented and they could try their own experiments.


William Hayhurst: Would you take over their debt?


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not know, but I do know the west is pretty costly to the east. The farmers of the east want the same degree of assistance from the dominion government that the farmers of the west are given. That is the position; of course it may be pretty costly, but it should be done in order that there may be no difficulty in our part of the country. I am sure that those who take time to consider the matter will realize that this is only fair. Certainly the products of the mixed farming of the east should receive consideration equal to that given the wheat of the west.


Major James William Coldwell: I was going to remark that the east has as much need for consideration as the west in the marketing of its products; and I was also going to add that if western farmers took the advice of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) and forgot to any extent the wheat about which we talk so much in this house and diverted our activities to the production of dairy and other farm products, I am not sure what would happen to the dairy interests of eastern Canada. So I would say that anything that can be done to maintain the wheat industry of western Canada, and to prevent the farmers of the west from being forced into some other line of endeavour, is in the interests of eastern agriculture.
While the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe was speaking, I looked up the figures in regard to the production of one commodity in which Ontario and Quebec are interested, namely, butter. I found that in 1937 Saskatchewan produced 23,000,000 pounds of butter, with a home consumption of between
6.000.	000 and 7,000,000 pounds. Manitoba produced 24,000,000 pounds and consumed from
13.000.	000 to 14,000,000 pounds. So these two provinces had a surplus of 28,000,000 pounds of butter in that year.


Mr. HARRIS:: What did they do with that surplus?


Major James William Coldwell: I will answer that question in a moment. Ontario showed a .production of 81.500,000 pounds, with a consumption of 92,000,000 pounds; Quebec produced
74.000.	000 pounds and consumed 88,000,000 pounds, while the three maritime provinces had a production of 11,500,000 pounds and a consumption of 20,250,000 pounds. So in 1937 the production of eastern Canada was 33,000,000 pounds short of the consumptive requirements. In 1938 production in the prairies was increased by 6,000,000 pounds; in Ontario, by 5.500,000; in Quebec, by 4,500,000
71492-227J

Agricultural Products-Marketing
pounds, and in the maritimes, by 2,000,000 pounds. That brought up our production to some 12,000,000 pounds more than we needed in this country. If our western farmers took the advice that is so frequently tendered in this house and went into the production of dairy products, I am not sure what some of the eastern dairy interests would do.
We have discussed wheat a great deal in this house. That is because, as I said earlier, to quote the former leader of the opposition- I have not his exact words under my hand, but I know what they were-wheat is Canada's greatest source of new wealth. He went on to say that since the west had been settled, something like $10,000,000,000 in new wealth had been produced in that way. It is true that during the last eight or nine years western Canada has suffered from drought and economic disaster, but that is no reason in the world why western Canada should be considered as a sort of poor relation of eastern Canada. When I look round the east and see the fine financial institutions, with their tremendous reserve funds marked on their windows, I know perfectly well that a great deal of that new wealth originated in western Canada in days gone by and that the people who produced it have precious little to show for the productive years that are now past.
I do not know a great deal about some matters covered by this particular bill because I have not given them special study, but I know western Canada will support any legislation that may be introduced in the interests of the eastern producer. The only thing I do know about this legislation is that 1 have heard it criticized because it is not considered sufficiently comprehensive. I found myself in complete agreement with the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe in at least one particular; that was when he suggested that we ought to have a thorough economic survey made by those competent to conduct it. One thing I do regret is that such an act was on the statute books of this country and that in the first session of this parliament it was repealed by this government. So then all I wish to say is that I do not know the extent to which this bill is satisfactory to eastern agricultural interests, but I know that if it is as unsatisfactory as the wheat marketing legislation now before the house it will indeed be very unsatisfactory. The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) is quite wrong if he thinks that the wheat bills are going to help the present government back into power. They will, on the contrary prevent their getting back into power, so far as western Canada is concerned.
(Mr. Coldwell.]
Mr. WILLIAM HAYHURST (Vegreville); Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to delay the house more than to say that western Canada is certainly the treasure house of Canada. At least it is the treasure house of agricultural production, and is rich in oil wells and various other products. This bill of course deals with the marketing of products other than wheat, by cooperative methods. We know that men in western Canada and in other parts of the country have given the best of their lives to the development of cooperative industry. Upon those foundations which they properly laid we want to build. Therefore the idea of developing cooperative enterprise is very strong with us. It is a strong sentiment in western Canada.
Looking back upon my own life I know that when I first went to western Canada I was interested in the development of cooperative societies, wheat pools and so on. In our communities we had to develop various cooperative assistance, some of which fell by the wayside because of lack of confidence of the people, and some of which succeeded. 'If the people will not place their confidence in these movements they will always be a failure. In that respect we may take Great Britain as an example. They have developed various cooperative enterprises, and in many respects have been very successful. In a town in western Canada with which. I am familiar there is a cooperative enterprise which has been exceptionally successful, while in the next town the cooperative enterprise was not a success because the manager in that particular instance was not trustworthy. There must be proper management and confidence of the people.
If this bill will do anything to help agriculture, no matter whether it be in Quebec, Ontario, the maritimes, British Columbia or the prairie provinces, it will have our support. We realize that Canada must be developed as an entity, and when we speak of wheat we do so only because it is one of the great products of the dominion. The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) spent about half his time talking about something he deplored, but if he had devoted that time to telling hon. members how cooperative enterprise could have been developed in milk production or cheese production I believe his observations would have been more constructive and more to the point.
The bill before the house deals with products other than wheat. In passing, I would add that it is not worded quite accurately. When I asked a little while ago if the measure would include cheese I was asking the question quite innocently, reading the bill as it was

Agricultural Products-Marketing
printed. I think the words "other than wheat" should have been put in brackets, and in that way we would have gained the proper impression.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the comma is taken out it will be satisfactory.


William Hayhurst: Yes, or if "other than wheat" is put in brackets.
I should certainly like to see developments in cooperative enterprise instead of in the bill. We must remember that most Canadian farmers are in a very difficult situation. They need support. It does not matter whether they are in the back concessions of Quebec or in my own constituency; they are worthy of such support. People living on the farms and doing the best they can are the back-bone of the country, and if we are not prepared to help them the country will naturally go to the dogs. But we are prepared to help those people, and hon. members in this corner of the house are prepared to cooperate with this or any other government for the welfare of the people of all of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Definition.
Alan Webster Neill: When I asked the minister on second reading why this measure did not include natural products as defined by the bill of 1934 he referred me to the Minister of Fisheries who, he said, was introducing a bill dealing with the matter. I would point out, however, that that bill is only in the resolution stage, and has been that way for ten days. If we are going to prorogue a week from to-morrow there is small chance of having it passed. Anyway, it deals only with salt fish and the export of salt fish. What I am referring to is the Natural Products Marketing Act assented to in 1934, which covered the products of agriculture, and of the forests, seas, lakes or rivers. I believe it is in order to ask why, if we are going into this system of cooperative marketing-and some people think it is desirable; I think it is-it should' be confined only to agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: The main reason, so far as fisheries are concerned, is the one I indicated when answering the hon. member previously. As the resolution indicates, a bill to deal with salt fish is being brought down. At the time the bill now before the committee was being drafted I did not have full information as to what the intention was in connection with that particular legislation. I should
think, however, that the proper place to add fish, other than salt fish, would be in that rather than in this legislation, because this has to do with farm products.
Then, so far as products of the forests are concerned, I understand there was a great deal of controversy at the time the Natural Products Marketing Act was discussed as to where the division should be made with respect to products of the forest. There was the question whether lumber of certain types, shingles and that sort of thing, should be included. We thought in drafting this bill that at this stage at least it was better to confine it to agricultural products, and to try it out experimentally for a year. If a year hence it is thought advisable to add other products I do not think there would be any serious objection, but at this time I think it would be best to try it out on agricultural products alone.


Joseph Henry Harris: What other products has
the minister in mind which might possibly be included? I was surprised to hear the minister mention lumber, because it is far removed from wheat. Many other products would come in between the categories of agricultural products and lumber.


James Garfield Gardiner: As at present drafted,
the bill is presumed to cover all agricultural products. The suggestion just made was that we should take in other products, other than those of the farm, namely that we should take in fish and products of the forests. I am just saying I do not think it is advisable in this bill, which is more or less of an experiment to try to promote cooperative marketing in connection with farm products, to include, in the present year, other natural products.


Joseph Henry Harris: Perhaps the minister would give some idea of the degree of relativity, if I may use that term, of farm products. Which of the farm products would be put in the first category, and so on, down the line, which require attention at this time.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no intention
of placing them in categories in that way. That is, if for example the cheese makers were to come along and ask us, the day after this legislation becomes effective, to interest ourselves in the formation of cooperatives in the cheese industry, that is where we would begin our activity. If it happened to be producers of grass seeds of various kinds we would be prepared immediately to become active in the formation of organizations renting to that branch of agriculture.
Privilege-Mr. Pouliot


Joseph Henry Harris: There is no doubt that the minister has already on his desk many files of correspondence dealing with different commodities. For instance, he mentioned seeds, which are much to the fore at the present time, and having attended to this correspondence which comes to his desk from suggested cooperative movements of many kinds he must have in his mind an idea of some of the branches of agriculture which would require assistance almost immediately should this bill pass, as no doubt it will. In order that we may take a more intelligent view of the necessities of the different branches of agriculture, would the minister at this stage be good enough to tell the committee-, in what particular lines of agriculture we might expect assistance to be given under this bill; but at the same time keeping in mind, Mr. Chairman, that it is now 11.05. I had expected the house would close at 11 o'clock and that you, sir, as chairman, would have suggested that the committee rise and report progress.


Ernest Lapointe: Does my hon. friend insist on that?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understood that there was a sort of understanding that we might continue until a little later, but if the hon. member insists that it is eleven o'clock, it is eleven o'clock.


Joseph Henry Harris: I am quite satisfied to go on until six o'clock in the morning, so far as that is concerned. I remember in the old days we sat here until the wee, small hours, and we can do it again in order to have prorogation. I am not suggesting that myself, but whatever the government desires to do will meet with my approval.
Section stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East) the house adjourned at 11.08 p.m.
Friday, May 5, 1939