[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. E. BOTHWELL (Swift Current) moved that the third report of the special committee on electoral matters be now concurred in.
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, this motion implies complete endorsement of a draft bill which the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell) laid on the table with the report. I was a member of this committee although for some time I was ill and unable to attend. I must say that I heartily commend not only the legal talent but the judicial attitude taken by the hon. member for Swift Current as chairman of this committee. But this report deals with certain fundamentals which, if accepted, I think would be prejudicial to the conduct of the democratic representative system which now prevails in this country
3868	COMMONS
Electoral Matters-Special Committee
Heretofore the Dominion Elections Act provided penalties for all corrupt acts which influenced or tended to influence the votes of electors, but candidates and their official agents were free to incur expenses in good faith for all purposes which were not deemed and declared by the Dominion Elections Act to be corrupt.
For example, expenses incurred in good faith to secure a proper revision of the voters' list in order to eliminate from the voters' list the names of those who were not duly qualified electors and to prevent illegal voting have always been a legitimate expense. Again, expenses incurred in good faith for necessary professional services actually performed for the purpose of preventing the illegal registration of voters and illegal voting and to secure the proper conduct of an election have always been deemed to be a legitimate expense. Again, expenses incurred for the fair cost of printing and advertising and for stenographic services and postage for communicating with and instructing electors, have always been deemed a legitimate expense. Again, expenses of public meetings at which addresses may be delivered to electors, including the hiring of halls and meeting places, advertising meetings and the expenses of broadcasting political addresses have up to the present time, always been regarded as a legitimate expense.
These and similar expenses were deemed to be not only legal but necessary for ensuring freedom of discussion which is the fundamental basis of democratic representative government. This form of government is possible only when free public discussion of public questions is not only permitted but encouraged so that the electors may be fully informed in relation to the political issues, upon which the verdict of the electors is sought when an appeal is made to the electors of the whole country or to the electors of any electoral district.
The Dominion Elections Act of 1938 was enacted after being reviewed by this same committee on electoral matters. Section 65 of that act, after defining in nine clauses every form of corrupt practice, states:
Provided always that the terms of this section shall not extend or be construed to extend to any money paid or agreed to be paid for or on account of any expenses legally payable and bona fide incurred at or concerning any election, and provided that the actual personal expenses of any candidate and his expenses for professional services actually performed and for the fair cost of printing and advertising and for halls or rooms for the holding of meetings shall be held to be expenses legally payable.
That is the law at the present time. You will note particularly, Mr. Speaker, that any expenses legally payable and bona fide incur-[Mr. Cahan.J
red at or concerning any election, including personal expenses of a candidate and his expenses for professional services actually performed, the fair cost of printing and advertising and for halls and rooms for the holding of meetings, are now declared to be expenses legally payable.
In addition to that, a candidate's personal expenses are defined by the act of 1938 in section 2, subsection 25, as follows:
(25) "personal expenses" as used herein with respect to the expenditure of any candidate in relation to the election at which he is a candidate, includes the reasonable travelling expenses of such candidate and the reasonable expenses of his living at hotels or elsewhere for the purposes of and in i elation to such election, and all other expenses which, except as restrained by this act, he may in person lawfully incur and pay.
The words "except as restrained by this act" refer to provisions which compel the candidate to have certain election expenses paid by his official agent.
This proposed bill by clause 22 of section 62 as drafted provides:
(22) With the exception of personal expenses lawfully incurred by a candidate, no election expense shall be incurred or authorized by a candidate or by his official agent in respect of any candidature as a member to serve in the House of Commons of Canada in excess of a sum equal to twenty cents for each name on the official list of electors for the electoral district for the current election.
On ten different occasions I have been a candidate at dominion or provincial elections; two of those were federal elections for rural districts and two of the provincial elections were for rural districts, and my personal expenses in either of those four elections in rural districts never exceeded $1,000. The expenses in a rural constituency are postage, travelling about the constituency, and the hiring of halls. I do not know what the practice is now in rural constituencies, but I never was called upon to pay more than five or ten dollars for a hall or meeting place for one night in country districts-sufficient to pay the janitor's services and the light. In the country districts they were always glad to make either the school house or the community hall available for discussion. But in a city constituency it is very different indeed. I am not criticizing any party, I am not criticizing any person, and I trust that anything I may say will not be regarded as a reflection upon particular individuals.
I am dealing now with the constituency of St. Lawrence-St. George in the city of Montreal.. I should think that probably St. Lawrence-St. George has a larger number of alien residents than almost any other district

Electoral Matters-Special Committee
in the island of Montreal or the province of Quebec. It is a great commercial centre; citizens of the United States and their families are resident there, and citizens of other foreign countries are engaged in commercial enterprises in the constituency. A very considerable number of aliens reside there who have never become naturalized Canadians.
My experience is that the present method of preparing the lists, by sending out enumerators who are engaged not for their knowledge of the law or their proficiency in deciding issues of naturalization and nationality, results in about four to five thousand names being returned by them of citizens who are not qualified to vote, either by nationality at birth, or by naturalization. So far as I am concerned I would not object very much to allowing these names to remain on the electoral list, because the majority of them or a great number of them are of reputable persons who would not attempt to vote at an election at which they know they are not qualified to vote. But leaving their names on the list, and assuming that they do not vote at the election, provides facilities for a crime to be perpetrated which is probably not peculiar to my constituency but certainly prevails there to a very considerable extent, the crime of impersonation. Leaving the names on the list allows those who engage in impersonation and in illegal voting of that description to appear at the polls and vote in the names of those who they know will not attend at the polls to vote.
But that is not the whole story. They attend and vote in the names of those properly qualified to vote, and in some cases the impersonation of women voters is the worst of the lot. I have known cases where eminent ladies in St. Lawrence-St. George have been impersonated by women gotten up to represent them, who appear at the polls early in the morning, and when the qualified electors appear they find that someone has voted in their name. Of course, the qualified elector may take the proper oath of identity and still vote, but women cannot often be prevailed upon to do that. Many business men coming to the poll and finding that others have voted in their names are so disgusted that they turn away and say, "If that is the way elections are conducted, I will have nothing to do with them."
I intend to give an illustration. Part of my constituency is a provincial constituency known as the St. Lawrence division. The provincial election of 1931 was held on August 24, 1931. The result of the vote appears in public documents which I have here, published by the officers of the provincial government. I wish
to note a few of the remarkable results achieved by the impersonators.
No. 48 was a polling subdivision with two polling stations. The station which contained names from A to L had 91 names on the list, and it was a closed list; no names could be added on election day, as is possible in the rural districts. With 91 names on the list, 96 polled their votes. In the station from L to Z, with 78 names on the list, 112 votes were polled. So that, taking the whole of polling division 48, with 169 names on a closed list 208 votes were polled.
In No. 69 there were two polling booths In one, from letter A to N, 81 names were on the list and 100 votes were polled; in the other, from O to Z, 52 names were on the list and 68 votes were polled. So that foi the whole polling division, with 133 names on the list, 168 votes were polled.
In No. 70 there were two booths. In the one with names from A to L there were <2 on the list and 75 votes polled; in the other, from M to Z, with 61 on the list, 62 votes were polled.
Or take No. 71, with two booths. In the one with names under letters A to M there were 70 on the list and 91 votes polled; from N to Z there were 68 on the list and 100 votes polled. So that in that polling division there were 138 names on the list and 191 votes polled.
In polling division 72 there were 99 names from A to K on the list and 121 votes polled; from L to Z there were 101 names on the list and 120 votes polled: in all, in that division there were 200 names on the list and 241 votes polled.
In No. 73, from A to L there were 105 on the list and 111 votes polled; from M ta Z. 96 on the list and 105 votes polled. So that in polling division 73, 201 were on the list and 216 votes polled.
That practice continued, because after the federal election of 1935 there was a general provincial election on November 25, 1935, and in the same electoral district I find these several remarkable incidents:
Polling division No. 5 	Number on list 	
184	Number of votes polled 1906 	
191	2497 	
188	1898 	
128	1469 	
247	24811 	
192	22915	
197	23717 	
207	21619 	
174	19893 ....	
163	19427 	
230	254
Consider that in the general voting in the city of Montreal only 75 or at most 80 per
3S70
Electoral Matters-Special Committee


Mr. SPEAKER:: I am sorry to have to
interrupt the hon. member, blit he has exhausted his time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


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


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will keep the house for
only a few moments. I am trying in restrained language to present the case which actually occurs. Now why should I not be allowed to hold public meetings, and as many, in my constituency as I deem necessary? I have no public hall in my constituency except halls which are attached to one or more of the churches. There is one-I do not know whether it is in my constituency, if not, it used to be when my constituency included a part of the ward of St. Louis; I refer to the Prince Arthur street hall where in the attic the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and labour unions and some others occasionally meet. But it is in an attic, and difficult of access, and women are afraid of it as a fire trap. For me to hold a public meeting in my constituency costs on an average at least S500. I have to hire one or more of the large dining rooms of the leading hotels, at a cost, if I remember correctly, of about $200. If I advertise that meeting in the city press, it costs at least $150 for advertising. If I have any broadcasting, it costs $150 more- in all, about $500 for a public meeting with a local broadcast so that all my constituents may hear me. Why should I not be allowed to make that expenditure? Why should I be put on the same plane as the candidate in a country constituency where such expenditures are not necessary except on a very moderate basis?
Therefore what I say now is that I shall vote against the motion of the hon. member for Swift Current, because to vote for that motion to my mind carries with it an approval of all that the bill attached to his report contains. And that bill must be read in conjunction with the main act as passed last session. I have stated the reasons why I cannot vote for it, why I must oppose it. When the bill comes before the house it must, I assume, be introduced by a member of the government. I trust that the government, before they approve the bill and introduce it as a government measure, will carefully consider the criticism which I have made and decide whether there may not be some amelioration of the distressing circumstances and conditions to which I have called attention. Personally I wish to impose no expenditure

upon any candidate. Any candidate is free not to make any such expenditures, but I am bound, if I am to prevent criminal practices in my constituency, to take measures to prevent such impersonation and fraud; I intend to do it to the extent that I may do so legally, and I do not think this parliament should preclude me from so doing.
I should like to suggest an amendment. I am simply going to read it now, to show the line along which I think the government should consider an amendment of this bill. It is a mere suggestion, not a motion. It is that clause 22 of section 62 be amended to read as follows:
22. With the exception of personal expenses lawfully incurred by a candidate during an election to an aggregate amount not exceeding one thousand dollars, and with the further exception of expenses incurred bona fide by or on behalf of an official agent, during or in connection with an election, in the preparation and revision of the list of electors and in preventing illegal voting, expenses for professional services actually performed, expenses for the fair cost of printing and advertising and for halls or rooms for the holding of meetings, and expenses for broadcasting political addresses by or on behalf of a candidate during an election, no election expense shall be incurred or authorized by a candidate or by his official agent, in respect of any candidature as a member to serve in the House of Commons of Canada, in excess of a sum equal to . . . cents for each name on the official list of electors for the electoral district for the current election.
What I wish is to restore in principle the exception made in the present existing act of 1938 whereby all these expenditures were declared to be legal unless it was clearly shown that they were made for corrupt or illegal purposes.
This motion to accept the report cannot pass except on a division, and if it shall pass on division I shall make no further objection now. Having stated my case to the government, I trust that before the bill is introduced its members will take into consideration the matters to which I have called attention.
Hon, C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health):	May I join
with the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) in expressing the appreciation of, I am sure, all hon. members of the work carried on by the members of the electoral committee during the past four sessions. I do not know of any committee of this house that has laboured so long and so carefully in dealing with the various matters confided to it for consideration. The members of this committee have dealt with most complicated questions, matters which have been in controversy over a long period

Electoral Matters-Special Committee
of years, such as the alternative vote, proportional representation and compulsory registration and voting, and have made reports to this house which I believe will be studied and consulted for many years to come. After a careful study of all existing legislation, both in Canada and in other parts of the empire, the committee brought in last year an election act which in the opinion of, I believe, the vast majority of the members of this house is as complete an act as it would be possible to place on the statute book under any circumstances.
Our thanks, I think, are particularly due- and in this I join with the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George-to the chairman of that committee, the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell). The work of a committee such as his involved the exercise of discretion, judgment, tact and diplomacy, all of which are possessed by the hon. member for Swift Current to a degree not surpassed by any hon. member of this house.
I think I should also say a word, in which I am sure hon. members in all parts of the house will concur, in regard to the counsel to the committee, Mr. Harry Butcher, a former colleague of ours. Mr. Butcher has devoted a great deal of time and energy to the study of these questions; and by way of digression, so far as my experience goes he is the only individual ever to be permitted to address secret caucuses of all the political parties represented in this house. Mr. Butcher, I understand, was allowed to give an explanation of the 1938 election act to the caucus of each political party in this chamber. I think that speaks well for him, and perhaps indicates that sometimes at least members of this house are not unduly imbued with the partisan spirit.
With respect to this suggested legislation, in some respects at least I agree with the hon. member who has just spoken. The proposals do not meet with all the requirements I might have considered essential. The proposed bill perhaps may not be as radical as the measure which was presented to this house a year ago. In connection with some matters the recommendations are perhaps not sufficiently restrictive in the way of expenditure. But I suggest that the two main principles contained in this proposed legislation should commend themselves to the members of the house. The first is the limitation of the expenditure permitted by a candidate. The second is something new in our legislation, a recognition of the fact that in addition to the candidates in any given constituency there are certain organizations which have a vast influence in the issue of an election, namely, large political organizations;
and that those political organizations, in order to function, must have campaign funds. The country and parliament will at last recognize the legal existence of something at the very name of which we have hitherto shuddered. It is proposed by the committee in this legislation that we recognize campaign funds, that we regulate them and publicize them so that every person in the country may know the sources from which these funds come.
With respect to the first principle, dealing with the limitation of expenditure on the part of any candidate, almost every country in the world has some such provision in its election legislation. Great Britain has it; the United States has it; Ireland has it; Australia has it; New Zealand has it, and as far as I am aware many of the countries of Europe have it also. In many countries the limit is far lower than that proposed in this legislation. We have, I think, come to the almost unanimous conclusion that it is not right or fair that the wealth of a candidate should be a material factor in his election as a representative of the people. Ever since the franchise has been granted, ever since man has had the right to exercise the franchise, it has been restricted by extraneous factors of one kind or another. In the early days, as the house well knows, the right to vote was strictly limited to the propertied classes. Later there was intimidation of the voters by these same propertied classes, and in many instances an election was a foregone conclusion because the tenants were obliged, either by custom, by practice or by coercion, to vote for their landlords. Still later we ran into the question of undue influence, industrial, clerical and governmental; and now, in our modern days, we come across something which is almost a greater obstacle to the free choice of the people than any I have enumerated, namely the power of money. Given an election in which there is no very great public issue clearly defined, wherein the public are apt to be confused by the slogans of the various parties; given to any candidate the right to use unlimited money for propaganda, for the hiring of halls, for the employment of the genius of the modern advertising man and the pushful tactics of the modern high pressure salesman, all the eloquence of paid orators on the radio, a wealthy man is an extremely difficult man to defeat in a constituency, however just the cause of the other candidate may be. Therefore, I say there is justification for the limitation of expenditures in a constituency.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is it not true that there is no limitation so long as the expenditures are made by a national association or committee9
3874	COMMONS
Electoral Matters-Special Committee


Mr. POWER:: I am coming to that point. I am free to admit that the point raised by my hon. friend is a serious one. As yet I have not considered it, but I propose to deal with it in a moment. I am not aware as to whether the committee considered that matter. It strikes me that there would appear to be quite an anomaly at first sight in suggesting a limitation in a constituency and having none in connection with the national organization. Before leaving the matter of the local organization, I might suggest that to allow unlimited expenditures in a constituency, as is the case now, is unfair to the constituency and detrimental to the general interests of the country.
Then, with respect to campaign funds of a general party organization, I do not believe there is any question which has more thoroughly aroused public opinion in this country-over a long period of time, particularly in recent years, than the matter of campaign funds. But I believe public opinion has been unduly aroused; I am convinced that the immense campaign funds which are mentioned on all and sundry occasions exist only in the imaginations of those who mention them. Any-one who has been as close to political organization work as I have knows that there is nothing harder to get than campaign funds when they are most urgently required. But the opinion does exist that there are such funds. Whether or not that opinion is well founded, it is deeply implanted in the minds of a large majority of our people.
There is the further thought that these funds are used corruptly, however much they may be used legally. There is also the thought that those who subscribe are doing something detrimental to the public interest and harmful to the country as a whole. My hon. friend, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion), the former leader of the opposition, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and many prominent men have expressed the view in this house-I am not giving their exact words-that a man has as much right to subscribe to his political party fund as he has to subscribe to his church or to any other organization. In that view I heartily concur. But the public has a right to know where these funds come from. The public has a right to be able to trace the sources of the funds by- which propaganda is carried on behalf of a political party. Whether these subscriptions be large or small, there should be something on our statute books to force those who feel inclined to subscribe to have their names known to the public. I do not think I need labour this point any further. The matter has been discussed time and again
[Mr. Calian.l
and I think the people generally of this country approve of publicity being given to campaign funds.
That this publicity will dry up some of the sources of these funds, I do not deny, as I have stated already, but- I do believe that as long as these funds are hidden, as long as the exact size of funds is not known, then those who attach themselves to political parties, those who like elections in order that they may benefit in their own pockets, will be constantly pulling at the purse-strings of the various parties because of the belief that the funds are unlimited. The moment the amount of these funds is known to the public it will be possible to tell the hangers-on that they cannot get that which they desire. In other words, if we have less money, we will squander less.
Speaking purely from the standpoint of one who has taken part in elections and election organization, I believe what we need most in this country is the education of our people to the fact that campaign funds cannot be picked off trees, that it is a delusion to imagine that because a general election is on, millionaires will empty their pockets on behalf of one political party or another, and that all one has to do is to make the suggestion to a political party in order to have it indulge in the wildest form of extravagance; that things which would not be done in private business will be done because it is in the alleged interests of the party. We should educate our people, and we shall be obliged to educate them, to the belief that civic spirit, interest in their country, interest in their own particular locality and their own selves will do more for the good of the country than the expenditure of thousands on publicity and similar activities. We must tell them that if they staunchly and firmly believe in the political party which they support, they will support that party because of their principles and in order to put the party into power. If that is done I think they will soon come to the conclusion that there will be no reward at the end other than the ordinary reward of virtue.
A word with respect to the suggestion made by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. On many occasions my hon. friend has explained to this house the particular difficulties which exist in his constituency.
I do not think any member of this house, least of all myself, would contradict him in any way. If he believes that the state of disorder which he describes constantly exists, we have to take his word for it. But I fail to follow his argument when he states that because

Electoral Matters-Special Committee
there are among his electors, or among those who reside in his constituency, people who would take advantage of the law7 to perjure themselves or to commit criminal acts, this parliament should authorize the expenditure of money to an extent to permit him to set up a private army of his own to control this lawlessness. I took it from his observations this morning that he proposed to engage his own private constables. He complained of political patronage in the state engaging one constable, but with all my respect and even veneration for my hon. friend he would hardly be likely to make the general of his private army a member of another political party.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Certainly he would not employ those who have voting qualifications in his own constituency and deprive them of the vote, or employ constables so as to influence them to vote in his favour. The point which my hon. friend leaves out of consideration, and the sole point which I emphasize, is that this government and this parliament should take means to prevent fraud and preserve order, or inevitably private parties will undertake it on their own account.


Charles Gavan Power: To digress for a moment, to answer the last point made by my hon. friend, I would point out with all due respect that he was a member of a government for five years, and during that time the government introduced two bills dealing with elections, the Franchise Act and the Dominion Elections Act, and my hon. friend's advice on matters of this kind would doubtless have been listened to with the closest attention by his colleagues. Not only that, but the first of those two acts, the Franchise Act, which was passed in 1934, was amended at the request, I take it, of my hon. friend. He introduced what we thought was a little private bill of his own. I do not like to repeat my own jokes, but at that time I thought it was a bill for the relief of Charles IT Cahan.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It was a relief from the criminal practices which were being carried on by the followers of my hon. friend. There is no doubt about it; it is admittedly so.


Charles Gavan Power: While I hesitate to controvert the views expressed by my hon. friend, I have some recollection of that particular piece of legislation. The house will remember that in 1934 the Franchise Act was passed. It provided that there should be a closed list and a registration of electors every year. The registration duly took place in my hon. friend's constituency, as in every other constituency. In 1935 my hon. friend came to
this house with a bill which in effect asked parliament to reverse the decision of the chief justice of the superior court of the province of Quebec.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is not true, and I am perfectly prepared to deal with it in committee.


Charles Gavan Power: I shall not ask my hon. friend to apologize. I have never in twenty-five years in parliament risen to a question of privilege to call anyone to order, but I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give me the same show, if I need it later in this discussion, that is given to every member. If this is going to be a private fight, let it be so. I say that my hon. friend introduced a bill the object of which was to change the decision of a judge, the chief justice, no less, of the superior court of the province of Quebec, Chief Justice Greenshields, his decision being that no one who was already on the electoral list could have his or her name struck off without due lawful proof being given that they had no right to vote. I have here the decision of the judge. My hon. friend's private army, after the enumeration had been made by the official enumerators, one from each political party, as provided for then and as is provided for now, checked over that list and decided that of about twenty-five or probably thirty thousand odd names on the list of electors in my hon. friend's constituency, five thousand were illegally on the list, and my hon. friend's friends proceeded to make affidavits that these persons had no right to vote. The registrar declared in fact that these electors' names should be taken off the list. The electors, as is the right of every citizen of Canada, and as is provided for by the act, appealed to the judge of the superior court of the province of Quebec.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will my hon. friend allow me a word? I do not think there was a case in which an individual elector appealed. A lawyer of the Liberal committee appeared and appealed on behalf of all of them, without showing any authority from individual electors to speak for them.


Charles Gavan Power: I am very proud of that lawyer for the Liberal committee for undertaking to see that no injustice was done by disfranchising thousands of electors because they were not voting for my hon. friend.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It was not an electoral disfranchisement.


Charles Gavan Power: The electors who had been disfranchised or whose names had been taken off the list by the registrar proceeded to

Electoral Matters-Special Committee
appeal to the judge of the superior court, which they had a right to do then and have a right to do now.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Who
appointed the registrar?


Charles Gavan Power: He was appointed by the dominion franchise commissioner. I have here the judgment of Chief Justice Green-shields. I have not the date of it, but it is signed by "R. A. E. Greenshields, J.C.S." I do not want to go through all the particulars, but in deciding what evidence should be required by the registrar before striking a name off the list, my own conclusion after reading the judgment was that the evidence which the registrar had accepted was hardly sufficient and that, unless proper evidence was given to the contrary, these people's names should remain on the list. It was to reverse a decision of the learned judge in that court that my hon. friend asked for legislation by this house. Apparently there were only two hundred cases that came before Judge Greenshields. His judgment was read into the records of this house on June 21, 1935, by you, Mr. Speaker, when in happier times you were sitting on the other side of the house. The affidavits to disfranchise these various people appear to have been made by a gentleman named Prowse. In his judgment the chief justice says:
It may be here stated that after the notice of appeal was served on the registrar, the objector, Prowse, desisted from his objection and purported to desist from the order given by the registrar striking the names of twenty-three out of the two hundred.
So that as soon as the appeal was made, this private investigator decided that he would not like it pressed to the point where evidence would be taken, and so he desisted.
Quoting further from the judgment:
I now deal with the proceedings before the registrar, on the twenty-second of May, as disclosed before me. In the first place Prowse was the objector in all the two hundred cases. From his own testimony it appears that he did not know, personally, one of the two hundred against whom he made an objection. In the second place, he never saw one of these electors against whom he made these objections. What he did appears by his testimony. He went to the residence, as shown on the official voters' list. In some cases he found a vacant house, or a house into which he could not obtain entrance. How long that house had been vacant he has no idea. He therefore asked somebody for information, and somebody, whom he had never seen before, and whom he does not know, informed him, that the house was vacant; that the former tenant had moved away. This statement covers a comparatively few of the names objected to. In the great majority of the names the objector, Prowse, found some-
TMr. Power.]
one in the house. Again, he did not know that person, but asked that person if the elector lived there, and was told by that person, no, and Prowse testified to what he had heard before the registrar.
In the opinion of Chief Justice Greenshields, the work of the private investigators of my hon. friend, or on my hon. friend's side, was not such as commended itself to him, and he thought that the reasons given and the evidence presented were not sufficient to strike people off the list. All this I say to indicate the extreme danger from the public standpoint of allowing any man, in however high regard we may hold him, whatever his prestige may be, to take upon himself the duties of the state, to organize within any district a whole host of men who, quite conscientiously-and I give my hon. friend and his friends credit for the best of good faith in that matter-believe it is their duty to look to the disfranchisement of thousands of electors. Where I differ, and differ fundamentally, from my hon. friend is that I believe election acts and franchise acts are meant to put people on the lists, not to take them off.


Mr. STEWART:: Take them off if they are not qualified.


Charles Gavan Power: I know I cannot convince my hon. friend, but I believe that once a man is put on through due process of law, through the action of the enumerator, it should be made difficult to take him off. He should not be called upon to go through a costly process, to appear before a judge, to exercise the inalienable right of the citizen. He should not be asked to go and give all that evidence. The onus of proof as regards taking him off the list should be on the person and on the organization that wants to take him off.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is, and always has been.


Charles Gavan Power: Evidently the judge of the superior court did not agree with my hon. friend. He is too good a lawyer for me to argue with him.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My hon. friend should not address remarks of that kind to me. If he wishes to discuss this, let him wait until the bill is in committee, where we can discuss it, and I shall be prepared then to refute his statements.


Charles Gavan Power: With all respect to my hon. friend, I think the same objection could be made to his speech. He might have waited until the bill was in committee.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No.


Charles Gavan Power: I am defending the principle of limitation of expenses. My hon. friend says that he must be allowed to spend more money because he wants an army of investigators-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, I do not wish an army. Mr. POWER: -to supervise-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I wish to prevent that wholesale impersonation as we know of it from the returns.


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


Charles Gavan Power: He wants the registration
to be supervised. He wants somebody to check up the names of everybody who gets on the list. And then-which is far worse- he wants to be allowed to raise an army to police the polls,-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Oh, well; this is sheer extravagance of language.


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


Charles Gavan Power: -if we allow him unlimited money to place his own constables in the polls, as he said he proposed to do.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I did not.


Charles Gavan Power: And worse than that, to
import his black-and-tans from other constituencies. He has exactly the same justification for the course which he wishes to pursue as had Hitler and Mussolini. The course he wishes to pursue is this one: "I am not satisfied with the manner in which my fellow-citizens observe the law in my constituency; therefore I want to be allowed to expend as much money as I please so that I can see that the law is observed at my behest."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Oh well, that is ridiculous.


Charles Gavan Power: I heard my hon. friend's
speech. Every hon. member in this chamber heard it. He said, "If the law does not provide constables for me"-and, by the way, the law does, in cases of disorder.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Only one.


Charles Gavan Power: Well, one good constable
ought to be as useful as the whole army of my hon. friend in so far as the nonpartisanship of the election is concerned.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is ridiculous to talk about an "army."


Charles Gavan Power: My hon. friend said that
he wished to employ people to protect his interests at the poll. I do not blame him. But why does he not do like other candidates? There are other candidates in the city of
Electoral Matters-Special Committee
Montreal. There are others in every city of Canada. Surely all the crooks and thugs do not flock in to St. Lawrence-St. George just because it is St. Lawrence-St. George.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It looks as though a great many did.


Charles Gavan Power: As described by my hon. friend, the land of Canaan is not a land of milk and honey but a land of strife and discord and of gall and vinegar. My hon. friend's associate in politics, the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. White) has never complained that his electors are apt to run wild, that they will stuff the ballots against him, that they will telegraph votes, that they will commit all kinds of illegalities. I think perhaps my hon. friend from St. Antoine-Westmount relies more on the love and affection which his fellow-citizens have for him, and he is right. I do not suppose there is anyone in this house, certainly none of the women and I am sure hardly any of the men, who if they had the right to vote in St. Antoine-Westmount, would not hesitate a long time before casting a vote against my hon. friend.
Another neighbour of my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George is the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret). Apparently he can get along without brown shirts or black shirts. And may I say again, and say to the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount, that there are no white shirts, there is no white army in Montreal. I believe that there is something worthy of consideration and of the attention of legislators in the situation mentioned by the hon. member. I think it exists in other constituencies, but that in those constituencies, the candidates take other means to cope with it, because I would hesitate to say that either the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount, the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret), or other hon. members for the island of Montreal were elected here only because illegality and corruption run rife in their constituencies. Surely they must have been elected by a majority of the honest people in their constituencies, and without going to all the trouble, to all the length to which my hon. friend goes.
Therefore I would reject on my own account, the plea of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George that he should be allowed an expenditure far higher than that allowed to other hon. members simply because of special conditions in his constituency. I believe he is strictly accurate in the account which he gives to us, but perhaps, if he would permit me to say so with all respect, his judgment may have been a little warped
3878	COMMONS
Electoral Matters-Special Committee
through constantly hearing from his supporters tales of the illegalities committed by his opponents.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And reading the official
reports of the elections.


Charles Gavan Power: And, possibly, by reading
the official reports.
I have little else to say on this matter. On the two occasions on which I have been permitted to address the house with respect to the principles contained in this bill, I have always said that if the house did not accept, generally speaking, those principles, it was not for me to endeavour to force their acceptance otherwise. I think they are good, and I believe that we could make a great step in reform legislation if this measure were passed. I believe the house should accept the recommendation of the committee. If, however, there is anything like a feeling in the house that the objection raised by my hon. friend is sound-perhaps it is, though to my mind it does not alter the principle-as to the discrepancy between the limitation of expenditure in individual constituencies and the limitless expenditure, if I may so put it, in national affairs, then I would suggest that that point be further studied. With the permission of the house I would therefore move the adjournment of the debate in order that we may study that question further and possibly report later on.


Mr. CHURCH:: I wish to say just three
or four words-*


Walter Edward Foster: The motion is not
debatable.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



RAILWAY SERVICES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 138, to amend the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, 1933.
He said: The purpose of the bill is to provide compensation on a scale set out in the bill to employees of the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways, of more than one year's service, who are either demoted or separated from the service as a result of a cooperative agreement made under the terms of the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act. I suggest that a more extensive explanation should be reserved until the bill is distributed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
fMr. Power.]

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

Mr. BROOKS:: What amounts of money have been expended by the federal government for water storage works in drought and other areas of the western provinces for the years 1937 and 1938?


Mr. RINFRET:: Department of Agriculture: 1937-38, $400,685.81; 1938-39, $1,078,279.46.
The above figures do not include engineering or administration costs.
Department of Mines and Resources: 1937-38, $14,690.08; 1938-39, $15,276.19.


ROYAL VISIT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Leader of the Opposition):: Before the orders of the day
are proceeded with, I should like to ask a question or, perhaps I should say, make a suggestion to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) or in his absence to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who is leading the house. When their majesties left England they were sent many messages of godspeed by various organizations, and I believe I am right in saying that the commons house of parliament in England sent them such a message. According to the press a message of good wishes was sent to their majesties by his Excellency the Governor General, and also one on behalf of the government of Canada. But it seems to me that the representatives of the people here assembled should participate in the welcome, through a resolution or an address. Therefore my suggestion is that it would be a loyal and proper act for this House of Commons, through His Honour the Speaker, to send a message of hearty welcome to this land of Canada, to be presented by Mr. Speaker to their majesties on their first setting foot on the soil of Canada at the city of Quebec.


Ernest Lapointe: I shall be glad to submit my hon. friend's suggestion to the Prime Minister.

Canadian Wheat Board


LONG BRANCH RIFLE RANGE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: I am informed by the secretary of the local branch of the Canadian Legion at Port Credit, Ontario, that some fifteen men have recently been given work on the Long Branch rifle range at Lakeview. It would appear that these men were employed through an officer of the local Liberal organization at that point and that six of the men so far employed have not seen service overseas. Will the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) kindly indicate whether this method of employing men at the Long Branch ranges has the approval of his department? If not, will he please indicate what steps he will take to remedy the situation?


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Minister of National Defence):: The hon. member gave me notice of the question at eleven o'clock. I am not aware of the situation to which he refers but I will make inquiries. Last year he raised a similar question and instructions were issued then that as far as possible exservice men should be employed exclusively. I shall be happy to give further information later on.


UNEMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: I wish to ask the government a question with regard to unemployed transients, who are without homes or food, and are crowding the streets of Toronto. Yesterday before the board of control there, a large deputation of clergymen appeared and asked for action, and the board of control referred them to the provincial and federal governments. The members of parliament representing the Toronto district have now received letters about it. Has the government considered the matter further? The Minister of Labour said to me a month ago he had made an agreement with Ontario whereby the province would look after these men. I think that something should be done-


Walter Edward Foster: Order. The hon. member has no right to make a speech.


Ernest Lapointe: I believe the Minister of Labour answered a similar question the other day. However, I will call his attention to this new question.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) a question? In order to facilitate the passage through the committee of Bill No. 63, will the minister lay on the table, either before we reach that stage or when we are in committee, the correspondence or telegrams exchanged between the Minister of Trade and Commerce or any member of the wheat committee of the cabinet and the chairman of the wheat board or any member of the wheat board or the secretary of the board, just prior to August 4, 1938, with reference to the setting of the price at 80 cents last year?
Hon, W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce): My hon. friend did not give me notice of his intention to ask the question. I am not even certain whether any such correspondence exists or whether there are any telegrams. However, I will look into the matter and if there is information that can reasonably be given the house I shall be glad to bring it down.


POWERS OF BOARD RESPECTING THE MARKETING OF WHEAT-INITIAL PAYMENT OF 70 CENTS A BUSHEL
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, May 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Euler for the second reading of Bill No. 63, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: When the house adjourned last night I was on the point of offering some criticism of the bill now under discussion. I believe that 70 cents is altogether too small a price and that we ought really not to consider so low a figure. The lowest price that we should even give any consideration to is 80 cents a bushel, basis Fort William. We really ought to restore the 87i cents which was decided upon in the past, and we should take such steps as will enable us to offer men $1 a bushel at the earliest possible moment. To some people that will seem an extreme request, but I feel certain that the months which are ahead, and the years, will prove that that request is not exorbitant. We may find to our sorrow that we have gone too far in letting the farmers of western Canada suffer under too low prices. I believe also that it was a very unwise move on the part of this government to allow to fall into disuse the

Canadian Wheat Board

advisory committee consisting of seven members, including at least four representing farmers.
The farming industry surely deserves to be given more consideration than we are giving it. According to figures which I have, during the last sixty-two years the farmers of western Canada have raised 8-9 billion bushels of wheat, worth 10-2 billions of dollars, of which 6-1 billion bushels have been exported, bringing to this country 7-2 billions of dollars. What the west has been able to do it may do again if given a chance. It may do even better than that; for by the use of the projects which the Minister of Agriculture is so wisely undertaking in western Canada under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, the west can greatly increase its productive capacity of almost any kind of agricultural commodity.
In discussing the question of the deserts of the west, may I repeat in passing that according to Doctor Jacob Viner in his testimony before the Rowell commission in March, 1938, the three prairie provinces of Canada have been contributing 847,000,000 a year under the tariff to the support of the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. EULER:: How much have the other provinces contributed?


John Horne Blackmore: Well, that is not the matter we are discussing at the present time.


William Daum Euler: It is important.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: They are getting the benefit.


John Horne Blackmore: The reason I mention this, as I pointed out yesterday so many times, is that hon. members rise in this house and imply that when we give western Canada a few million dollars we are giving them a gift-they are "milking the east," and that sort of thing. Certain people, such as the premier of Ontario, seem to be obsessed with the idea that the west is milking the east. That gentleman needs to inform himself.


Mr. POULIOT:: That is the prairie provinces, or does it include British Columbia?


John Horne Blackmore: Just the prairie provinces. Now, $47,000,000 does not sound very much until you multiply it by 10 for ten years, and by 20 for twenty years.


William Daum Euler: And how much for a hundred years?


John Horne Blackmore: When they remember the few dollars contributed by this government to support the west, hon. members will see that there remains still a great deal of latitude for generosity towards the west.

So much having been said, I turn to the question of costs, which has been very much dealt with in the committee. Upon this subject I think I can probably suggest one or two ideas which have not yet been authorized.
The average cost of producing wheat after summer fallow on eight experimental farms during the years 1923 to 1930 was 817.40. The average yield was 27-4 bushels; the cost per bushel therefore 64 cents. I submit that if the experimental farms, conducted under the dominion government, with all the equipment and advantage from the possession of the most modern devices, found that it cost them 64 cents a bushel, that should give us reason for serious pause when we remember that tens of thousands of our western farmers are struggling under genuine adversity which results in their being unable to use to greatest advantage their means for producing wheat. It is well known that it takes money to make money. If a man has to produce without money it surely increases his costs, and the suffering for him is much greater-at least that is likely.
The highest yield and the lowest cost per bushel on any of the experimental farms during the period 1923 to 1930 occurred at Lethbridge, my own central city, in 1928, when 52 T bushels per acre were produced at a total cost of $18.32 per acre, or 35 cents a bushel. The lowest yield during that period and the highest cost was at Scott, in 1924, when 7 bushels per acre were produced at a cost of $14.08 per acre, bringing the cost per bushel to $2.01.


Mr. GARDINER:: Does not that show the difficulty of placing costs upon a bushelage basis?


John Horne Blackmore: Exactly; I do not question that for a moment. But it also shows the variability of income to which the western fanner must of necessity be subjected.


James Garfield Gardiner: For one year.


John Horne Blackmore: Over a period of years. We must bear in mind that a man may start well off this year, and, because of the variability of his income, the vicissitudes through which he must pass, find himself bankrupt in ten years. As far as Canada is concerned that man's solvency at the end of ten years is of as vital concern as his solvency to-day. Any long-range policy must take into consideration this variability factor.
May I go further in the discussion of production costs at Lethbridge? I do not wish to throw bouquets at my own city, but I have the honour to represent one of the

Canadian Wheat Board
3SS1
banner agricultural constituencies of this dominion, judged from a wide variety of standards. The fact that I quote Lethbridge therefore I think can be excused. The average costs in Lethbridge between 1923 and 1930 are listed as follows:
Use of land	$ 2.50
Seed at $1.18 a bushel	 1.43
Machinery	 1.35
Twine at 15 cents a pound	47
Manual labour at 25 cents per hour. .87 Horse labour at 8 cents per hour.. .65 Two-thirds cost of summer-fallow for
the previous year	 4.73
Threshing at 12 cents per bushel.. 3.70
Total cost per acre	$15.70


William Daum Euler: From what is my hon. friend quoting? Who makes that estimate?


John Horne Blackmore: I quote from a publication entitled Cost of Producing Farm Crops in the Prairie Provinces, by E. S. Hopkins, J. M. Armstrong and H. D. Mitchell, division of field husbandry, dominion experimental farms, bulletin No. 159, new series, published in 1932. The total cost per acre, as I have said, was $15.70; the yield in bushels was 30-8, and the cost per bushel 51 cents for that period. To be perfectly honest we must admit that costs were a bit inflated during the roaring twenties; but when we single out such an item as manual labour and find that it is allowed only 25 cents an hour and horse labour only 8 cents an hour, I think we must grant that sufficient moderation has been exercised in computing costs. In addition to the 51 cents we have the hauling to the elevator, which is not counted, and also the freight to Fort William, at least 18 cents a bushel, plus the handling charges.
That presents a serious picture. We must bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers of this country are producing their crops under a very wide variety of circumstances. Many have farms remote from elevators; some are ten, fifteen, twenty and twenty-five miles away. If they are to succeed, some allowance must be made, in striking an average, for the mishaps of the man who is twenty miles from an elevator, and who probably has to pull up hill and down dale.
I turn now to another aspect of the question. The yields are very variable. The yields at Lethbridge, between 1912 and 1930, were as follows:
1912..	..
1913..	..
1914..	..
1915..	..
1916..	..
1917..	.. 7H92-244J
Bushels per acre 23-9 21-2 16-8 63-1 46-5 22-4
1918..
1919..
1920..
1921..
1922..
1923..
1924..
1925..
1926..
1927..
1928..
1929..
1930..
Bushels per acre 13-2 2-2 19-9 8-4 23-2 19-5 28-2
25-	4 28-2 38-4 52-1
26-	2 28-5
I point to the yield of 2-2 bushels per acre in 1919 and ask the house to reflect on that for a moment. I was farming there at that time. The blow our establishment received was so great that we were staggering for years in an effort to recover our loss. We lost not only on our crop but also on our live stock and every other aspect of farming. There were scores of families around us not so fortunately situated and perhaps in an even less favourable position to recover than we were. Many of these farmers simply passed out of solvency forever as a result of their operations during that one year.
The figures I have quoted represent more or less ideal conditions. Anyone who has been around an experimental farm knows that conditions there are far better than the conditions which ordinarily surround the average farmer who is trying to raise a family and meeting with a variety of mishaps. Here are some considerations which must be borne in mind. Many of our farms, and this is particularly true of Alberta, contain hilly land. It costs more to farm hillsides than to farm level areas, and often we have to farm small patches of a hillside. I grant that you cannot make allowance for all these things, but if we are to safeguard the stability of our farmers throughout the country we must remember that many of them are on farms where conditions are not by any means ideal, where all the land1 is not cultivable or equally easy to work. There are some valleys on our farms; sloughs occupy a share of many of the farms throughout Alberta and Saskatchewan. We have low lands, which are bad lands because of the alkali they contain. We have sandy stretches, which are unprofitable. Two or three hon. members have already mentioned that a good many of our farms are homesteads. I have had a kindly feeling towards the minister because several times already he has indicated that he has homesteads in mind. Do we want homesteads on which men live and raise families? I think it will be agreed that we do. Very well, then; we must adapt our behaviour to meet the situation confronting the home-
Canadian Wheat Board

steaders, who suffer many mishaps-frost, insects, droughts, large and small, hail, winds, soil drifting, and so on. How many times in actual practice have we who live on the farm lost a very fine crop just because of an inopportune rain lodging heavy grain.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, when
the house took recess I was discussing the various elements which help to make the farmer's life very uncertain and his income extremely variable. I had mentioned frost, drought, hail and wind, and now I wish to refer to the cost of irrigation. A great many irrigation districts are being developed, and the idea is that as soon as a man is on an irrigation project his problem is solved. That is not so, by any means. Frequently he has added to his other troubles the cost of irrigation. There is, first, the capital charge and, second, the service charge from year to year. The result is that even in irrigation districts a farmer has to be constantly looking after the costs of production. Where wheat is being raised on such a project, there is still another element involved.
Debt for the average farmer is completely inevitable. A great many people imagine that the farmers get into debt through carelessness, but it should be remembered that in order to establish a farm, a farmer must go into debt for his land and equipment. When such a farmer must face variability of income, the growth of his debt is unavoidable.
There is another matter which is becoming quite serious, at least in two of the western provinces, and probably in the three. Not so many years ago when I was a boy we looked upon wheat as being more or less a side line. We were able to make our living from dairying and by raising a few sheep and hogs as well as carrying on a number of other activities. Even potatoes were a source of income upon which we could regularly depend. Because of the conditions which have arisen, largely since the war, to-day hardly any one of these different products will yield the farmer an income. For a number of years beef has been sold at below cost in my constituency. Almost all other meats, with the possible exception of pork, are in the same class. Milk and milk products are almost hopeless as a source of income, and vegetables and potatoes have long since ceased to be profitable except for those few who have special markets in the cities. Fruits

are in the same class. Wool is so variable in price that frequently the producer is not able to count on a profit on his year's work. Prices are ruinously low and destructively changeable. Under these conditions I think we can say with positive assurance that Professor E. C. Hope, who has been quoted many times already, is on sound ground when he says, as reported on page 152 of the proceedings of the conference on markets for western farm products:
Conservatively it would probably require with average yields a farm price for wheat of average grade of about 90 cents, with coarse grains in proportion to maintain a reasonable level of living and service the present debt on western farms. It would require somewhat more than this to restore the farming community to the condition of 1931.
In the light of these words I contend that when I ask that wre have at least 80 cents, that the price of 87^ cents be restored at an early day and that we may look forward to a price of SI per bushel at no distant time, I am asking nothing more than the situation requires.
There is another matter to which I should like to direct the attention of the minister in the light of what I have said already. The government cut the price of wheat 7} cents in August; this bill cuts it another 10 cents, which in effect means that the price of wheat to the western farmer has been cut 17i cents in one crop year. Had the 87} cent price been a generous price, this cut would have been serious, but the 87i cent price was just a barely tolerable price. There was no greater need to cut that price this year than there was in 1935. The farmer's need is just as great to-day as it was in 1935, and the government's need is no greater because revenues are just as buoyant to-day as they were in 1935. I can see no reason for this betrayal of the farmers by the government.
The advisory committee was abolished, which took from the farmers the right to have a say w'ith regard to prices, which right they felt was theirs. Then these grievous cuts have been made. The government has given the farmer a shabby deal.
I had occasion yesterday to refer to the place from which the money would come. Speaking from a purely orthodox point of view I wish to remind hon. members that we in western Canada are making our full share of contribution to the revenues of this country. I have referred to the $47,000,000 which is a net contribution over and above the protection we receive. When I recall the sales tax which we pay, the income tax, excise tax, and the full share of other taxes which we pay, I am sure I am correct in saying that the

Canadian Wheat Board
west is contributing to this government, over and above the services which it derives therefrom, to an extent sufficient to justify the government in treating the western farmer generously.
I mentioned yesterday what other countries are doing for their farmers. I believe every civilized country is helping its sugar beet industry. For example, the United States is making substantial contributions to the beet sugar industry, as are Britain, France and Germany. What is Canada doing?


William Daum Euler: Canada is helping the beet
sugar industry by maintaining a high tariff against imported sugar.


John Horne Blackmore: In my constituency
two sugar factories contributed $756,037 to the revenues of this country in 1938 in excise tax alone. This amounted to $3.21 per ton of beets. The average yield of beets in my constituency last year was 12 tons to the acre, so that this works out at $38.52 per acre as the contribution which the farmers in my constituency are making toward the revenues of this country. It may be said that the consumers pay this tax, but if the excise tax on sugar were removed it would be possible for the factories and the growers to divide that one cent between them, greatly to the advantage of both.


William Daum Euler: Would the hon. member be
in favour of having foreign sugar come in free, or is he in favour of a tariff against foreign sugar?


John Horne Blackmore: May I counter with
this question? Is there any conceivable reason why Canada should let foreign sugar come in free when the United States and Great Britain will not?


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend is constantly talking about the tariff, but here is a case where, if he had the power, he could remove the tariff. Is he in favour of doing that and thus injuring the beet sugar industry?


John Horne Blackmore: Exactly so.


William Daum Euler: The hon. member cannot
have it both ways.


John Horne Blackmore: Exactly so. May I
point out to the minister something which he will readily recognize. Our tariff, disabilities arise from the fact that the tariff increases the cost of the secondary products which the western farmer must buy. Surely if there were any attempt to arrive at a balance between the cost of secondary products and the prices of primary products, tariff protection could conceivably and justifiably be placed upon agricultural products. Here is a chance to place protection on our agricultural products, and it is not taken.


William Daum Euler: The hon. member is in favour of it?


John Horne Blackmore: I am not saying that I am in favour of it, I am merely pointing out what is. I am merely pointing out that here is an agricultural industry which could be protected, but which is not protected.


William Daum Euler: It is protected.


John Horne Blackmore: Rather, it could be given some advantage, but instead it is penalized.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: Could it be protected?


John Horne Blackmore: I do not see why it should not. Can anyone tell me any reason why the United States should protect its sugar industry, that country being as powerful economically as it is, and Canada not do the same?


Joseph Georges Bouchard: When you have an
excess, how can you protect it?


John Horne Blackmore: We have no excess of Canadian-produced sugar. We are producing only fourteen per cent of our sugar requirements; can anj'one show me any reason why we should not be producing fifty per cent of our sugar requirements, when every one of our factories with a 1,200 ton slicing capacity, of which I have two in my constituency, will keep ten thousand people at a time when this country is groaning under the cost of unemployment relief?


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not one hundred per cent?


John Horne Blackmore: I suggested fifty per cent because that is moderate.


William Daum Euler: Does not the argument apply all round?


John Horne Blackmore: It may. What I am chiefly concerned in is to show what you could do by protecting the agricultural industry in this case. But we are not doing it here.


William Daum Euler: But you are.


John Horne Blackmore: I appreciate the ideas of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I realize his point of view, but I think he also realizes mine. More will be said on that later.
In this parliament and outside a great many people have raised this question: If you guarantee a higher price for wheat, you will induce an overproduction of wheat which will
Canadian Wheat Board

result in a surplus which you will be utterly unable to dispose of; what are you going to do with it?


Joseph Georges Bouchard: That is the point.


John Horne Blackmore: Let me examine that argument. The member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) rather threw out a challenge to all members of the house, and I think he had us social crediters particularly in mind. Let me mention a few things, for the benefit of the hon. member for Rosthern and other members of (the house, which this party would do with respect to any surplus of wheat that would result from giving a reasonable price. But first let me point out that in order to avoid an overproduction of wheat this government is starving the industry down. Instead of so managing matters that the people can consume the production of the industry, they are endeavouring to hamstring and smother the industry, which is exactly the wrong way of going about it.
There are several things with respect to surpluses which would develop in any country like Canada, equipped and endowed as she is, if you gave a reasonable price to the producers. In the first place you must enable the people of Canada to consume what they need of all agricultural products, such as sugar, meats, dairy products, poultry, honey, wool, furs, canned goods. Some people will say that is not good sense. Let all those who are inclined to that view consider tlhe words of Sir John Boyd Orr, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen, in a dispatch from Montreal, dated May 5, 1939. I think his opinion is worthy of respect.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is he?


John Horne Blackmore: I am surprised that there should be members who do not know that Sir John Boyd Orr is one of the outstanding nutrition experts in Great Britain. He has this to say:
England's nutrition problem may be a vital one but that of Canada is even more vital. The danger is recognized in England and legislation to counteract it is in force.
The implication is that the danger is not recognized in Canada, and I believe that Sir John Boyd Orr is correct in his statement. He said further:
By far the majority of your lower wage class, those earning $1,500 and less, live on a diet inadequate for health.
The dispatch goes on:
Sir John advocated "a national food policy designed to make a diet fully adequate for health within the purchasing power of every class, even the poorest. . . .
What is lacking here is regulation of the food standard. This nutrition committee is full [Mr. Blackmore.l
of the latest scientific knowledge in this connection, and is filled with enthusiasm to get that knowledge put into application."
Sir John outlined such schemes as issuing vouchers to needy persons with which they could obtain food at greatly reduced prices.
"And here is the whole point. The supplying of food to the poor, or rather putting it in their reach, is directly the route to economic prosperity. For, if the large masses of underfed start eating more and better foods, the present surplus of farm products would be removed, agriculture would boom and with it economic stability would return."
Whether his words are worthy of consideration or not is one matter. But there can be no doubt that the ill which he points out and the remedy he suggests are worthy of consideration.
First of all, stimulate consumption in this country to the extent to which people can use all the agricultural products they need. Then we shall find that several things will begin to happen. Take sugar, for example. In my province we can very soon be equipped to produce fifty per cent of the sugar consumed in this country. Think of how many thousands of acres would be taken out of wheat production by that means.


William Daum Euler: If you shut off importations of sugar.


John Horne Blackmore: Why not?


William Daum Euler: By tariff protection, I suppose?


John Horne Blackmore: Why not? We apply it to other commodities.


William Daum Euler: I cannot see the consistency of the argument of my hon. friend. He is constantly protesting against tariff protection for eastern Canada-I shall not attempt to defend it now, although I could-and now he favours protection for an industry that would benefit him in his own riding.


John Horne Blackmore: I have not advocated tariff protection for agriculture. I simply was pointing out that what could be done is not being done. If the tariff is good for one, it surely ought to be good for another.


Mr. McGREGOR:: Which do you want?


John Horne Blackmore: I am discussing
another matter entirely.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: If protection is an
evil, why make it a greater evil?


John Horne Blackmore: I am not discussing that question at all. I am discussing the price of wheat.


William Daum Euler: You were talking about
sugar.

Canadian Wheat Board


John Horne Blackmore: As an illustration of what you can do with respect to surpluses.
The next thing is this. Once we give the people a chance to eat all they wish and use all the agricultural products they need, we would stimulate the building trades. Once you begin to stimulate the building trades, thousands of farmers would leave their farms and begin to do carpentry, painting, hauling, lumbering and all that sort of thing, which would greatly relieve the pressure on agriculture. I think the hon. member for Rosthern will agree that that is sound.
There is this other consideration. Every member of the house must have thought of the precarious position in which we put ourselves every time we sell our whole surplus of wheat. Suppose there was a widespread crop failure throughout Canada and the United States for two or three years in succession. Imagine the position we would be in. Is there any common-sense reason why we should not enable ourselves to buy surpluses and store them against a time of need? But we are as careless and improvident as you can imagine. Why not by a sane credit system-


Walter Edward Foster: Order. The hon. member has exhausted his time.


John Horne Blackmore: If I may be allowed to finish my sentence-


Walter Edward Foster: With the consent of the house.


John Horne Blackmore: Why not by a sane credit system, such as the hon. member for Rosthern has himself advocated, buy the wheat and store it, thereby removing the surplus from the market and helping to solve the problem? I shall say more later.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to what the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) has said, and I have been most patient. I have also listened to some other speakers in his group, have read some of their speeches in Hansard, and I have taken notes, some in shorthand and some in longhand, and I would ask the house to listen to this:
" I believe that 70 cents is altogether too low a price and that we ought not really to consider so low a figure."
I did not say that, Mr. Speaker; it is what the hon. member for Lethbridge said. Here is another of his statements:
" The lowest price that we should even give any consideration to is 80 cents a bushel, basis Fort William."
''We really ought to restore the 87-J cents which was decided upon in the past, and we should take such steps as will enable us to offer one dollar a bushel at the earliest possible moment."
Those are the hon. member's own words.


John Horne Blackmore: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: He said further, " I believe that we should even give it more consideration." The " we " comes from him, and I give him full credit for that; it is his own view. Then he says that during the last sixty-two years, or since confederation existed-


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member does not wish to misquote me, I am sure. By " we " there I meant the members of this house.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, I know. I shall refer to that a little later on. I understand that the hon. gentleman was speaking on behalf of his group.


John Horne Blackmore: No-on behalf of
members of parliament.


Jean-François Pouliot: Not for me. Well, during the last sixty-two years, according to the hon. gentleman, 8-9 billion bushels of wheat worth 10-2 billions of dollars were produced by the prairie provinces. This means that the price was 10-2 divided by 8-9; that was the average price of wheat during those sixty-two years He added that 6-1 billion bushels wen exported, bringing a revenue of 7-2 billion dollars. The average price of wheat was 10-2 divided by 8-9, and the price of the exported wheat was 7-2 divided by 6T, which means that the people of this country paic more for our wheat than the people outside the country, and the gentlemen farmers ol the west got far better returns from the Canadian people than from the people of other countries. That is the first point.
Then, sir, the second point is that the consumption of wheat in Canada represented about one-fourth of the total production of wheat during these sixty-two years.
The hon. member quoted Doctor Jacol Yiner, a gentleman I do not know-I anc pleased to say. He said that the prairie provinces, because of the tariff, contributed $47,000,000 to support the Dominion of Canada. That support is not very strong, because the expenditure of this country is over $550,000,000, and $47,000,000 does not represent even ten per cent of the total expenditures of this country.


John Horne Blackmore: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes.
Canadian Wheat Board


John Horne Blackmore: He recognizes that that contribution under the tariff is the portion contributed by the farmers, not the urban population, and that it does not, of course, take into account the proceeds of the sales tax or any other items of revenue.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, but it represents less than ten per cent of the total expenditure of Canada. Therefore it is not so very large.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is just one item.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wonder how ten per
cent can support the whole. That is a very hard proposition. If the west contributes $47,000,000 to Canada, which has an expenditure of $550,000,000, I do not see how it can be said to support $550,000,000.


John Horne Blackmore: That relates only to the tariff.


Jean-François Pouliot: Afterwards the hon. member made a comparison which was faulty in two respects. He made a comparison of costs per acre in two different periods and for two different places. I understand that, to be sound, a comparison must be for the same period of time and for the same spot.


John Horne Blackmore: Would my hon. friend
give the details to prove what he has said?


Jean-François Pouliot: I am just quoting my
hon. friend. If his figures were not complete it is not my fault; I have just mentioned that they were not complete. He spoke, and he had an opportunity to make them complete. It is now my turn, and if he asks a question I shall be ready to answer it. but not to complete his speech.
The hon. member spoke of a variety of circumstances connected with the production of crops. He spoke first of distance from the elevator; in the second place, production per acre; third, the heavy land and the hillsides. Does my hon. friend want to make the suggestion that there shall be a bonus paid to farmers who live a certain distance from the elevator, who do not produce an equal amount per acre, or who have hilly land or hillsides on their farms?


John Horne Blackmore: Does my hon. friend draw that conclusion?


Jean-François Pouliot: No. I wonder if my hon. friend is suggesting that farmers should be indemnified for these three reasons.


John Horne Blackmore: Does my hon. friend draw that conclusion?


Jean-François Pouliot: No. I want to be clear on that point.


John Horne Blackmore: If he does not draw the conclusion, why should he suspect that I do?


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, that is all right. Now I will read the complete list for which farmers in the west should be indemnified. I have a young son, and I will surely get land for him in the west. Then he will be a gentleman of leisure all his life; he will be receiving indemnities for doing nothing. A farmer will have only to get land a certain distance away from an elevator, land which is rocky and does not produce, hilly land, or land on the hillside, and he will be entitled to three different indemnities
But then the hon. gentleman was a little cautious. He said, "I grant that you cannot make allowance for all these things." He admitted that, and I praise him for his reasonableness.


An hon. MEMBER:: That pretty well settles it, does it not?


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, yes, my hon. friend was sincere when he said that you could not do it, that it was not feasible. But I will continue. Then he came back to his old mania and quoted some other things. There are the hillsides. But why forget those who live in valleys? Fourth on the list is the valleys. "Sloughs occupy a large area on many of the farms throughout Alberta and Saskatchewan." So those who are on the hillsides and those who live in the valleys must have a contribution from the state. But there are not only valleys, there are low lands "which are bad lands because of the alkali they contain." And that is not all. There are "sandy stretches too which are unprofitable."
All this is from the geographical point of view. But there are many other reasons why the farmers should be indemnified. Said he, "We must adapt our behaviour to meet the situation confronting the homesteaders, who suffer many mishaps." So we must consider the homesteader who is on the prairie, who is on the hillside, or in the lowlands, or in the valley. And for these reasons: first, frost; second, insects; third, droughts, large and small; fourth, hail; five, winds; six, soil drifting and so on; and seventh-and here comes something which is pleasant for many farmers-the rain. Just a minute, Mr. Speaker. "How many times in actual practice have we who live on the farm lost a very fine crop just because of an inopportune rain." There must be an insurance against rain. Why should there not be insurance for sunshine also? Note that the hon. gentleman says,

Canadian Wheat Board
"We who live on the farm." What does the Parliamentary Guide, which contains the hon. member's autobiography, say about this "living on the farm"? I find in the 1939 edition, page 138:
A school teacher. Member of Raymond school board 1916-17; Alberta Teachers Alliance; Alberta Social Credit League.
And he says, "We who live on the farm"!
The hon. member also says that "we are paying more than we get." We have seen that they pay $47,000,000 to support this country whose expenditure is $550,000,000. What about the loans which were given to the prairie provinces? What about the guarantees, the grants, the irrigation schemes-all of them things which we in the east did not receive from the government? And they are never satisfied. It is the first time I have seen people who can speak so much with their mouths full.
Then my hon. friend says that the sugar beet industry is not protected. As the leader of his party he should know that there is protection, that we in the east pay more for sugar to give Alberta growers a chance to produce sugar beets in their province. Everybody pays more for his sugar on account of that. Were it not for the tariff we should have our sugar by the bag from Cuba and the West Indies, and the electors of my hon. friend's constituency would not be able to grow sugar beets. He says that we should produce fifty per cent of our sugar. Well, there is nothing that is impossible to my hon. friends in that group. Why do they not change the climate of the country and produce sugar cane? Someone says "Hear, hear." The one who says that is a chef and he is accustomed to making good things. Of course he might like to change the climate, and I hope that if he does he will pay attention only to summer diet.
Then the hon. member for Lethbridge, who by the way is the leader of his group, says that if you guarantee a high price for wheat you will have a surplus that you cannot dispose of. For the second time he was sincere. If the government pays too high a bonus on wheat it will be impossible to dispose of the wheat.
M.r. BLACKMORE: The hon. member does not wish to misquote me, I am sure. I did not say that. I said that there was an argument among hon. members to that effect, but I did not say it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, then, let us drop it.


John Horne Blackmore: It is just one of the many errors the hon. member makes.


Jean-François Pouliot: He suggested that Canadians should be induced to consume the wheat they produce. Consume the wheat they produce! Everybody is eating bread, and we are consuming one-fourth of what we are supposed to export in normal times. It means that every man, woman and child in the country will have to eat four slices of bread for one now. Of course, bread is the food par excellence, but I do not see why Canadians should overfeed themselves in that way and expose themselves to indigestion. There should be a reasonable limit to all things. The hon. gentleman quotes a distinguished savant whose name I had not heard before-it sounds like Sir John-


John Horne Blackmore: Sir John Boyd Orr.


Jean-François Pouliot: At any rate this authority is a distinguished Englishman who gave some lessons about what should be done in this country. But may I point out that conditions in England are entirely different from those in Canada, because England is not a producing but a consuming country; and those who follow the newspapers know that England greatly fears famine in time of war for the simple reason that the farmers do not produce enough for the needs of the country. I could give a long lecture to the hon. gentleman on the way in which the farmers are treated in Great Britain, but I have not the time to-day. Perhaps- next session, if we have an election and if he is elected, I shall have something to say to him. There can be no possible comparison between Great Britain and Canada, because, as I say, Great Britain is a consuming and not a producing country, whereas Canada is both.
The hon. gentleman speaks of stimulating consumption, and he talks about fifty per cent of sugar by tariff. Does he know that the money which the people of the prairie provinces receive comes from the taxes paid by the people of Canada in the form of customs and excise and sales taxes, et cetera? I may tell him, moreover, that if the taxes are not reduced but continue to be a burden upon the Canadian people it is because of the extravagance of members of his group, who are asking for more and more. I am sure that if it had not been for this question of wheat-I am expressing my own opinion, without any official information-the budget this year would have been entirely different and we would have had some relief from taxation. Stimulation of consumption and fifty per cent of sugar by tariff! And yet he complains of taxation. Then he suggests carpenter work and talks about surplus in store. Well, I am coming to that question-surplus ir store.

388S
Canadian Wheat Board

There was a member of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, who was perhaps one of the brightest members we have ever had in this house, a most intelligent man, one of the best debaters and parliamentarians I have known. In February, 1930, he made a statement which I will quote. The quotation is from the Manitoba Free Press. I have kept this little clipping in a wallet in my grip for nine years, anticipating an occasion on which I could use it. The occasion presents itself now. The quotation is dated at Stratford, February 12, 1930:
Mr. 
, M.P., for 

, declared in an
address here to-day the Argentine wheat crop is not the only factor contributing to the present condition of the wheat market. Speculation in grain is one of the biggest factors, he declared, and he envisioned the day when the League of Nations will be called upon to deal with short selling in food commodities.
Canada has positively no need to be alarmed at present, he said, because there was nothing to be alarmed about. The wheat pool in the west knew what it was doing and every pound of Canadian wheat now in storage would be needed before this year's crop is harvested, he declared.
"If the wheat stored now were sold at the present prices, it would bring $200,000,000 less than last year," he stated. '"That would mean, in effect, $200,000,000 less purchasing power. For every cent wheat rises in price, it will mean $2,500,000 added to the purchasing power of Canada next year.
"The transportation companies," he added, "have nothing to worry about because they will get the grain when it begins to move."


Mr. STEVENS:: What is the date?


Jean-François Pouliot: Stratford, Ontario, February 12, 1930. It was at that very moment that the farmers were acting in accordance with the views my hon. friend has just expressed. They had kept a lot of wheat in storage and refused to sell, expecting better prices. And what happened? It is useless to deny that there was exploitation on the part of westerners in connection with sales of wheat in England during and after the war. At that time they were taking advantage of the British market in this way, that they thought the British people would never be able to secure wheat from other sources than Canada, which was supposed to be the granary of the world. They were holding on to their wheat, allowing the British people to go hungry because they could not afford to pay $3 and more per bushel, and the price declined. Why? Because the British people, who have a real business sense, thought of investing in other countries in order to get cheaper wheat. That was done particularly in the Argentine, where British capital was invested in the growing of wheat. That was one reason-there was in the Argentine another source of supply for England. The quota-

tion I have just given the house is similar to thousands of speeches that were made to the western farmers advising them not to sell their wheat but to wait for better times. It meant a great drop in our trade, so much so that the total exports of Canada to the United Kingdom in 1929 were 3429,000,000 whereas in 1930, just on that account, they fell to $281,000,000, a decline of over $147,000,000.
My hon. friend will say, this is not for wheat. The decrease in the export of grain from Canada to Great Britain in that very year was 140,790,000 bushels, which means that the decrease in exports from Canada to Great Britain, leaving wheat aside, was only $7,193,556. It was just on account of the stupidity of those who were counselling the farmers not to sell their wheat to Great Britain or anyone else that we had such a drop in our exports that year. Total exports of wheat from Canada to the United Kingdom for the	year	1929,	were 229	million	bushels.In 1930	the	total	was 113	million	bushels.
The value of our exports to the same country in 1929, of grain and grain products, was $308,553,000, and in 1930, $167,762,000. I see that my hon. friend is taking notes. He does not need to take notes; the figures may be found at page 524 of the Canada Year Book for 1931.
Now, sir, there is another thing I want to tell	you.	We	made a	lot of	progresswith regard to the export of wheat from Canada	to Great	Britain during the four
years 1934 to 1937. The figures are as follows:
1934		$ 91,275,000
1935		 109,611,000
1936		 133,747,000
1937		 177,692,000
For the information of my hon. friend those figures regarding 1934 to 1937 cannot be found in the Canada Year Book for 1931 but are in the Canada Year Book for 1939.
Sir, there is nothing so interesting as human geography. I want to study the complex of the two groups we have before us in this house. I have studied the birthplace of the hon. members who compose those groups. Manitoba has 17 members, of whom 5 were born in that province. Of the Saskatchewan group of 21 members, one was born in the province. Of Alberta's 17 members two were born in the province. And of course the other hon. members come from other provinces and various parts of the world. But there is something more interesting than that from the human point of view; it is the occupation of those who speak on wheat. Of course there is the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group composed of, first, its chief, a very distinguished gentleman who

Canadian Wheat Board
represents Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). In the Parliamentary Guide he calls himself successively school teacher, minister of the gospel, university lecturer, social service worker, longshoreman. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) was a motorman. The hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) is described as the secretary-treasurer of the Great War Veterans' Association, 1920 to 1924. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) is an agent. The hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Rowe) is an accountant. The hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) is the principal of a school, and the hon. member for Wey-burn (Mr. Douglas) is a reverend clergyman. And all are experts in wheat.
Then, sir, there is the group led by the hon. member who lives on a farm and is a school teacher by profession.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Lawyers are experts
on everything.


John Horne Blackmore: For example, the
hon. member for Temiscouata.


Jean-François Pouliot: But I have told the hon. gentleman that I followed a course in agriculture from the farmers of my constituency, who know more than the farmers of any other part of Canada.
Now let us take the group of the hon. gentleman. I have described his profession from his autobiography.	Then-I do not
want to forget anyone-there is the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Mitchell), he is a farmer. That is very good. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier) is a station agent. The hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Landeryou) is a chef, which does not mean yet a leader, but that may come. The hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Elliott) is station agent for the Canadian National Railways. The hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Kuhl) is a school teacher. The hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Kennedy) is a salesman. The hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) is a farmer. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansel!) is a reverend clergyman.
Mr. MaeINNIS:	Nearly all of them are
useful people.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, because they need a
lot of blessings.	And there is the hon.
member for Vegreville (Mr. Hayhurst), who is principal of a high school. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Jaques) is a farmer. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) is a school teacher. The hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Marshall) is a teacher.
71492-245^
The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Poole) is a building contractor. The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) is a farmer, and the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Needham) is a reverend clergyman.
To summarize all that, we have, first

I put him first because he deserves that, at least in the French language-the chef, one. Then two station agents, one salesman, one building contractor, four school teachers- they teach us a lot, but fortunately we do not always listen to the teaching-then there is the principal of a high school, and two reverend gentlemen, which makes twelve, and besides that four farmers. When the hon. member for Lethbridge says "we" on behalf of the farmers, he speaks on behalf of the chef-who at the present time is out of the kitchen-and two station agents, one salesman, one building contractor, one school teacher-


Mr. LANDERYOU:: May I ask the hon
member, is not that a well-balanced group? I can look after their diet.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is a well balanced group to dispose of the wheat after it is grown and made into flour, but not to deal with the grain.


John Charles Landeryou: As the hon. member
says, it is a well balanced group, not a home for broken-down lawyers.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am sorry the hon.
member has interrupted me, because I shah have to show you, sir, what "we" means. Lindbergh when he spoke of "we" meant himself and his aeroplane, but the hon. member for Lethbridge has an altogether different acceptation of the word when he says "we." "We farmers;" the three tailors of Tooley street, "we, the people of England." My hon. friends are "the people of Canada." "We" the chef, "we" the station agents, "we" the salesman, "we" the building contractor, "we" the school teachers, "we" the principal of the high school, "we" the reverend clergymen. And it includes four farmers, that L all. And the farmers are not the noisiest in that group. The station agent is always pounding his desk, thinking of being a telegraph operator and making some noise in the house. And the others also. And the chef I believe is washing the dishes. So with the school teacher. It is most amusing; and when the building contractor speaks, which is very seldom, it is as if a wall of his building had fallen down. These are the so-called wheat experts we have in this house.
Then I have another list, showing that a large number of the members of those two
Canadian Wheat Board

groups were not bom in this country. I believe they are good Canadians now, but I wonder how long they think they will live in this country, and how long this country would live if their theories were put in force. There is the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) who comes from England; the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) who comes from England; the reverend member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) who comes from Scotland; the reverend member for The Battlefords (Mr. Needham) who comes from England; the leader of the Social Credit group (Mr. Blackmore) who comes from the United States; the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) who comes from Ireland-


Mr. FAIR:: Hurrah for Ireland!


Jean-François Pouliot: I agree; Erin go bragh. I am glad my hon. friend made that interjection, because it comes from one of the four farmers included in the Social Credit group, which is supposed to speak for all the farmers in this country. I object to their speaking on behalf of my own electors. Then there is the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hayhurst), who was bom in England, and who was principal of a high school; the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Jaques), who was also born in England; the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston), who comes from the United States; the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Marshall), who comes from Ireland1- Erin go bragh again-and the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Poole) who comes from England. The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) comes from British Guiana. Well, sir, it is pretty sad, after we have been here for generations and after we have learned to consider Canada as our own country, to think that we should get lessons like those from school teachers, professors and so on, who tell us what we should do in Canada. We know what we have to do in Canada. I have no lesson to learn from any member of those groups, though I have respect for them personally. As a member of parliament who is doing his work just as conscientiously as he can, I am fed up with the speeches delivered by the hon. gentlemen. I find them crazy. If any of them ever came to speak to the people in my constituency for even five or ten minutes the farmers there would simply walk out. Here, however, we are bound to wait until a serious matter comes up-


John Horne Blackmore: Hear, hear. We are waiting now for something serious.


Jean-François Pouliot: Hon. gentlemen may laugh. What I regret very deeply is that one of our
(Mr. Pouliot. 1
dear compatriots, the bright member for the fine constituency of Peace River (Mr. Pelletier) should be lost over there among people who have so many vague and impracticable theories. He is an honest little fellow; he is likable; he has a genial smile, and I regret very much that he should have been led into such an error. Probably he thinks he has seen the light, but I trust he will think of the results of the last provincial election in his constituency. He was very active there; he tried to get his candidate elected, but unfortunately things went wrong. His people evidently do not believe in the theories he has so often expressed in this house, I presume quite earnestly. He was all wrong, and the people of Peace River had enough common sense to see that his theories were wrong, so they decided not to listen to him any more. Probably he will speak when I have concluded.	I would ask
him why he does not make the declaration that everyone expects from such a serious young man. Why does he not get up and say, "Mr. Speaker, until now I have been in error. I do not believe at all in the fallacies of the social credit system." Then he will be more popular than ever with his electors, who will say, "Here is a man who has admitted being wrong. It was unintentional; he thought he was doing the right thing, but when he saw his mistake he said, 'I am through with that.' " He should do as some other hon. members have done, move a little nearer the Speaker. I hope all hon. members over there will come nearer and nearer. It will be better for them and better for those whom they represent in this house.


Mr. R. A. PELLETIER (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members in this house will agree that it is indeed delightful to listen to the wise words of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), particularly when he is speaking on behalf of the eastern division of the Liberal government of this country. Apparently there must be two divisions of the Liberal party, the western and eastern divisions, and they do not seem to belong to the same caucus. I can find no other explanation of the widespread disagreement between the views of the hon. member for Temiscouata, who speaks for the eastern division, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who might be said to represent the western division of the Liberal party in Canada. Just a moment or two ago the hon. member for Temiscouata told us that Canada had been spending hundreds of millions of dollars in order to support the western farmers; yet only two or three days ago the Minister

Canadian Wheat Board
of Agriculture said ia this house that up to 1935 wheat had not cost this country a single cent. That makes me wonder whether these two gentlemen belong to the same caucus. I do not believe they do. Apparently there must be a wide divergence of opinion within the ranks of the Liberal party; and when the eastern and western divisions cannot agree they look up the Conservative platform and endeavour to use that as a basis of agreement.
I cannot possibly let it be said that we in this group do not truly represent the people of western Canada. Personally I believe my people have been in this country at least as long as those of the hon. member for Temiscouata. My family were pioneers in this country; we have lived here a great many years. My point is this: I know definitely that we are in close contact with the people of the west. Some of us are not farmers, but we belong to that complex economic system which goes to make up the life of every individual in the west. We are well aware of the problems of the people of western Canada, simply because every single thing that affects them affects us, no matter if we are school teachers or if we follow other professions. We are closely related to our people; their problems are our own.
I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. member for Temiscouata, and I think the greatest truth he uttered was his statement that the difference between Canada and Great Britain is that Great Britain is a consuming country and we are not. How true those words are! England is a consuming country; we are not. I know he is correct because across this country there are thousands of young people with hardly anything to eat, which proves the statement of the hon. member that they are not consumers. Even in his own constituency, where he says the people might not listen to us, I am sure there are some people who do not get as much western wheat as they could use.
There was also a statement made concerning the effect of the pool policy of 1929. I can find no better way to answer this argument than to quote from the submissions by the wheat pool organizations of western Canada to the royal grain inquiry commission when it sat at Calgary and Regina in April and May, 1932. The following statement is made about the pool policy of 1929:
My attention has been drawn to comment in Canada upon a statement made by me in the House of Commons on the first of April. The suggestion that the statement was based upon any feeling that the pool had been attempting to hold up wheat is wholly baseless. My statement was made in reply to an opposition supplementary question and was based on
assurances given me, by you, at Winnipeg, in September, that the pool had been anxious to sell at prices substantially lower than those prevailing. I fully accepted these assurances, and welcomed them as evidence of a friendly attitude towards my plans for encouraging more regular interchange of goods between Canada and Great Britain. I trust you will give full publicity to this explanation. As you know, I fully appreciate the difficulties with which the pool has been confronted, and I earnestly hope the situation may soon rectify itself to the advantage of both countries.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Whose statement is that?


René-Antoine Pelletier: The Right Hon. J. H. Thomas of Great Britain.


John Gordon Ross: Does anyone say that they did not hold up the price of wheat at that time, that they did not refuse to sell wheat?


René-Antoine Pelletier: I was answering the hon. member for Temiscouata when he criticized the wheat pool policy of that time. I thought the best possible answer I could make to his argument was to read from the submission by the wheat pool organizations to the royal grain inquiry commission.


John Gordon Ross: The Right Hon. Mr. Thomas did not say that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) say that they did refuse to sell?


John Gordon Ross: Yes, I say they refused to sell.


René-Antoine Pelletier: The hon. member for Moose Jaw is entitled to interpret the situation existing at that time in the light of his own understanding.
Another charge was made against western Canada, and the figure of $47,000,000 was given as the total contribution western Canada had made in one year to the revenues of this country. That was a most unfair illustration to use, but it is typical of the attitude of certain eastern members of this house. They refuse to recognize the amount which we do contribute to Canada and they use all kinds of incomplete illustrations to show their constituents that they are contributing to the west by donations of all kinds and sorts. Of course, that is not true. Everyone knows that the $47,000,000 is simply one item of taxation. I can only say to the hon. member for Temiscouata that the members of his own party who belong to the western division of the government party are in as good a position as I to reply in full to that particular statement. Why does he not talk about the St. Lawrence ship canal? Ever since confederation millions of dollars
Canadian Wheat Board

annually have been spent there without any noticeable result. It seems that it is always necessary to keep up the digging.


Jean-François Pouliot: When wheat is shipped from the west to other countries it is mostly by sea, and this channel is used by the ships that carry wheat to Europe.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I consider that a very weak argument. You, Mr. Speaker, come from the vicinity of Quebec city. That city has a fine natural harbour which could be much better equipped, than the harbour of Montreal, yet nearly all of Canada's grain is shipped from Montreal. I realize that the difference of opinion that exists is between those who represent Montreal and those who represent Quebec city. I am not much concerned in the matter, except to say to the hon. member for Temiscouata that the consolidated revenue fund of this country has been taxed considerably in order to provide a ship channel to benefit the port of Montreal. This was not absolutely needed, because we had other natural outlets.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Most of the electors of the hon. member are from the east.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Undoubtedly they are, and that is probably why I am here. The point I wish to make is this: I am sure if you stopped anyone on the street, no matter who he was, and asked him what he thought the western farmer was going to get for his wheat, he would say 70 cents. That is a wrong impression to have created throughout this country. It is not true that the farmer of western Canada is to get 70 cents for his wheat. People do not take into consideration the fact that the freight rate must be deducted, that there is a difference in grades, at times the spread in this connection being quite wide. AH these things should be considered if the situation is to be seen in the proper light.


James Garfield Gardiner: Has the hon. member any guarantee at the present time that the farmer is not going to get more than 70 cents?


René-Antoine Pelletier: No, and neither has the minister, either one way or the other.


James Garfield Gardiner: Why try to establish
that that is what he is going to get?


René-Antoine Pelletier: I am not trying to
establish that. I am pointing out that people are under the impression that once a price for wheat has been fixed at a certain amount, be it 60, 70 or 80 cents, that is what the farmer will receive. Of course, the thing that counts is the amount of money the farmer

gets on the farm, not the amount of money which it is stated throughout the country is the amount that eastern Canada is allegedly giving as a free gift to the people of western Canada, these people who are said to be continually adding to the burdens of confederation. When things like that are said, is it any wonder that in western Canada resolutions are passed suggesting a breaking away from confederation? Those in authority in western Canada have made it their duty on many occasions to tell the people not to think of anything like that, that we are true Canadians within the framework of the Canadian constitution. We are only trying to get the rights which are our due.
We do not believe in separation or secession from eastern Canada. We may be station agents, we may be school teachers, but we believe we are true Canadians. All we ask is that portion which belongs to us and which should be freely given by the people of Canada in time of need. They have done it in the past. When the hon. member for Temiscouata, speaking on behalf of the eastern division of the Liberal government, makes the statements he does, and those statements go out to the country, how can we continue to expect to have unity? Hon. members often talk about unity, but this is an example of what we get. The hon. member referred to me as being one of his compatriots. Let me tell him that I have progressed to the point where I believe I am a Canadian belonging to all parts of Canada, not simply to the eastern part. It has done me good to be a compatriot of his, but the travelling I have done out west has also done me good. Western Canada is a part of Canada and it deserves consideration.


Jean-François Pouliot: I consider all members of the house to be my compatriots, but I have a soft spot for my hon. friend.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Where is it located?


René-Antoine Pelletier: I must say that I am absolutely and eternally grateful for the signal honour of having a place in the soft heart of my hon. friend. It would not be right to say anything else. The hon. member for Temiscouata would not permit questions; he wanted to finish his speech. However, I am glad that he interrupted me in order to tell me about the soft spot he has for me.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Where is it?


René-Antoine Pelletier: I come from the Peace River country, in the northern part of Alberta, the district possibly the farthest removed from railway outlets, the district which

Canadian Wheat Board
pays a higher freight rate upon grain than any other part of Canada. Any variation in the price of grain or in the conditions affecting the marketing of it is bound to affect our part of the country more than any other, simply because we are so far removed from markets. When a price of 70 cents a bushel is fixed, past experience leads us to believe that it will be the maximum price, and if that be so, a greater injustice will be done to the people of the Peace River country than to the farmers of any other part of Canada because of the great distance we are from our markets.
I do not wish to speak at further length at this stage but shall reserve my questions until the bill is in committee. But I could not let it be said that we who live in western Canada do not truly represent the people of that part of the country. I extend to the hon. member for Temiscouata an invitation to visit the Peace River country and see for himself what we have there. He will find settled there many of his compatriots who,
I am sure, will give him a welcome, and give him too what he does not believe in, a lesson in unity. The hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) has people living out there and has done us the honour to pay us a visit; so we do not expect to hear him using the language of the hon. member for Temiscouata. In order to have unity in Canada we must take a broad view of our problems. We in this group are willing to do so, and when we rise in this house to speak we do so from a sense of responsibility to those who have sent us here, and for no other reason. I am sure all other hon. members do exactly the same. But let not the fact that we are not all farmers, that some of us may be school teachers, take away one ounce of weight from the arguments we present. We present them knowing thoroughly the conditions of the people of our constituencies. We are for the most part farmers and are pleading for the farmers of our constituencies. It is our duty to do so and we shall continue to do so, whether or not our speeches are burdensome to some hon. members. They may not like them, but we must make them listen because that is the only way we can get justice in a democracy.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have retained my seat for a number of days and listened with close attention to the discussion pro and con in regard to these very important, indeed vital, measures proposed by the government to deal with what all thoughtful men and women in this country recognize to be a serious economic situation. I deplore the spirit of antagonism
which seems to have obtruded itself into the discussion. Parliament, as I understand it, is a great forum, the most important in Canada, where the elected representatives of the people are supposed to approach the different questions that come before them with a degree of sanity and calmness, and may I add intelligence, that will enable this forum ultimately to find solutions for the various problems presented. The one now before us is perhaps the most important and in some respects the most tragic problem that has been presented to parliament for consideration, with the possible exception of the great problem of unemployment, which also has engaged our attention.
As a matter of fact, there ought to be no conflict between western Canada and eastern Canada.
I look upon the two great divisions of this country, industrial eastern Canada, and western Canada, largely agricultural, as complementary one to the other. Sitting here I have wondered if we have in mind at all the anxiety and the strivings of Hitler, as the leader of industrial Germany, to secure for his great country some of the productive wheat plains of the Ukraine, Hungary and other parts of central Europe. He looks upon those wheat plains as necessary to the economic life of his country, and to secure them, where he has not actually taken them over as he did Czechoslovakia, he strives to bring them into intimate commercial relationship with Germany. In Canada we have the industrial east and we have the great plains of the west. One is complementary to the other: Instead of raising every possible point of difference in our economic relations, let us pause for a moment and see if there are not some grounds of common interest.
It is true that the west has been a most valuable market for eastern Canada's manufactured goods, for its implements, clothing, furniture, kitchen utensils and other products. On the other hand, I would ask my friends from the west to keep this in mind: Not only do the largely populated centres of eastern Canada constitute a valuable market as consumers of western wheat; they are also large consumers of live stock, hogs and cattle, which are constantly flowing in trainloads from the west to the eastern markets of Toronto and Montreal. So the east is an exteremely valuable market for the products of the west. In recent years there has been an increase in the production of butter in western Canada, particularly in Manitoba and Alberta, and this product also finds a valuable market in the industrial sections of the east. So we have
Canadian Wheat Board

this situation in Canada: a growing industrial area in the east which is complementary to the primary production of the west, and vice versa.
Let me say, in justification of my taking part in this debate, that I have lived in the west for forty-five years. I have watched those plains develop. There are not many in the house-I know there are a few-who have been longer in western Canada than I have. But I have .been there long enough to watch its development, from the days when the jack rabbits and antelopes ran rampant over the plains, until to-day when we see that vast agricultural area for the most part under intense cultivation.
Let me make one further reference, inspired by some of the observations made by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). When I first went west the movement of people to that country came preponderantly from Ontario, Quebec and the eastern provinces, but from Ontario perhaps more than from any other part of Canada. Scarcely a train moved westward without a car of what we used to call settlers' effects, containing a few horses, some implements, some feed, and the usual utensils, with a son of some farmer in the east proceeding to the west to settle on a homestead.
Then came the great movement from Europe and from the United States. One of the problems with which we as a parliament are confronted arises from the fact that a substantial proportion of the settlers on the western plain are not of original eastern stock.
I believe that the foundation stock was, but the subsequent migrations, particularly from the central western United States and from Europe, constitute a large proportion of the population, and they are not acquainted in any considerable detail with the history and the background of eastern Canada.
I should like to utter, if I may, just a word of caution and advice to some of my western friends. There is [DOT] a danger in overstating a case. There is a danger, in our anxiety to put forward the point of view of those in whom we are interested and whom we represent, of so strongly emphasizing it that it is overstated and reacts against the cause we are seeking to espouse. On the other hand, I believe I am equally justified in saying to some of our eastern friends who perhaps have not gone west and have no personal knowledge of its problems and difficulties, that it will not do to look upon the west as a sort of poor relation. Both attitudes are entirely wrong. We should be mighty proud of this country we call Canada, proud of the magnificent development of the west

and the sacrifices of the early settlers. Goodness knows they had to make sacrifices; they suffered hardships far beyond what are suffered to-day, because there was no outside help; they were on their own resources, and there was very little in the way of communication. Only one railway track, the main line of the Canadian Pacific, stretched across the plains. On the first trip I made west there were no such things as air brakes; I do not believe there was a sleeping car; certainly there was no dining car. When one considers the progress and development of the last thirty to fifty years one cannot but be impressed by the fact that those who went into the west in the earlier days were pioneers deserving of our recognition, our commendation, and our support.
Having said that, I should like to come to the measures before us. Let me say to the ministers concerned that while I see merit in these bills-in the one which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) is now sponsoring, and in the rehabilitation measure which preceded it-it must not be assumed that by passing them we shall have solved the problems confronting western Canada. These are but palliatives, temporary measures to meet a condition which must be frankly recognized. There are some parts of these measures of which I do not approve, but it must be admitted that they make some contribution to the solution of the problem.
The real problem, stated very briefly, is twofold. There is the question of market dislocation, and there is the other question, physical and natural, of drought plus exhaustion of the soil. I am under the impression that up to the present time successive ministers of agriculture have not attached sufficient importance to the contributions which that department might make to solving these difficulties. Time will not permit me to analyse them in detail. But let me say a word or two about markets.
I believe that there are two approaches to this question. One is an improvement of internal consumption. This opens up a wide vista. To my hon. friends who have been occupying a good deal of the time in the debate on this question I would say that merely railing against the tariff of this country will make no contribution to the extension of Canada's home market. I am not going to digress into a long discussion on that, but let me remind some hon. gentlemen opposite that from 1911 to 1914, when we of the Conservative party sat on their side of the house and the Liberals occupied the seats on this side, the Liberal representatives from the west;, led by the veteran Hon. Frank Oliver of

Canadian Wheat Board
Edmonton, used almost the identical arguments which my hon. friends have been using here for the last four or five days, objecting, as they used to express it then, to the growth of "trusts, mergers and combines." Those words were flung across the floor of the house, and the discussions took very similar lines to those of the present day; but very little good came of it all. There is a possibility, and it ought to 'be substantial, of greatly extending the consumption of agricultural products in Canada through a wise and judicious application of industrial protection; because this country, with its tremendous power resources, is peculiarly adapted to an increase of the industrial population, and as that population increases there will be an increase of the home market consumption of farm products.
The other method which I suggest and which has been mentioned is one with which I shall deal but briefly, namely, the intensification of our effort to secure new outlets. What has happened in recent years to restrict the available external market, for wheat in particular, is beyond our control. Let us understand that very clearly. We must,, however;, suffer the effects of it. And while I refer to intensified efforts to secure external markets, I am aware that we are seriously handicapped because of world conditions and factors to which I have alluded but upon which I shall not enlarge.
Let me say a word with regard to natural difficulties and troubles. In my opinion no policy to deal with this western problem will be complete unless it takes into consideration the whole theme and policy of conservation. I believe that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), in particular, as well as the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) and my venerable friend from Melville (Mr. Motherwell) will bear me out when I say that during the last forty years or more, through the draining of sloughs and by one process and another, there has been, over the plains, a lowering of what is called the water table, with the result that the subsoil moisture there has largely disappeared. Then, following the dry weather and an almost total absence of rain, we have the dried out area and the dust problem. These are not peculiar to Canada. All we have to do is turn our eyes southward and we find that Kansas, Arkansas, Montana, Idaho, the Dakotas and other states down to the Mexican border have passed through a similar experience.
Let me say this-and it is applicable both to the United States and to Canada. I believe that we have been remiss in our duty as nations in not long ago recognizing that
in regard to the drought problem there were factors which were purely human and which we should have taken steps long since to remedy. I suggest that the whole question of conservation should challenge our attention, and the same is true of the questions of the restoration of fertility of soil by the use of proper fertilizers, the water problem, which is being touched upon by the minister in one of his bills, and kindred questions.
I might submit this thought to the minister. The Department of Agriculture is equipped to carry out great public works, and what we have done this session is to erect a second public works department within the Department of Agriculture. In my opinion, we are going to have a very unsatisfactory experience, because amateurs are being given the task of constructing extensive water conservation projects, which should be taken charge of in a large national way and be placed under the control of the most expert and most experienced engineers the government can find. There is no doubt in my mind that a proper study of the various watersheds of western Canada would reveal that, by diversion, conservation and so on, we can bring back to the arid areas of that part of Canada a large supply of water.
Then there is the question of farm methods, and again I say to the Minister of Agriculture: Here is a realm which, while not altogether neglected, is certainly not dealt with by the Department of Agriculture as it should be. For instance, recently we have had laid before us the activities of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, indicating that they have gone into an intensive study of the derelict farmers whose loans became past due and were taken over by the company. Last year-and the hon. member for Temis-couata might well be reminded in this regard that because a person is not a farmer he is not always foolish-that great company alone restored the condition of economic security and self-sufficiency to 2,700 farms in the United States. That is not very large, but that was one company acting on its own. Here is a great field in respect of which the Department of Agriculture could take advantage of the opportunity presented to them.
Another thought is this, that we ought to take a long view of the problem. It is no use coming here this year and declaring, as we have done in the other bill, that this year will be considered an emergency year. This is the month of May and we do not know what will happen. It is an admission that we do not know what to do, but we are presenting these bills and will declare this year to be an emergency year in any
Canadian Wheat Board

case, so that whatever happens we shall be more or less prepared, to the extent of these measures, to meet the emergency. That is not taking the long view. We ought to think of this problem in terms of generations. What is fifty years? I do not want to appear old, but I must say that, looking back, fifty years seems like yesterday. The forty-five years that I have been in the west is in reality a short period of time; but looking ahead, forty-five years seems interminable. I submit, however, that in this whole problem we ought to be looking at the question in terms not of to-day or of to-morrow or of next year, but of the generations to come.
One further reference to this measure before us. It is a sort of revamping of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and I am not going to criticize seriously the minister's set-up. I will say this, however. At the present time an intelligent survey of the world situation would, in my opinion, indicate that there may be an increase in the market value of wheat during this year. We are fixing the price at 70 cents- " a sum certain " is the term used. That is nothing more or less than fixing the price. It is an initial price. We are fixing the value at 70 cents, Fort William basis. Now that goes out to the world as a declaration from Canada that this is the measure of Canada's value of wheat. I do not care whether we intend it or not, but that is the impression that is being conveyed. Canada, having led in the export of wheat for so many decades, is naturally looked upon as giving the lead.
I submit, therefore, that we should have done one of two things. Either we should have left the fixation of price open as before, and then the price could be fixed in the light of conditions that might obtain, we will say, in July or thereabouts, or we should have fixed the price at 80 cents. I am not saying that it would have been wise to fix a price of 80 cents instead of 70 at this time. I should have preferred to see the price left open as previously, and then, upon conference with the producers and the trade, and taking all factors into consideration, a fair price could be fixed for the initial payment in the month of July, say. That was preferable to the present situation.


An hon. MEMBER:: Eighty cents did not keep it down last year.


Mr. ILSLEY:: If I remember rightly, we fixed a price of 87J cents under the previous government, yet it went to SI.30. Apparently it had no influence whatever on the valuation placed on wheat by the buyers.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is quite true. I merely mention the fact of its being fixed at 
70 cents as something to be considered. I do not say it would cause the world price to be stabilized at that figure, but it is one of the many factors which enter into the market.


William Daum Euler: Would my hon. friend regard it as a very serious factor in view of the fact that other exporting countries such as Australia and the Argentine have fixed a price lower than the 70 cents in Canada?
_ Mr. STEVENS: I do not wish to be drawn into a detailed analysis, because we have had it over and over again; but a fixed price in the Argentine and a fixed price at Fort William are two different things altogether, because the Argentine exporter has his ships almost at his door.


James Garfield Gardiner: No. It costs him 20 cents to Buenos Aires, and it costs the Canadian 17 cents to Fort William.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Some of our western
farmers who are now being forced, I am told, to ship east to Fort William will pay 26 or 27 cents.


William Daum Euler: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am told so. The minister says no, and I must take his word, but I am stating what I have been told on good authority, that pressure is being brought to bear upon shippers in Alberta to ship their wheat to the east rather than to the Pacific coast.


William Daum Euler: For the sake of clarity let me say that if the wheat is nearer to Vancouver than to Fort William the producer is not penalized by that; he pays only the shorter haul rate, even if it goes to Fort William.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, but I am told that they are being pressed-I will not say ordered -by the government-*


William Daum Euler: They certainly are not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I say they are being pressed by the authorities of the wheat board to ship their wheat to Fort William although it would be to their advantage to ship it to the west.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Is it not because they get a better price at Fort William than at Vancouver?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, the Vancouver price is equalized with the Fort William price and is influenced always by the ocean rates from Vancouver via the Panama canal.


James J. Donnelly: The wheat coming out of Vancouver is not as good as that going from Fort William.

Canadian Wheat Board


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is injecting things that are narrowly within the prejudice of individuals.


James J. Donnelly: It is in the report of the agriculture committee.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Of course if my hon. friend wants to split hairs, there is a larger proportion of Garnet wheat going through Vancouver because a larger proportion is grown in the westerly and northwesterly sections. Almost everyone knows that. But when you come to the different grades, take for instance southern Alberta, they frequently get more of the finest No. 1 grade; no one would question that. And that goes to the coast. We are talking of wheat grading No. 1 and No. 2.


James Garfield Gardiner: Is it not a fact that the man who controls the grain ships it whichever way will pay him most?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Normally, yes. But I am stating now, and I ask the government to see that it is carefully investigated, that under the present control wheat taken in under the 80 cent price is now being ordered to be shipped eastward rather than westward at the dictation of the board.


Mr. SLAGHT:: Would the hon. member indicate by whom and at what date the price would be fixed, if it were left open?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly. Under the old act the price would be fixed by the board. Originally there was a consulting committee associated with the board, before the amendment of 1936.


William Daum Euler: It is not changed, not
amended. It is still in the act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, the advisory committee has been discontinued. But the price is fixed by the board, and the time it is fixed I think is near the end of the crop year, which is July 31.


James Garfield Gardiner: Some time in August.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Somewhere around July 31. It is a matter of discretion, having in mind the condition of the market at the time.
It was not my intention to go into a lot of detailed discussion, but I repeat that it would have been better to leave the price open as in the original bill, and to fix it at the opportune time rather than fix a low price such as 70 cents, or 60 cents as originally suggested. Also I think that the arbitrary limitation of 5,000 bushels cannot in its very nature work out fairly or equitably. I am not going to make any detailed analysis of the matter, but I think in principle it is wrong. It might be

I do not know-that a
few large producers would benefit unduly. If so, some exception could be made to cover them. But a farmer such as was mentioned by the chairman of the agriculture committee last night, who works quite an area with a good-sized family in the expectation of having these sons take part of his farm later on- and I understand there are many such-would be unfairly penalized by this provision. This is only an illustration of how an arbitrary cut-off at 5,000 bushels will work injustice. It may be a sort of compromise with those who object to the whole scheme, but such a compromise usually has more or less danger in it. I object to that feature.
I do not intend to delay the house. My real purpose in rising was to point out two things, mainly. One is that these measures are not a satisfactory solution of this economic problem which is facing the country, of which we ought to take a long-time view. We should deal with it not only as it affects us to-day, but from the point of view of remedies which will affect the situation in the next generation as well. The other is, as I said in my opening remarks, that this country is really not divided into two economic sections. If we persist in that view we shall inevitably come to the disintegration of confederation. There is no other end. You cannot go on, particularly in this forum, quarrelling about the detailed economic problems of one section as against another, without coming to separation. To persist in such a course is unnecessary; it is not true; it is not right. We have a great country; one section is complementary to the other, and if we approach these questions from the point of view of the value of one section to the other, seeing how by working together we can make the most of that advantageous position, then we can make some headway.
I have one other suggestion, and it is particularly applicable to the present situation. Let us not forget that our one great export market for wheat is Great Britain. Virtually not a bushel finds a market south of the line; yet I call hon. members to witness that during this whole session the trend of the argument bearing upon economic life in Canada has been-and this comes from those who are most vociferous in their protestations on the wheat problem-that our economic future is more tied up with the United States than with Great Britain and the British empire. Just as the east and the west of Canada are complementary to each other, so in the export realm the British empire, and particularly Great Britain, is complementary to Canada.
Canadian Wheat Board


John Charles Landeryou: I just wish to make a few statements in reply to the hon. member for Temiseouata-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Do not waste time.


John Charles Landeryou: Some hon. members suggest that we do not waste time on him, but since he has put this statement on Hansard I believe we should take two or three minutes to reply. Like the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier), who spoke in regard to the group of which I am a member, I was bom in Canada, my father and my mother were born in Canada and my grandparents on both sides were residents of Canada. I have many close relatives in Ontario who are engaged in industry and in farming, as well as some in Alberta and British Columbia.
The hon. member for Temiseouata pointed out that some members of our group were born in England or Ireland or the United States. Let us turn to the members of the present government. We find three cabinet ministers who were not born in Canada. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) was born in England; the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) in the United States, and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) in Scotland.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hurrah.


John Charles Landeryou: That is no reflection on them; I believe they are just as loyal Canadian citizens as the hon. member for Temiseouata.


Mr. DUNNING:: Mr. Speaker, just as a matter of order, I should like to know what the place where I was bom has to do with wheat. I am rather proud of the place where I was born, but it has nothing to do with wheat.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I am of the opinion that the remarks of the hon. member are out of order.


John Horne Blackmore: For forty minutes we listened to one of the most contemptible manifestations of the hon. member for Temis-couata in which he took pains to name all the members of our group and state whether they were teachers or what, and now we cannot even answer.


Frederick George Sanderson: I may tell the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) that I was not in the chair or in the chamber at that time.


John Horne Blackmore: Nevertheless he was permitted to do so.


John Charles Landeryou: Then I will not mention any more of the names of the ministers in reference to the places where they were 
born. The present Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie King), was formerly a civil servant. He was born in Canada. Hon. Raoul Dandurand, K.C., LL.D., minister without portfolio, is a lawyer.


Frederick George Sanderson: I have given my ruling, and I would ask the hon. member to observe it.


Mr. J. A. GLEN (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up much of the time of the house, but I think some things should be said which so far have not been said. Yesterday the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) took the position that each of these bills was separate and should be discussed separately. I take the position that these bills are complementary to each other, that they cannot be divorced from each other and, therefore, must be considered together in order that we may get the whole picture.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is to be congratulated upon the fact that the policy of an acreage bonus has been adopted by the house. That is something I did not expect to see accomplished so soon. I believe this is the first legislative attempt made by any government to frame an agricultural policy which would affect the whole of Canada, not only the west but also the east. If this does something to allay that spirit of disunity which has been made manifest even to-day in this house, I think the minister is entitled to credit for that, at all events.
I must confess that when this policy was first introduced I had grave doubts as to its value. I believe at that time my thoughts were directed more to the fixed price or initial payment, as it is called, than to the other part of the program. I realize that no farmer seeds his land in the expectation of a crop failure; he looks forward to a crop which will return him a certain amount of money, and the thought in my mind in the first instance was that the farmer would be able to look only to the 60 cents as the basis of that return. I also know that this figure of 60 cents could not begin to compensate the farmer for his work and the costs he incurred in connection with his crop. I knew that this figure would create a certain amount of opposition, and I think we all agree that the opposition has been considerable. Naturally I, together with other western members, made strenuous representations to members of the cabinet as to our point of view with regard to these proposals; and, together with other western members, I take some credit for the increase from 60 to 70 cents, although

Canadian Wheat Board
at the same time there was a reduction in the acreage bonus from fifteen to twelve bushels to the acre.
Just here may I refer to some remarks, made in a rather sneering manner, in regard to the efforts of the western members. Some speakers have endeavoured to say that the members of the cabinet had a pistol pointed at their heads by members from western Canada, and that in consequence they had to change their policy. I should like to know whether, in connection with a project such as this, we should not represent the viewpoint of the western members; and I should like to know why, as private members, we are not entitled to give to our cabinet, within our own party, the point of view we hold, in order that they may bring in legislation we think suitable to our country. That is what we did. It is no secret that we camped on the doorsteps of the ministers for days and weeks, until the legislation was brought down. That it is entirely satisfactory none of us will say; but that it has a considerable degree of sufficiency I think most of us on this side of the house will agree.
Some changes have been made in the bills as originally brought down, but I say unhesitatingly that the policy of the Minister of Agriculture has not changed in the slightest. We still have a wheat board, which has always been requested by the west. We still have an initial payment, which has been increased from 60 to 70 cents. We still have participation certificates, by which farmers who sell to the board are entitled to reap any profit that may be secured in the sale of that wheat; and we still have the acreage bonus, reduced from fifteen to twelve bushels to the acre. In addition, we have had a further amendment which affects Manitoba. Our representations were that the figure of 135 townships was too large, and the minister has seen fit to bring down that figure, so far as Manitoba is concerned, to 100 townships, or a little better than eleven municipalities. That is something for which we thank the minister, because we believe that in Manitoba 100 townships is a much more equitable figure than the original proposal.
If the government had desired to live up to the slogan which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) iterates and reiterates on any and all occasions, namely, that this is a " do-nothing " government, this policy would not have been brought in. In passing, may I say I believe that slogan is becoming somewhat shopworn and threadbare. If the government had wished to follow the line of least resistance, all they had to do was continue
the policy of 1938, which would have given them some degree of popularity. I have no doubt the government knew this just as well as it is known by any of us; 'but in spite of the fact that this may be an election year they took it upon themselves to introduce a policy which was bound to create discussion, division and dissension throughout the country.
I believe the minister is to be congratulated, because no one can say, in view of what he knew was bound to arise, that in the introduction of these bills he was acting politically. He did not hesitate; he submitted these bills, and I believe they are evidence of the sincerity of the ministers who have charge of them. It is easy to criticize, and of course the duty of an opposition is to criticize, but we do find some peculiar types of criticism.
I was struck by the remarks of the hon. member for Weyburn the other evening, I assume speaking as the exponent of the agricultural policy of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. He was asked if he spoke for his party, but he did not reply to it, although he has been the principal critic for the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in regard to these bills. As reported at page 3844 of Hansard he made this statement:
I should like to draw attention once more to the submission of the -western committee on markets and agricultural readjustment which was presented to the government and which advocated a continuing of the wheat board and a guaranteed minimum price of at least 80 cents a bushel for the 1939 wheat crop.
Mr. Crerar:	Hoes my hon. friend support
that view?
Mr. Douglas (Weyburn): Most certainly.
Mr. Crerar:	The hon. member stated a
moment ago that the price should not be fixed, that it should be left open until the fall. Does he support an 80 cent price?
The hon. member for Weyburn did not reply to that, but further on the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) asked this question:
Mr. Crerar:	That does not answer my
question.
Mr. Douglas (Weyburn): If we must have a price fixed by statute, then we would certainly ask for at least 80 cents.
Mr. Crerar: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but will he tell the house whether he favours a fixed price of 80 cents or whether he favours leaving it open, as he stated a moment ago?
Mr. Douglas (Weyburn) :	I think it would
have been much better if the government had left it open so that it could be set by order in council in the fall when conditions would be much more apparent.
Mr. Crerar: To that extent the hon. member does not support the western committee.
Mr. Douglas (Weyburn):	Oh, yes, I do.
Canadian Wheat Board

Further on, the hon. member for Weyburn said:
If the market rises there is no reason why this price should not be set at 90 cents or $1 The setting of the price at 70 cents or 80 cents may be meaningless by the time next August comes round. That is why I say it would have been better to leave the matter of price open.
I think I know the English language and I have tried to put the proper meaning into those words, but I am bound to say that from what I have read I do not know whether the hon. member for Weyburn, speaking for the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation is in favour of fixing the price now or of leaving it until the fall or some other time. He says "yea" one time and he says "nay" another. I assume he will suit his argument to the circumstances as they arise. He will be able to say on one platform, "Yes, I was in favour of the western committee's proposal of 80 cents." In another place, he will be able to say, "I wanted the price kept open until the fall."


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the hon. member care to give me an opportunity to state what I had in mind?


James Allison Glen: I want to say all I can in forty minutes. So far as I can read Hansard he is neither for nor against. It was interesting the other night when the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) replied to an interjection. I quote from page 3742 of Hansard:
Mr. Tucker: Some say that. They demand 80 cents, which means they are ready to vote out the government and destroy the whole scheme. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) is an old enough parliamentarian to know that what I say is true. With those opposing, it is either 80 cents or destroy the scheme.
Mr. Coldwell: You know we could not do that if we tried.


Major James William Coldwell: Go on.


James Allison Glen: I am going on:
Mr. Tucker:	That is the point. The hon.
member for Rosetown-Biggar says, "You know we could not do it even if we tried." That is the point.
Then the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, seeing the position he had placed himself in, interjected the remark:
In this house.


Mr. COLDW ELL:: That was the place where we would like to vote out the government on this policy if we had the power. That is what I meant.


James Allison Glen: There is nothing courageous about voting when you know your vote will have no effect.


Major James William Coldwell: I was stating what our votes would mean if we had the power.


James Allison Glen: There is nothing courageous
in asking for an increase in price when you know that the government has set its policy and that you cannot defeat the government.


Leslie Gordon Bell: We will try to do it when the election comes.


James Allison Glen: I remember when the budget was being introduced in 1938 by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). The minister stated that 'he did not propose to make any reductions in the tariff that year because they were negotiating with the United States for a trade treaty. In other words, he did not wish to destroy the bargaining power of the government when dealing with the United States. The minister wanted that bargaining power in order to make the best bargain he could for Canada. During the course of that debate the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation introduced a subamendment which asked that certain reductions should be made in customs duties and specified a number of articles in connection with which the reduction should be made. That went to a vote, of course, and the result was that the subamendment was defeated.
I want to point out that it was quite easy to suggest that subamendment. It did not need any courage on the part of hon. members to introduce the subamendment, because they knew that they could not force it through. They had, however, to make some motion. If there had been a sufficient number of members in the house willing to support that subamendment, what would have happened? The government would have been defeated and to-day we would have no United States treaty. We took the position that we would support the budget because of the statement made by the Minister of Finance.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: On a point of
order, is the hon. member dealing with wheat or is he attacking the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation?


James Allison Glen: He is dealing with the position-


Frederick George Sanderson: I think the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) is well taken, and I would ask the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen) to confine his remarks to the subject matter of the bill.

Canadian Wheat Board


James Allison Glen: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I shall bow to your ruling, but I would point out that we have had dissertations by hon. members which were absolutely foreign to the subject under discussion. It was agreed that both bills would be considered together and that a broad interpretation would be placed by the Chair on the remarks of hon. members. I am referring now to the economic situation of western Canada and how it would have been seriously affected and made more difficult had the United States agreement not been carried out. It would have been more difficult for western Canada to carry on and there would have been a decided loss. These bills are intended to remedy this condition to some extent. With all due deference to you, Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am travelling very far from the subject under discussion.
As I say, it was quite easy and did not need any great courage to oppose the budget of that day. We are now dealing with the very issue that was raised then, the defeat of the government. If the will of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and the Social Credit party prevails in this house, it will mean the defeat of the four bills that we now have before us.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Considered separately.


James Allison Glen: The defeat of the government will mean the defeat of all bills, for they have not passed through the senate as yet and are not law.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member is misrepresenting us. The statement he made regarding the Social Credit and the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation is not correct.


James Allison Glen: What statement is that?


John Horne Blackmore: That we would defeat all four of these bills. That is a presumption on the part of the hon. member.


James Allison Glen: The government would be
defeated; we would have to go to the country, and there would be no government to carry on and have the bills passed.


John Horne Blackmore: We would then have the act of 1935, which would certainly be better than any of these.


Mr. TUCKER:: There would be no acreage bonus.


James Allison Glen: Some hon. members have
indicated that their point of view is being regulated by conditions in their constituencies. I do not consider that the comprehensive viewpoint to take, but I do not think they can quarrel with me if I take my own constituency as a basis for my supporting the government as I intend to do on these bills.
In 1937 when I went back to Marquette I found that all the territory west of the Assiniboine river right up to the Saskatchewan boundary was in exactly the same condition in regard to drought as the territory just on the other side of the line in the constituency of the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell). But my constituents in Marquette were not receiving any relief as were the constituents of my hon. friend from Melville, and I had of course to make what representations I could to the government. I came to Ottawa to see the Minister of Agriculture in order to ascertain what could be done to help them. He was in the position that the law did not permit him to help them, and therefore he could not accord any relief to my constituents. And I had the spectacle of men taking hay from a reserve east of my home town and going into Langenburg in the constituency of Melville because on that side of the line the people were getting all kinds of relief while my people were getting none. I say to those who speak with regard to their own constituencies that in my constituency, if this acreage bonus had been in effect, our farmers would not have had to endure all the hardships and troubles which they have experienced.
In some parts of my constituency the initial payment will be the feature upon which the farmers will focus their minds, but in other parts of the constituency it will be the acreage bonus. I recall a man who had nothing from his farm last year, not even feed for his horses, and he had difficulty in getting food for himself. He did not want to go on relief and he said, "If the municipality will only pay for feed for my horses I will go on the road and work it out." But the municipality could not do it. They could only give him relief in the form of food for himself and his family. As a consequence the province came into the picture and provided the relief which these people required.
As I said, I at first focused my mind on the initial payment, but the more I considered the acreage bonus I realized that in it we had the foundation of a policy upon which we could build, so that western Canada might some day look forward to the time when they can look after their own troubles, and I know of no other policy, Mr. Speaker, that is likely to lead to that rarilt.
I realize, of course, that the fixed price in 1938, without the acreage bonus, was abso-
Canadian Wheat Board

lutely inequitable. One of the large farmers of my district said to me, "I am in favour of the 80 cents, of course, because I have a large crop, and I get a good deal of government money, but a man on the other side of the road has no 2rop and it is absolutely unfair that I should receive the 80 cents and he get nothing and have to take relief." That is how it worked out. So, when I began to consider this whole proposition afresh, while I should have liked to see the 80 cent price, or more if necessary, I am of opinion that the 70 cent price which the government has already fixed, together with the acreage bonus, enables me to go home and offer something to my people. Those who have crops get a secured price. It may come about, as some hon. members have suggested, that the initial payment will, in such instances, not mean anything. Nevertheless the farmers will have an opportunity of selling to the board and receiving a secured price of 70 cents, together with participation certificates which will enable them to share in any profit which may be made on the sale of their grain.
I think, therefore, the proposition as we have it to-day is a reasonable one, and one that will be accepted by the people. I am fortified in that view because when I went home at Easter there was in my home town a large and representative meeting of the farmers of the whole surrounding district. They were there concerned only as to a fixed price of SO cents. We discussed the whole question, and the result was that the meeting, which was one representative of the whole countryside, including part of the drought area, passed a resolution that the initial payment of 70 cents, together with the acreage bonus as then proposed by the Minister of Agriculture, was satisfactory.
In the following week I took the opinion of the members of my executive, a large number of whom were present. We discussed the whole matter pro and con. They realized what the acreage bonus meant and also the value of an initial payment of a large amount, and with one exception, all the members of the executive were of opinion that in the circumstances of to-day an initial payment of 70 cents with the acreage bonus would be satisfactory to western Canada. They were looking, not to the men who had a large crop and therefore were obtaining money, but to those who might have no crop and who would in those circumstances get some benefit from the acreage bonus plan proposed by the Minister of Agriculture. The executive did mention at that meeting that hail should be included, but the Minister has already explained to the house why hail is not included.

In the acceptation of these bills by western Canada I should state at once that we are not bargaining with eastern Canada or any other part of Canada; we are not saying that we are receiving protection for our products in western Canada; we are not giving eastern or any other part of Canada an opportunity to say that we in the west have now accepted the doctrine of protection. I cannot reconcile indirect taxation with its benefits to industry, with a direct, specific and known amount paid to the wheat growers. If the government paid a specific and known amount to industry, in the form of wages, say, there might be a parallel with this initial price. But the tariff granted to an industry is to protect the home market of that industry. It has its effect on the industry by largely excluding competition.


Mr. MacNICOL:: A tariff is intended to
provide employment.


James Allison Glen: That may be my hon. friend's point of view.


Mr. WOOD:: And dividends.


James Allison Glen: I say that no such argument
can be advanced with respect to a fixed initial price for wheat. The farmers are to-day asking for this to tide them over a troublesome period, and they are doing it justifiably in the circumstances. For the reasons I have stated I am supporting the government in this initial payment of 70 cents and the acreage bonus, and I hope that I may not at the end of the year when the crop is harvested, be accused of having concentrated my mind too much on the initial payment and not sufficiently on the acreage bonus because conditions in Manitoba to-day are not just as good as they might be.
The Searle Grain Company report, issued last week, stated that the amount of moisture in Manitoba is subnormal, and two or three days ago there was a terrific storm of wind and dust in the Moose Jaw area. This does not look very hopeful so far as conditions in western Canada are concerned. I trust that when the fall comes I shall not be accused of having concentrated my mind too much upon the initial payment and that I should have addressed myself more to the matter of the acreage bonus. I hope that it will not be necessary for me to concentrate on the subject of the acreage bonus, because that will mean, no crop in our country and dependence, therefore, on this form of relief.
For the reasons I have stated I am supporting the government on these two bills.

Canadian Wheat Board


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Regarding the proviso, this was not in the original draft prior to the bill being reprinted. What is the explanation of the change?


William Daum Euler: It might be sufficient answer to say that the house consented to the reprinting of the bill. But 1 am not going to take refuge behind that. Upon reconsideration the government felt that it was a fair proviso to limit the amount which could be sold at 70 cents to 5,000 bushels.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why 5,000?


William Daum Euler: Five thousand bushels may be regarded as an arbitrary figure; some might feel it should be more; I will be frank and say I thought it might be slightly less. I will put the argument strictly on this basis, that if it is regarded that agriculture as an industry
Canadian Wheat Board


Major James William Coldwell: What about the hon member for Temiscouata?


William Daum Euler: I have not spoken much and I should like to have an opportunity now; my hon. friend will have his opportunity also. I have no sympathy with the statements of any who try to balance east against west. I have only condemnation for expressions such as have been used this afternoon by the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Black-more) when he spoke of the "betrayal'' of western Canada by this government. I listened to another hon. member over there, I am not going to name him, but it was no credit to him when he spoke not only of "betrayal" but of the east having robbed the west for years. I think it is very regrettable indeed that such language should be used in this house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Daum Euler: It does not make for the unity of Canada.


John Charles Landeryou: It is the truth though


William Daum Euler: I do not remember my hon friend having said it, but he has said it now. I say it is not to the credit of himself, and 1 think he thoroughly deserved the castigation he got this afternoon. I believe, on the whole, the bill is a good one, and there can be no reasonable opposition to restricting the payment of 70 cents a bushel to a total of
5,000	bushels for one individual.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is not
altogether a matter of the farmer feeling abused, it is that the limitation is not on an equitable basis. The minister assumes also that the initial price may be higher than the market price. That may not always be true.


William Daum Euler: Then there is no harm done.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But I speak from the point of view of those who believe in orderly marketing. Assume that the market price is higher than the initial price; the

Canadian Wheat Board
farmer may want to sell all his wheat to the wheat board; but, if he has more than 5,000 bushels, he is compelled to sell the rest on the open market in competition with the wheat board, whereas he might want to sell it all to the wheat board, take participation certificates and draw whatever benefits might accrue later. It does not mean that he wants to get more out of the dominion treasury, it means that he wants to sell all his wheat through the wheat board which is carrying on orderly marketing.


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend knows from experience that when the market price is higher than the advance price the wheat board does not get any wheat.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is not always so.


William Daum Euler: It has been.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is not always true.


Mr. TOMLINSON:: The hon. member does not know what farming is.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon.
member for Rosthern does not, I imagine, know much about farming. A great deal has been said this afternoon-


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. member for
Rosthern was not in the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I beg his pardon, I thought it was his voice. Someone on this side of the house near Mr. Speaker made some reference to farmers, and we had some remarks this afternoon about farmers.


William Rae Tomlinson: What do you know
about farming?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The fact that one may not be a farmer is no reflection on any member of this house. The only reflection on a member of this house would be for a farmer to come here and forget the interests of some of the farmers who sent him here. I have an equal right with other members to rise in my place and plead the case of the farmers whom I represent, and I do not propose to stop doing so merely because some hon. member says, "What do you know about farming?" As I said last night during the debate on the second reading, I am quite willing to agree that it might not be feasible to accept all the wheat that any producer may want to bring to the wheat board. It is quite conceivable, particularly if the initial price is higher than the market price, that there should be some limitation. I feel, however, that it could be put on a
graduated scale, and that the amount of land a man has should be taken into consideration. You might accept 2,000 bushels from a man with a quarter section, 3,500 bushels from a man with a half section-


Charles Avery Dunning: How big an army would you require to administer that?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It would not be any more difficult to administer than this scheme will be. As the minister knows, there will be a tendency, which I hope will not be widespread, to parcel up the land among the whole family and sell the wheat in the names of the farmer's sons, who will then become producers.


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford):: Surely no one in western Canada would do that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is not a question of their being crooked, but you will compel a number of people to do that.


Mr. GOLDING:: You have not much confidence in the people of the west. If that is your opinion, it does not look too good.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wanted to make some remarks without reflecting on either the east or the west, and I do not think this sort of thing adds anything to the dignity of the house. A farmer who has a large farm, particularly in the heavy land area, will not find it easy to liquidate his assets overnight. He will be compelled to split up his farm, as I say, to put a house on one part for his son to live in, and so break up his farm into smaller units of production if he wants to sell to the wheat board. There is nothing crooked about such a procedure; I am not suggesting that. I am not suggesting that he would sell wheat in his wife's name, or anything like that, but the tendency will be to break up these large farms. The Minister of Agriculture knows that, particularly around the Regina plain, we have many large farms. These people will be penalized. I am not suggesting that we should allow a man to sell to the wheat board as much wheat as he wishes, but I believe the limitation should be graduated according to the amount of land a man is farming. A man who has two or three sections should not be penalized; you should give him more time to dispose of his holdings if he wants to go into farming on a smaller unit. Imposing this arbitrary figure on short notice will bring hardship to many of these people and will tend to put out of business the most efficient producers. They will be pushed into smaller units of production when, as a matter of fact, the whole tendency of mechanized agriculture to-day is toward larger units of production.
Canadian Wheat Board

The minister says it will not mean any more wheat on the market. That may be so, but it will mean less wheat for the wheat board to market and more wheat to be marketed through other agencies. The purpose of the wheat board act ought to be to allow as many people to market through the wheat board as desire to do so, in order that they may have the benefit of the participation certificates. I submit that the government, until they withdrew this bill to have it reprinted, gave no indication of desiring to limit the amount in this way. I am sure the feeling will be widespread in western Canada that this proviso is simply a method of taking back some of the money that was given when the initial price was raised from 60 cents to 70 cents. That is what it looks like.


William Daum Euler: Take it from those who do not need it so badly.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think it is
a mistake to believe that because a man has
8,000	bushels he needs it less than a man who has 4,000 bushels. If he has 8,000 bushels his costs are proportionately greater.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Daum Euler: Did my hon. friend not argue the other day that as a result of a 70 cent price the farmers would go in more for mechanized farming and increase their acreage in order to reduce the cost? That was exactly his argument the other day.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But may I point out to the minister that for the last eight or ten years these people have had no crops, so their losses have been that much greater, because the taxes are heavier and so on. They have been working on mechanized farms, where they -have had to buy fuel, and replacements for machinery. On the other hand, the farmers who had horses lost hundreds of them through encephalomyelitis, an epidemic of which struck western Canada last fall. Merely to assume that because a man has six or eight or ten thousand bushels of wheat he is two or three thousand dollars better off than the man with a smaller amount, is to hold a wrong idea. His expenses are that much greater. It may be that on a unit basis his expenses will be somewhat smaller-


James J. Donnelly: It depends entirely on the yield per acre.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am sure the minister will agree that a man who grows
8,000	bushels of wheat has a great many more expenses than a man who grows half that quantity.


Mr. McNEVIN:: The hon. member quoted extensively from the Bracken report, which definitely states that the cost per bushel is less.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I just finished saying that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not going to lose further time on that point. I say on the unit it is smaller, but the total expenses are greater; taxes are heavier and the wear and tear on machinery is greater.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. I must ask for better order on all sides.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I said "proportionately" greater; I withdraw that. The cost would not necessarily double, but I am pointing out that we sometimes form the opinion that because a man has 8,000 bushels of wheat he is a millionaire, forgetting that these people have heavier expenditures and heavy costs. They do produce much more economically than the man on a quarter section.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right; their costs are not proportionately greater.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I accept that correction; that is quite so. But they have a higher cost, and to compel these people to sell only 5,000 bushels to the wheat board and to market the remainder through private agencies, particularly if the market price is less than the initial price, will work a very great hardship on a group of people whom we ought to encourage to the fullest extent possible.
I see it is six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, it is not carried.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Leslie Gordon Bell: This section 2 contains the phrase, " to buy and sell wheat." The board will be obligated to sell wheat, and in view of the situation that we face I was wondering if the government had any plan whereby our sales of wheat might be increased. This bill is in charge of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler). I have before

Canadian Wheat Board
me Hansard of March 14, 1929, and on page 948 I find that a former Minister of Trade and Commerce, Hon. Mr. Malcolm, gave as his opinion at that time that the Department of Trade and Commerce was not exercised over the sale of such commodities as wheat, because these commodities find their own markets. Those are the words of a former Minister of Trade and Commerce, and consequently I think the particular phraseology of this bill is of importance to us at the present time. This afternoon we heard it alleged, and the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) said that he agreed, that much of our difficulty had been caused by the holding policy of the western pools. We have a wheat board now, and if accumulations occur they cannot be attributed to the former policies of any cooperative organization. I should like to point out that I disagree with the statement to which I have referred, and I think the records show that it is incorrect. I do not propose to go into the records to-night, but I have them before me on my desk. Suffice it to say that the case for the western producers was stated very well in the submission made to. the royal grain inquiry commission which sat in Calgary and Regina in 1937.
Therefore I ask the minister what special efforts the government proposes to make in view of what is going on in the world. According to press reports, the United States is endeavouring to exchange wheat for other commodities and to subsidize the export of wheat. Just before I came into the chamber this evening, I heard part of a news dispatch in which it was stated that the announcement had been made to-day in the British House of Commons that an agreement had been entered into between Great Britain and Roumania, and one of the products that Great Britain had undertaken to receive from Roumania was wheat. I did not hear the quantity. In view of the methods adopted by the United States and other countries, in view of the treaties that have been entered into by other nations with our best customer, I was wondering if the government has any policy, not only to buy but to sell wheat.


William Daum Euler: I think I can assure the committee that the government and the wheat board are constantly concerned with selling as much wheat as possible. In fact, in the trade agreements which we have made, consideration is given to wheat. I might mention Germany which has been obliged to allot a certain amount of exchange for the purchase of wheat. In other negotiations which we have carried on, wheat has never
been lost sight of, and that commodity will continue to receive every possible attention.
Reference has been made to the British market. It is well known that this is our largest market for wheat, and I think it is sure to remain so. The wheat board has been quite active in carrying on an advertising campaign in an effort to induce bakers and the public generally to consume greater quantities of Canadian wheat or Canadian wheat flour. The wheat board has a man abroad constantly, a Mr. Biddulph, whose sole work is to promote the sale and consumption of Canadian wheat. I believe they have even gone to the extent of making motion pictures, one being called "The Kinsman." Possibly my hon. friend has seen it. The board has spent a good deal of money in advertising and, as I say, it employs this one qualified man who is mostly in Great Britain promoting the sale of Canadian wheat.
Reference has been made to articles in the press to the effect that the United States is negotiating some sort of barter arrangement by which it will exchange something like
100,000,000 bushels of wheat for, I believe, rubber and tin. In reply to inquiry, I informed the house some days ago that the government of Canada is cognizant of the situation, and that we had communicated through our high commissioner in London with regard to the matter. No definite reply has yet been received, but the government is not at all blind to this situation and is giving attention to the matter.


Major James William Coldwell: I am glad to hear that. One of the reasons why I rose at this time to ask this question was my recollection of a statement made by the former chairman of the board to the parliamentary committee which inquired into the marketing of wheat. I cannot quote his statement verbatim, but in reply to a question whether the board would be prepared to enter into the direct sale of Canadian wheat with overseas organizations- I think cooperative societies were mentioned -Mr. Murray stated that he wished to market Canadian wheat through the usual trade channels. Upon being pressed, he said, if my memory serves me correctly, that the board could not consider making sales outside the usual channels, that he felt he was obliged to do that, or words to that effect.


William Daum Euler: I think the act provides that they must do so.


Major James William Coldwell: That is what he contended; but if I remember correctly, the then right hon. leader of the opposition held a different opinion. He thought the act was
Canadian Wheat Board

sufficiently wide to allow the board to make sales outside the usual channels if they so wished.


William Daum Euler: Who held that contention?


Major James William Coldwell: I believe it was the former leader of the opposition, Mr. Bennett. He expressed the opinion that the board had the right to use the ordinary channels of trade or to use any other means of selling, which would include direct sales.


William Daum Euler: I will read from the act itself. Section 8 paragraph (i) reads as follows:
(i)	in selling and disposing of wheat as by this act provided, to utilize and employ without discrimination such marketing agencies, including commission merchants, brokers, elevator men, exporters and other persons engaged in or operating facilities for the selling and handling of wheat, as the board in its discretion may determine;
And then (j):
(j)	To offer continuously wheat for sale in the markets of the world through the established channels: Provided that the board may, if in its opinion any existing agencies are not operating satisfactorily, take such steps as it deems expedient to establish, utilize and employ its own or other marketing agencies or channels;
That is, if the agencies now existing are not operating satisfactorily. In the past, though, I think the board has used the facilities which are at band in Winnipeg.


Major James William Coldwell: That, I think, confirms the opinion that if the marketings of wheat were not considered sufficiently large, and, therefore, sufficiently satisfactory the board has the right to establish its own agencies if it so desires.


William Daum Euler: I would think so, yes.


Major James William Coldwell: I was drawing this matter to the attention of the minister because of the replies that were given to the committee at that time. I have no doubt that in view of what is happening the government are, shall I say, alarmed at the wheat outlook in the world and will do all that they can, and I think the members of this house, having the opportunity, should support the government and the board in doing everything possible to market the wheat even outside the normal channels of trade, if such opportunities occur.


William Daum Euler: I forgot to mention Roumania.
I had not heard what the hon. member mentioned to-night with regard to another contract having been made for Roumanian wheat.


Ernest Edward Perley: It is in this afternoon's papers.


William Daum Euler: As a matter of fact, Great Britain did buy 25,000,000 bushels of wheat late last year, and also bought some from the United States. Naturally we would prefer to sell our wheat and we make every effort to do so, but it must be evident to the committee that this government has no power to interfere with any arrangements which the British government may care to make if it thinks it is in its own interest to buy wheat from other countries. The wheat bought from Roumania was bought in consideration of what Roumania bought from Great Britain and for other reasons as well.


Robert James Manion: If this government had not been so ready a short time ago to give up our 6 cent preference in the British market, they probably would not have been able to make the arrangement.


William Daum Euler: That had nothing to do with the matter. The reason why the United States are selling wheat is that they are subsidizing wheat very heavily; the 6 cent preference would be wiped out very easily if the United States wanted to put on, by way of subsidy, five times the amount of the preference we had, and they are doing that very thing.


Robert James Manion: But Roumania is not able to do that, and probably would not do it. Hon. gentlemen opposite gave up a great advantage that we had in the British market, and now they have to defend themselves against their action.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have in my hand a
copy of Hansard of July 4, 1935, containing a debate which bears directly on the question raised by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. So far as Roumania and the United States are concerned, and Roumania in particular, Great Britain has always bought part of her wheat supplies from Roumania, and in view of the circumstances existing in Europe to-day Great Britain would hardly discontinue purchasing wheat from Roumania, preference or no preference. There is a situation existing in Europe to-day in relation to Roumania which makes it natural that Britain would be making deals in wheat with her, but probably in no greater quantities than she has taken annually over a long period of years. Speaking in this house on July 4, 1935, the then Prime Minister, Mr. Bennett, made quite plain the position under the wheat board act in relation to the buying and selling of wheat. At page 4271 of Hansard he is reported as saying:
We return now to the next item, the duties of the board. The board is to be prepared at all times to buy wheat and pay for it a fixed

Canadian Wheat Board
price. That fixed price having been determined and the board having paid it, as it will be obliged to do under this bill, it then must consider the next point. How would it be sold? The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth and those associated with him kept pressing the point with respect to sales, and there was introduced into this bill-I got their notes and tried to give effect to their view-the provision that the board should sell its wheat at such price as might be considered reasonable with the object of promoting the sale and use of Canadian wheat in world markets.
In other words, there was not to be a holding policy. He goes on:
That is the principle that governed Mr. McFarland's operations in every particular. The board must regard as reasonable the price at which it sells. Then we come to the next point, which is that it should take over, secondly, the wheat of the Canadian wheat producers; and I pointed out this evening in answer to a question asked that the present thought in our minds was that you would substitute the board for Canadian Cooperative Producers Limited with respect to wheat and wheat only.
Then he goes on at page 4272 of Hansard:
Now the question is, how shall the accumulations be disposed of? That is the next question. This year's crop is to be dealt with in the way I have indicated. The accumulations, which came about in the way I have indicated, are to be dealt with as provided in the act in a special section, namely by their disposition as speedily as may be reasonably possible having regard to economic and other conditions. In other words, the accumulations are not to come into competition with the crop produced this year. As speedily as may be reasonably possible having regard to economic and other conditions -there are the conditions that you have with respect to the sale of the accumulations, and above and beyond all that-and the suggestion in a slightly different form came from the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-there is paragraph (h):
To give effect to any order in council that
may be passed with respect to its operations.
That is, the governor in council has the power of directing, prohibiting, controlling, regulating, determining the course of action this board shall take with respect to any matter that comes within its jurisdiction.
I wanted to read that because of some comments made on both sides of the house in relation to this particular legislation under any government that happened to be in power during the time the legislation was on the statute books. The governor in council has the power "of directing, prohibiting, controlling, regulating, determining the course of action this board shall take with respect to any matter that comes within its jurisdiction."
He goes on:
In other words, the responsible government of the country, in its judgment and the exercise of its discretion, has power to control completely the operations of the board.
That was the position of the Prime Minister of the day, speaking on the third reading of the bill, after it had come back, of course, from the committee. He went on to say at page 4273:
I did not conceive it to be the duty of men to take their own fixed opinions with respect to a matter of this kind-
He is speaking of the men who were on the committee.
-but it was their duty, having called witnesses representing every phase of the situation, to listen to what they said, and out of the mass of testimony it became abundantly clear that one group contended they should have an opportunity to show the usefulness of their facilities and that their policies and their programs, based upon those policies, should have an opportunity of being again tried, free from any hampering control, as they contended, such as that of the Producers Limited.
That was the first contention.
That is accorded to them in this bill, but it still holds over their heads the idea that the original provisions of the bill have not been taken from it, but are to be utilized if, as and when in the interests of the producers of this country and of the nation generally it is found desirable to exercise the powers conferred by those provisions.
That is, the powers conferred which have just been read by the minister. He goes further; he says:
That is one side of the matter. Then the other side was that those who represented cooperative and individual marketing were of opinion that a fixed price was essential and desirable. Some of them urged that the factors indicating how that fixed price was to be determined should be stated in the bill.
And we are again discussing that matter over again, as to whether the price should be fixed and stated in the bill. But at that time, may I point out, some of those who were advocating the cooperative marketing of grain in western Canada and elsewhere were advocating a fixed price in the bill rather than the methods which have been followed since. Then he says:
I am free to say that I urged as strongly as I have done to-night that that should not be done for reasons I shall not now traverse.
That is, the Prime Minister of that time thought that, instead of having a set price in the bill, as was urged by some of those who were representatives of cooperative organizations, there should be the method set up which was finally set up in the bill, under which the matter was determined by a board.
We have this bill which the committee accepted for the purpose of doing two things: one, taking care of the surplus accumulations of the wheat of this country. . . .
Canadian Wheat Board

I have already, at an earlier time, placed that paragraph on Hansard. To come now directly to the point which was raised a few moments ago by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar:
Some people think there is objection on the part of importers to buying from one agency. To do so simplifies their business. Although I was not a witness, I endeavoured to ascertain from personal inquiry, and the objection was, as I tried to explain to the committee, that there was an endeavour to sell wheat without regard to the old established agencies. Anyone who knows something of, shall I say, the strength of vested interests who discharge great obligations in marketing, whether it be tea or sugar, wheat or other grains, in the markets of the old country, where the price charged per unit is very small, will understand what the result is if an effort is made to establish, shall I say, a new agency in competition with those old established institutions. My primary reason in rising to-night was to have it known I trust by the inaccurate correspondent of the newspaper-and let him be accurate for once-that as long as this government exists, there is no intention that this country should offer its surplus of grain at fire sale prices or throw its surplus on the markets of the world. I am bound to say in fairness to the committee that this legislation, which is not based on any such idea, was unanimously agreed to by that committee, so that the views which I express are those of the committee unanimously, there being no difference with respect to that whatever.
What I wish to point out is that, in making the last speech which was made-and this is very close to the end of the last speech- the then Prime Minister pointed out clearly that the intention was to use the board which was set up under this act, first to sell the accumulated surplus, next to market the grain of the year 1935 into which we were then going, and so to market the surplus as not to interfere unduly with the marketing of the grain of 1935. Then he goes on to say that the intention of the bill was to leave it open so that the facilities which had 'been set up for the handling of grain in the past could be given another trial in the handling of grain in Canada, and that the facilities used by way of agencies for the selling of the grain in the British market should be used to the fullest extent in connection with the marketing of the grain.
I think all that should be placed on Hansard at this time, during this discussion, in order to make perfectly clear the intention of the government of the day, and I believe that intention has been fairly well carried out by the government which has been in power from that time down to the present.


Major James William Coldwell: I was not dealing with that particular point. What I was dealing with was this, that the situation since 1935 fMr. Gardiner.]
has changed, at least to some extent. Unfortunately the economic nationalism with which the world is cursed to-day has created all kinds of commercial and trading problems. What I was pointing out was that perhaps, in view of the situation, in addition to any existing channels which the board might use, it might be advisable for the government as a government or through the wheat board to enter into more direct negotiations with importing countries in order to dispose of our wheat on as advantageous a plan as possible. The point I was making, and I think the section read by the Minister of Trade and Commerce confirms it, is that there is nothing in the act to prevent the government or the wheat board from using any additional facilities to those which already exist and which they deem it wise under the circumstances to maintain.


William Daum Euler: It is a matter of their good judgment.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes. That is the point I was making.


John Charles Landeryou: Just before six o'clock the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated that certain remarks which had been made by hon. members in this corner of the house could be interpreted as tending to disrupt the good relations which exist between eastern and western Canada. May I say to the minister that there is no attempt by our group to put that impression into the mind of any hon. member or to have it get into the minds of the people of Canada. We do not want, by any statements we may make, to endanger confederation. But surely it is not endangering the unity of Canada to suggest to the government that the trade, tariff and monetary policies which they pursue are inimical to the interests of western Canada. We do know that large financial institutions and monopolies which have their headquarters in eastern Canada may not actually be robbing the people of eastern Canada-


William Daum Euler: Then why say it?


John Charles Landeryou: -at the point of a gun, but it is legitimate robbery.


An hon. MEMBER:: Legalized.


John Charles Landeryou: Yes, legalized robbery. Let me give the minister an illustration. Millions of dollars' worth of farm machinery have been sold in western Canada by the large manufacturing plants of eastern Canada. That machinery was sold at high prices under a protective tariff. Now that, for a number of reasons, farmers have been unable to pay

Canadian Wheat Board
for that machinery, their overdue accounts are carrying a rate of interest of 10 per cent. That has worked tremendous hardship upon countless numbers of farmers in western Canada, a large percentage of the farmers being in arrears on their machinery and so obliged to pay 10 per cent. We feel that this is an absolute injustice.
Again, the rates of interest which have been charged in western Canada for loans for similar purposes to loans made to farmers in eastern Canada have been anywhere from one to three per cent more than is demanded of the same type of borrowers in eastern Canada. I do not think we should be charged with an endeavour to create disunity or an attempt to destroy or endanger confederation because we suggest that such things are unjust.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: The statements this afternoon would tend to that.


John Charles Landeryou: Surely to goodness we should be free to criticize the policies of a "do-nothing" government without being charged with creating disunity.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Charles Landeryou: I must correct that statement. They have not actually done nothing. They have increased taxation and debt tremendously in this country.


An hon. MEMBER:: What have the Social Credit party done?


John Charles Landeryou: Speaking for the other members of my group, I say we resent members of the Liberal party rising and charging us with an attempt to create disunity when it is their own policy which is causing such disunity as exists. Again may I say that all loyalty is not wrapped up in the bosoms of the Liberal party. We are just as loyal to confederation as are hon. members who sit on the benches opposite. I do hope that in the future this tone will not prevail.


William Daum Euler: I am very glad my hon.
friend has said what he has because he is now trying to give a different impression from that which he gave before. My complaint was with regard to the language he used. I do not object nor does anyone on this side object to his making any legitimate criticism of this legislation, nor do we quarrel with his objecting to the tariff as it affects western Canada, although I for one would not agree with all that he has said in that respect, and I am sure that many others would disagree with him. He is at perfect liberty to make his case and to make it as strong as he can, but I repeat that it does 71492-246
not make for that good feeling which ought to exist between the east and the west, that he and his colleagues and others as well-and he said the same thing again this evening- should declare that the east has been robbing the west. He has now qualified that statement and I am sorry he has done so; I wish he had withdrawn the statement altogether. He qualified it by saying that it was legitimate robbery.


John Charles Landeryou: Legalized robbery.


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend said legitimate robbery, and then he corrected it.


John Charles Landeryou: How can robbery be
legitimate?


William Daum Euler: If the hon. member says
now that he did not mean what he said in the first instance I am quite willing to forget it and I hope the committee will. I simply want to make this statement. I do not think any member of the house, whether representing the east or the west, can say correctly that the people of eastern Canada, Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces-and that includes myself

have not had every sympathy with the people of the west. And that sympathy has been expressed in the most practical way. If my hon. friends will recognize that, we can agree to differ as to whether they are bearing too great a share of the tariff, and I will not enter into a discussion of that question. I might, say, however, that if I wanted to indulge in recrimination I could strike a balance, have a sort of ledger account showing that the west is receiving this and giving that, and so on. But that would be quite purposeless and useless, and it would only tend to cause disruption among us. In my estimation, I could make a good case as to whether that balance is on the side of the east or the west, but I will not try to do that because that sort of thing only makes for disruption and disunity. I suggest, therefore, that my hon. friends drop that line of argument. If I may say so, they have certainly advanced their case, so far as the tariff is concerned, with such regularity, persistence and repetition that it has become monotonous. I can assure them that we know their point of view thoroughly. If we did not, it certainly would not be for want of having it stated over and over again. I suggest, therefore, now that we understand each other, we might as well go on with the business before the committee and attend to this particular clause, which deals with the limitation of the delivery of wheat to 5,000 bushels by one producer. I think we are entirely out of order in continuing the other discussion.

Canadian Wheat Board


Henry Herbert Stevens: I understand that we
are on section 2?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This section provides that no wheat shall be purchased by the board except from the producers. Will the minister indicate the machinery to be used in purchasing from the producers?


William Daum Euler: It will be the same machinery now used by the wheat board in purchasing through the elevator companies. I do not suppose there will be any change in that regard. My attention was drawn to what possibly may be a weakness in the phrasing of the clause. The intention was, of course, that no producer should sell to the board more than 5,000 bushels in the crop year in which the wheat is produced, and perhaps the intention would be clarified if we left out the word "produced" in line 13, so that as amended paragraph (b) would read:
. . . and provided further that the board shall not purchase from any one producer more than
5,000	bushels of wheat in any crop year.


James Garfield Gardiner: I move that amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Gordon Ross: A few moments ago the leader of the opposition made some reference to the 6 cent preference on wheat as given in the British empire agreement. The gentleman who brought down that legislation is not here now. He was here for some time and he did have a considerable knowledge of the grain business in western Canada. He said very little in this house about the 6 cent preference-for a very good reason. He knew, as well as anyone else who knows anything about the grain business, that the 6 cent preference was the greatest hoax ever put over the Canadian people.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Gordon Ross: It was never worth anything to Canada and there were two reasons for that. The first was that in the British empire agreement it was provided that wheat from Canada had to be offered at first sale at world prices in order to obtain the preference. That would mean, of course, no preference.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Nonsense.


John Gordon Ross: No nonsense about it; that is correct.


Ernest Edward Perley: Read what he said about it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: 
John Gordon Ross: Then it must have been out of order for the leader of the opposition.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He said only two or three words; you are making a speech.


John Gordon Ross: He said it two or three times and I will reply now. The second reason is that Canada is the only country that sells wheat to Great Britain on the certificate basis and that means, to those who know the grain business, that Canada grades her wheat, No. 1 hard, No. 1 northern, No. 2 northern, No. 3 northern, No. 4 northern, No. 5 and No. 6 wheat and feed wheat, and other derivatives of the grades in regard to damage done by weather conditions. Other countries sell their wheat on what is known as f.a.q. or fair average quality at the point of shipment. In other words, all the grain that comes into a port is mixed up together and sold as fair average quality on European or British markets. If the Canadian grain were sold as f.a.q., it would mean that all the wheat that came into Fort William would be mixed together and go out as one grade of wheat. In other words, in practice every year we would reach the average of No. 3 northern for our wheat. Argentine wheat is not quite equal to Canadian No. 3 northern in quality. In fact, it generally runs about three cents a bushel below Canadian No. 3 northern. Canadian No. 3 northern generally runs nine cents a bushel below No. 1 northern; or in other words, there is an ordinary preference of nine cents a bushel for No. 1 Canadian northern above an f.a.q. of Canadian wheat. But the price of f.a.q. of Argentine wheat is three cents below that. Therefore, there is an ordinary differential between Canadian No. 1 northern and Argentine wheat of twelve cents a bushel. So what good is a 6 cent preference? We already have a twelve cent differential between Canadian No. 1 northern, basis Fort William, a grade sold in European markets, and Argentine wheat-


Robert James Manion: What about United States wheat?


John Gordon Ross: -and to give a 6 cent preference is no good whatever. United States wheat does not grade much higher than the Argentine.


Robert James Manion: Oh, yes, some does.


John Gordon Ross: No; the Americans do grow good hard wheat, but never export any of it. The trouble in the United States is that they do not grow enough hard wheat. They must use all their own hard wheat grown in the spring wheat area of the

Canadian Wheat Board
United States to mill with their winter wheat, and the average grade that is exported from the United States is little if any higher than that from the Argentine. In other words, you have a twelve cent differential there, and a 6 cent preference is just six cents less than nothing when you talk of preferences. I hope my hon. friend will cable to his former leader and get the real facts from him in regard to it; then I do not expect we shall ever hear anything more about it in this house from my hon. friend.


Robert James Manion: Yes, you have told it.


John Gordon Ross: No, I have not, your former leader settled it.
This afternoon some hon. members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation started to take exception to something I said about wheat in 1929 and 1930. I am glad to see the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation members championing the western farmers as they have done. It has been said and is no doubt true that there is no Cooperative Commonwealth Federation member in this house who is a farmer. Nevertheless they have a right to endeavour to the best of their ability to speak here for the farmer. I will, however, say this about them, that they are much more solicitous for his welfare in this chamber, where a record is kept, than they are in some other places. I have been on the agriculture committee this year, and at least two members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation are members of that committee. But we do not keep a record in that committee this year, and as I remember it, with regard to those two members who were in the committee at the first meeting, at which we decided to keep no record, I have not seen either one of them in the committee meeting since.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I rise to a point of order. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation members are on a number of committees. I have been at some of the grain committee meetings; I have been at the banking and commerce committee; my friend and colleague from Weyburn has been on the public accounts committee, and we have found it very difficult indeed to attend to all the matters that the members of this small group are supposed to attend to.


Frederick George Sanderson: That is not a point of order.


John Gordon Ross: I will accept the hon. member's apology. I have been on three committees myself.


Major James William Coldwell: It is not an apology.
71492-246J


John Gordon Ross: I know my hon. friends have been able to attend the public accounts committee. I do not want to say that it is because of political advantage that might be gained by hearing something there, but I say there is a record kept there, and they were there.


Mr. SENN:: Small stuff!


John Gordon Ross: In the discussion this afternoon my hon. friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation seemed to be considerably entangled in their argument. For one thing, when we are discussing the wheat problem, I think most of the practical farmers in the house will say it is better to discuss it on the basis of the cost of production of an acre of grain, rather than of a bushel. On the same land in different years, on the same farm in different fields, you can have a different cost of production per bushel; but your costs per acre can be fairly well gauged. The most illusive thing I can think of is the cost of production of a bushel of wheat.
Then my hon. friends have said that they do not like the 70 cent price. They did not like the 60 cent price, and I question very much if they would like it if it were 80 cents.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is that the clause we are discussing?


John Gordon Ross: But I say as a farmer from western Canada that I cannot see how the western farmer can continue to produce wheat at all if the price is to be 60 cents or 70 cents or even 80 cents a bushel.


Major James William Coldwell: That is what we have said.


John Gordon Ross: This bill is an emergency measure, to endeavour to hold the price from going altogether too low; it is to protect the farmer in a year when prices are low. A few farmers ini western Canada would not want to sow wheat at all if they thought their only chance was to get 70 cents a bushel. I do not believe that is the case this year; it is my hope and that of other farmers who are sowing grain in western Canada to-day that world conditions will straighten out so that we shall again get a proper price for wheat, a price far above 70 cents a bushel.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. I do not like to interrupt the hon. member but I would point out that he is discussing clause 3. I suggest that we carry clause 2 first. Shall clause 2 as amended carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Gordon Ross: I have listened in this house for the last two or three days to
Canadian Wheat Board

the latitude given to every hon. member. I sat back and said nothing about this bill up to now because I wanted to see it get into committee. I tried to facilitate the business of the house.


Frederick George Sanderson: I might remind the hon. member for Moose Jaw that when we come to clause 3 he will have all the time he wants to discuss it. Shall clause 2 as amended carry?


Ernest Edward Perley: I do not think one would be out of order in taking a minute to reply to the hon. member for Moose Jaw.


Frederick George Sanderson: I cannot permit that.


Ernest Edward Perley: All right. When the committee rose at six o'clock hon. members were giving the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) rather a rough time, and we all remember what took place just a little while before, when the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) was speaking. I do not think it is fair; in fact, I protest the treatment meted out to the hon. member for Weyburn just before six o'clock.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ernest Edward Perley: He was referring to the
limit of 5,000 bushels, and I am referring to that also. I believe the hon. member for Weyburn was talking real sense in his remarks with respect to the 5,000 bushel limit contained in section 2. I think he has displayed courtesy in this house, and has shown ability to discuss agricultural problems intelligently. His speeches indicate that he has given these matters far greater study than is the case with many other hon. members, and when he is referred to as a minister of the gospel or anything else, I believe he has shown ability to discuss these problems in an intelligent manner.
This is a marketing bill, and I claim that this limit of 5.000 bushels is discriminatory. Reference has been made to the question of price. If the world price should hold near the fixed price, all the wheat will be delivered. In other words, there might be a situation similar to that which existed last fall; when the price was set at 80 cents, the Fort William price was about 86 cents. That would apply to all the wheat coming in, whether it was delivered to the board or to the open market. Of course we have just passed an amendment which will permit a man to deliver last year's wheat, if he has been able to hold it, if he has no crop this year. In any event, any wheat that does not go to the board goes to the open market,

where it will have a tendency to depress the price, for this reason: As fast as the trade would get the wheat they would sell it for future delivery. They would not hold it; that is not their custom in the early months of the crop year. Therefore that wheat would come in competition with the board's wheat and would not help bring about orderly marketing. The hon. member for Moose Jaw just referred to the cost of producing wheat.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: He was
out of order.


Ernest Edward Perley: No. That would come
in under this section. He went on to suggest that this question should be discussed from the point of view of the cost per acre.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: That is
out of order.


Ernest Edward Perley: Very well; I can deal
with that on the next section. I should like to recall to hon. members what happened in 1935, when the Canadian Grain Board Act was before the house. We all remember the wail that went up from the hon. member for Willow Bunch, which constituency is now called Wood Mountain; the hon. member for Yorkton; the hon. member for Swift Current, Mr. Jack Vallance; Mr. E. J. Young; Mr. Totzke, and Hon. J. L. Ralston. We remember the charges that were hurled across the floor at the then Prime Minister, the then Minister of Agriculture and others. Two or three opposition members were on their feet at once, day after day, demanding that certain information be given before the Canadian Grain Board Act would be permitted to pass.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Ernest Edward Perley: I am quite in order now.
I am going to ask what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot.


James Allison Glen: On a point of order-


Ernest Edward Perley: The hon. member was
not in the house then, so I am not referring to him.


James Allison Glen: When I referred to the 1938 budget I was called to order. Now the hon. member is referring to legislation that went through in 1935.


Frederick George Sanderson: Section 2 deals with the powers of the board respecting the marketing of wheat, and the limitation. So far, with the exception of his opening remarks, I think the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has been in order.

Canadian Wheat Board


Ernest Edward Perley: Then may I take it that
on the next section we can discuss almost anything?


Frederick George Sanderson: No.


Ernest Edward Perley: Then when are we going to be able to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a few questions? I was going on to say that if the tables were turned, I imagine hon. members opposite would not allow this bill to pass before obtaining a great deal more information than we have had up to date, and before this section passes we should have more information about the operation of the present wheat board. A great deal has been said about the loss that may be incurred this year, but no one can tell where the board stands. We should have the reports provided for in section 8 of the bill, which states that each Friday night a report shall be made to the minister showing the amount of wheat received and the financial position of the board. Earlier in the session I endeavoured to obtain those statements, perhaps more particularly in regard to the financial position of the board, but my request was denied. Before this bill proceeds much further, and certainly before it passes, we should have that information. If I might be permitted to ask a question or two at this stage I should like the minister to take his pencil and write them down. It is so difficult to get the floor while there are so many bobbing up that I may not have another opportunity, so I should like to ask two or three questions, and I will speak very slowly to enable the minister to take them down.


William Daum Euler: Why not take them one by one?


Ernest Edward Perley: I do not believe the minister can answer them right off the bat. I was going to give him an opportunity to look up the records.


William Daum Euler: I will see them in Hansard to-morrow.


Ernest Edward Perley: No, the bill may be passed before to-morrow. I will just ask these questions and the minister can decide how he will deal with them. It is information I am after.


Mr. GRANT:: We will get you a blackboard.


Ernest Edward Perley: If the hon. member will just keep still for a few minutes I will ask these questions. First, how much money or credit was advanced to the Canadian Wheat Board in August, and how much has been advanced since August?


William Daum Euler: That is a question for the Minister of Finance to answer.


Ernest Edward Perley: Well, I am asking the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The board is under his control; it is administered by his department, and surely he must have had something to say with respect to the selling policy, so he should be able to answer the question.


William Daum Euler: I give my hon. friend credit for intelligence, and he must know perfectly well that so far as the advances that are made to the wheat board are concerned, all money matters come under the supervision of the Department of Finance. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has nothing whatever to do with it.


Ernest Edward Perley: Certainly I understand that, but the minister administers the act; the board is under his control, and surely he knows how much money has been advanced. If he says he has no knowledge of that, well and good; I will try elsewhere.


William Daum Euler: I say exactly that; I do not know.


Ernest Edward Perley: Then perhaps the minister can answer the next question. What was the financial position of the board as of last Friday night, when the last report was rendered?


William Daum Euler: Would my hon. friend ask that question again?


Ernest Edward Perley: What is the financial position of the board at the present time, or as of last Friday night?


William Daum Euler: I cannot answer that. The hon. member knows perfectly well that while weekly reports are sent to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, there is nothing in the act to compel the Minister of Trade and Commerce to give that information even to parliament. It has never been done in the past. His former leader never requested it at any time. The reports indicating how much wheat the board had on hand and how much had been sold were considered as containing information which it was not in the public interest to disclose. This information has never been given, and in the interests of the people of Canada, I do not, so far as I am concerned, propose to give it. I say that with all due respect.


Ernest Edward Perley: I know what the act provides. It provides that a statement shall be delivered to the minister in charge every Fnig''1 I am now asking for the
Canadian Wheat Board

financial position of the board. I may say that last year, at the request of the leader of the opposition, these reports were filed in the sessional papers office and were available to every member of the house.


William Daum Euler: There was no wheat being received by the board at that time.


Ernest Edward Perley: That does not matter. The financial statements were filed there.


William Daum Euler: It makes a tremendous difference whether the board is buying wheat. If the board is not buying wheat, that information really does not amount to anything. I would be quite content to give that information, and I did at the time. But now that the board is in the business of buying and selling wheat, it is regarded as being in the public interest that it should not be known just what operations are taking place. Such information might affect the price of wheat, and it has never been given. It is not being given now. During the period when these reports were supplied and placed in the sessional papers office, the board was not purchasing wheat, as my hon. friend knows very well.


Ernest Edward Perley: The board has been purchasing wheat since August 1, has it not?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Ernest Edward Perley: These reports must have been coming forward every Friday night since August 1.


William Daum Euler: They have.


Ernest Edward Perley: All I am asking is that the last one the minister has received should be made available in the sessional papers office. Surely we are entitled to that.


William Daum Euler: Absolutely not. That is just the point. When the board is actually buying and selling wheat, these reports are not made public. The only time that they were made public was when the board was not in the market at all, when no wheat was being delivered to the board. This information has never been given, even by the former government.


Ernest Edward Perley: Section 8, paragraph (e), provides for a report in writing to the minister on Friday of each week showing as at the end of the preceding week its purchases and sales of wheat during such week and the wheat on hand and contracts to take delivery of wheat -then held.


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Ernest Edward Perley: The minister must have received such a report on last Friday night. The Canadian Grain	Board Act has	been
criticized, and it is now -being changed. The act provides for that information being given and surely the public is entitled to it.
Mr.	MACKENZIE	(Vancouver):	Where
does it provide for that information being given?


Ernest Edward Perley: It says that it shall be given to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I am only asking him to give it to the committee.
Mr.	MACKENZIE	(Vancouver):	It	does
not say it shall be given to the public.


Ernest Edward Perley: Why not?
Mr.	MACKENZIE	(Vancouver):	In	the
interests of the fanners themselves.


Ernest Edward Perley: If the government refuses it, leave it that way. As I said a while ago, if the tables were turned, I venture to say that this bill would not get through this house in six months. Remember that the Hon. J. L. Ralston, the former member for Shel-bume-Yarmouth, said that they would not allow the bill to pass until they got the information with respect to McFarland's operations. The bill was held up for days, until the information was obtained.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Where was that information given? It was given in the committee on -banking and commerce, in the form of evidence under oath by Mr. McFarland, and not in the sessional papers.


Ernest Edward Perley: This bill should have been brought down two months ago and then sent before a committee where we could have had the chairman of the board called, as well as other people from Winnipeg, in order to obtain the information to which the public are entitled. This board has been doing a $250,000,000 business and not one member of this house knows anything about it. We do not know where we stand to-day. We do not know what the loss may be, we do not know what the wheat has been sold at or anything.
I am just saying that if the shoe were on the other foot, this bill would not pass, as it is likely to in a day or so. If the government desire to refuse this information, that is their responsibility. I was going to ask how much wheat was sold during certain months and how much wheat was received during the first three months the board was in operation.
I was also going to ask-I think we are entitled to this information

whether the

Canadian Wheat Board
minister or the wheat committee of the cabinet directed the selling policy of the board. The minister need not answer that to-day.


William Daum Euler: Does the hon. member mean whether any instructions have been given recently?


Ernest Edward Perley: The act provides for instructions. The Minister of Agriculture just mentioned that. The act also provides that by order in council the government may direct the policy of the board. I should like to know how often the minister has met with the board and who has directed the selling policy of the board. Did it come from the wheat committee of the cabinet, from the minister or from whom?


William Daum Euler: The policy of the board is in strict accordance with the act, which states that wheat shall be offered by the board continuously for sale. Those are the instructions that have been given to the board. In fact there are no instructions, the instructions are in the act itself. When the wheat board of the present government first came into existence it was announced by myself as Minister of Trade and Commerce that this policy was to be carried out, that there was no intention of instituting what were commonly called at that time as " fire sales." In accordance with the provisions contained in the act, there has been a constant offering of wheat by the board. This was in contradistinction to the policy which had been followed by Mr. McFarland. My hon. friend may think that the policy of the board under Mr. McFarland created by the former government was the correct one, but the present government did not think so. The present government did not believe in allowing tremendous accumulations of wheat from year to year. Therefore they indicated to the board that the policy should be that indicated in the act, that wheat should be continuously offered for sale. My hon. friend may consider it was due to providence or luck, but the result has been that we got rid of that tremendous burden of surplus wheat.


Ernest Edward Perley: Who is at present directing the selling policy of the board? I understand Mr. Mclvor is across the water. Is the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Trade and Commerce giving directions to the board?


William Daum Euler: There have been no instructions in that regard given to the board. When the present board took charge, it was thoroughly understood what the policy of the government was to be, and that has been
carried out by the board. That policy has not been altered to this day, and it has been in strict accordance with the provisions of the act.


Ernest Edward Perley: The board are doing pretty much as they see fit at the present time?


William Daum Euler: They are offering wheat continuously for sale.


Ernest Edward Perley: How often does the wheat committee of the cabinet meet with the chairman of the board?


William Daum Euler: I have no objection to giving reasonable information, but I do not propose to be catechized. The wheat committee meets as often as it is thought necessary it should.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In the public interest.


Ernest Edward Perley: It is quite evident it will be impossible for us to get a great deal of information which, I think, is due to members of this house and to the country. It is quite apparent we are not going to be able to get it because this bill is not going to a committee. We are in committee of the whole house now. As I said a few minutes ago, this bill should have been presented to the house a month or so ago. We would then have been able to gain some idea of how the board really operates. It would be interesting to know just what has been the experience of the board. This board has been in operation quite a while, and it would be interesting to compare its history with that of the 1935 board to see what control they have had over prices. I voted against this bill this afternoon. I voted distinctly against the idea of fixing the price at 70 cents because I maintain it is not high enough. On August 4 last the price was set at 80 cents when the Fort William price was 86 cents. I should have been very much pleased if the bill had been left as it was without any of these amendments. If the government had waited until August 4 next to set a price somewhere near even the then world price, which I think will be considerably higher than the price to-day, I shall not argue the question further. There is a lot of information that we should like to get but apparently we are not going to be given it, and the government will have to take the responsibility for not producing it.


Mr. CRERAR:: Mr. Chairman, the discussion by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has been quite out of order on this section, but if I may be permitted to do so I should like to deal with two points that he raised.
Canadian Wheat Board

He has made a great deal of play over what the policy of the government was with respect to selling wheat.


Ernest Edward Perley: Do you know?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, and my hon. friend does not know either. I challenge the hon. member for Qu'Appelle to point to any section of the Canadian Grain Board Act of 1935 that lays any obligation on the Minister of Trade and Commerce to determine the selling policy of the board with respect to wheat. The act specifically instructs the board that it shall offer wheat continuously for sale, and that it shall use the ordinary channels of trade for the disposal of its wheat, but if in the judgment of the board -not in the judgment of the minister or of the government-the ordinary channels for the disposal of wheat are not sufficient to meet the situation, it may take other steps. But the act specifically lays on the board the duty of conducting the sale of the wheat and the conduct of the whole wheat marketing operations. Nowhere in the act is the obligation laid upon the government or upon the Minister of Trade and Commerce or any other member of the government to direct the selling policy of the board. My hon. friend may be indulging in a bit of political pyrotechnics that may be useful out on the prairies, but as a practical criticism his argument is futile.
He makes great play of another point. He chides the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the government for not giving him certain information. He says: "You get weekly reports and we are entitled to be given that information in the house." I wonder if my hon. friend is really serious in that suggestion.


Ernest Edward Perley: I certainly am.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Then I must deal with it. The establishment of the wheat board in 1935 was a new departure in the marketing of wheat. It brought the government into a relationship with the business of marketing wheat, and under the act that business is to be conducted by the board. It is most necessary that the board should not disclose its operations to the public. If I may modestly say so, I know a little bit about the marketing of wheat, and there are those not only in this country but in every importing country in the world who would be glad to have the information which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle says the Minister of Trade and Commerce should divulge to this committee. There are many people who would like to know how much wheat the board
[Mr. Crerar.3
has taken delivery from the farmers this year. There are a great many dealers in grain throughout the world who would like to know how much of that wheat has been sold, and how much is still in the hands of the board. But if we were to conduct this business in that way, may I say to my hon. friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation who are looking forward to the day when there will be a great deal more government control than there is now, if the business operations entrusted to commissions and boards such as the wheat board were to be disclosed to the public every twenty-dour hours it would make the conduct of such business an impossibility. It would be quite proper, after the whole transactions have been completed, to have information given annually as to the operations of the board, but to disclose now to the public how many million bushels of wheat the board has in its possession would be most unfortunate and would definitely handicap the board in its operations. There can, in my judgment, be no gainsaying that.
I have been in the grain export business for a great many years, if I may be pardoned a personal reference, and as a grain exporter I would have given a great deal at certain times to know what my competitors had sold and how much of their sales they had covered. But that information was never disclosed by private firms. Why then should the government agency, operating in much the same way, disclose information which would be welcomed in every grain importing country in the world. It would place a great handicap on the board and would be unfair to the interests of this country, because I can easily conceive how the disclosure of such information might add to the loss which the wheat board may suffer through its operations this year, and no good interest could possibly be served by it.
May I say further that the opposition in this house between the years 1930 and 1935 asked for the same information. I was not in the house at the time, but I recall reading reports in the newspapers that the opposition had asked for this information. Naturally,
I suppose, they wanted to embarrass the government if they could, but in my judgment the government of the day between 1930 and 1935 were wholly justified in refusing the information.


Ernest Edward Perley: They did not refuse.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: And the government to-day is justified in not giving the information. I am sure that my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle,

Canadian Wheat Board
who is fairly familiar with the business of marketing grain, will appreciate the importance of withholding such information.


Ernest Edward Perley: The minister (Mr. Crerar) has said that there was no direction as to the selling policy of the board, but a few minutes ago the Minister of Agriculture quoted at length from a speech by the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, speaking as Prime Minister in 1935, when the Canadian Grain Board Act was before the house, in which speech he states distinctly that the governor in council can direct the selling policy of the board. Further, section 7 paragraph (h) gives power to the governor in council to direct the selling policy of the board. The minister has stated that it would not be in the public interest to give information as to the operations of the board.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Would my hon. friend read paragraph (h) of section 7 to which he referred ?


Ernest Edward Perley: Paragraph (e) of section 7 reads:
(e)	to pay to producers delivering wheat at the time of delivery.
And so forth. And paragraph (f) reads:
(f)	notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, to acquire from Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, upon terms to be approved by the governor in council, all wheat or contracts to purchase or take delivery of wheat in respect of which the government of Canada has given a guarantee.
Then there is another section which gives the board power to dispose of the wheat with the approval of the governor in council. The minister said that it would not be good for the public to know the amount. I hold in my hand the issue dated April 22 of the monthly review of the wheat situation published under the direction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce,, and on page 29 there is set out what is practically the balance for export or the carry-over at the first of April; the amount is 160,000,000 bushels. We know that the board has taken practically all of the wheat, so that is as near as practicable as one can get to the amount. The public knows what it is because of the statement issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce.


William Daum Euler: Then why ask for anything more?


Ernest Edward Perley: The minister stated that such information was not given in 1935. John I. McFarland appeared before the special committee. The then government responded to a request such as I am now making. If this measure had been brought down in proper time, the chairman of the board could have 71492-247
come before the committee. If hon. members will read the evidence they will find that Mr. McFarland gave the figures of the daily transactions. I remember that on July 21, 1933, he had to buy 15,000,000 bushels of wheat to save the market from going down. Every day's transactions were given to that committee and made public, and when the committee had concluded, the people in Canada and the trade generally knew the facts.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask a question: Did they not agree at that time on a date, and they were to give the information only down to that particular date?


Ernest Edward Perley: They gave it practically right up to date.


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


Ernest Edward Perley: Oh, yes, they did. If
this bill does not get through to-night I will bring the evidence down. I happen to have it in my office. I will produce the evidence of the daily transactions.


William Daum Euler: Away in the past.


Ernest Edward Perley: Right up to that time.
I do not think we are asking for anything unreasonable when we are asking for similar information to that which Mr. McFarland was forced to give.


Mr. QUELCH:: Coming back to section
2, I would not have any particular objection to the number of bushels that could be bonused being limited to 5,000 provided the price was sufficiently high. As a matter of fact, I have received a number of resolutions from Alberta which advocate that very thing, but at a considerably higher price, of course, than 70 cents. But I do take objection to the number of bushels which can be bought by the wheat board being limited to 5,000. Why would it not be possible for the board to buy the total crop, let us say 8,000 bushels, but allow the bonus on 5,000 bushels only? Then, in the event of a farmer being in the position, in which unfortunately most farmers are, of having to sell his crop as soon as it is threshed, he could sell 5,000 bushels, get the bonus, deliver to the board the other
3,000	bushels to be sold at the world market price, and take participation certificates, so that in the event of wheat going up he would get the benefit of it. What possible objection could there be to that being done?


William Daum Euler: I would think there would
be very considerable difficulty in administration.


Victor Quelch: Why? It would make a
tremendous difference if it could be done.

Canadian Wheat Board


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: At six o'clock I was protesting to the minister against this provision. I want to say just a word or two about it. If the minister is adamant with regard to it there is no point in pressing the matter very much further. But I was trying to point out to him that this will work a hardship and it will discriminate against a group of people who are efficient producers and whose larger crops have had contingent upon them relatively higher expenses. I was pointing out that these producers who have large crops will have to sell part to the wheat board and part through the usual channels of trade, that is, in competition with the wheat board. I was pointing out that this would mean, in many instances, the breaking up of their farms into smaller units of production, which, with heavy land, is not an easy proposition. I was going to move an amendment suggesting that that section be deleted, but I doubt if it would be in order. I wonder whether the minister would take into consideration, either graduating the limit of quota on the basis of the amount of land the man was farming-


James Garfield Gardiner: It could not be done.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -or, failing that accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Acadia that a farmer could deliver all his wheat and receive a bonus on only a certain stated number of bushels, which would allow him to market the rest of his grain with the wheat board.


William Daum Euler: How could you pool that, at different prices?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister knows a great deal more about administration than I do; but it would seem that, when the man was being paid, he could not be paid the initial price on more than 5,000 bushels. On anything over 5,000 bushels he would have to take the market price, but he would get participation certificates for that excess so as to enable him to derive any benefit which might be forthcoming. However, I am not going to press the thing further upon the minister, but I do say this, that when the government first brought down this bill, it did not have this clause. When the bill came back, it had this proviso in it. The price has been raised ten cents, but the rising market in the meantime really has not made that ten cents mean very much, so actually I think we are out a little on the reprinted bill. We have raised the initial price, but many farmers stand to lose quite a bit. I would ask

if the minister can give us this information: Has the government any idea how many farmers in western Canada will be affected by this limitation; and has the government made any estimate as to how much will be saved to the dominion treasury by imposing this restriction?


James Garfield Gardiner: The grasshoppers may eat the crop.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Of course the minister cannot give a definite figure, but the government must have given the matter some consideration before making so important a move as this. Unless they can give some idea what on an average crop the saving will be to the dominion treasury, it would seem that they ought not to be positive about it. How many farmers would be affected, and what difference will it make to the dominion treasury, on an average crop?


William Daum Euler: I cannot give the amount of money or the number of bushels which will be affected by this restriction. I do not see how anyone can until he knows what the crop is.


Leslie Gordon Bell: On an average crop?


William Daum Euler: We cannot say what the crop in western Canada will be, and I may say frankly that I do not know how many farmers would be affected. As I stated this afternoon, the restriction was imposed on the distinct principle that the farmer who has
5,000	bushels he could sell to the government at the initial price of 70 cents, should not, in justice to the country, participate further in any bonus which might be paid. That was distinctly the principle upon which the provision was founded, and that being the case, in my opinion the number of farmers affected does not necessarily touch the question.
With regard to the suggestion of my hon. friend that farmers should be permitted to sell their crop over 5,000 bushels to the board, I said that at the moment I could see great administrative difficulties in the way. I do not see how the wheat could properly be pooled. It is being bought at various prices, and it seems to me that there would be tremendous and almost impossible difficulties to be overcome if that were done. I can see that it might be desirable to do it. I do not see any particular reason why, if a farmer wants to sell his wheat to the board at the market price, and if the board are handling wheat in any event, they should not be willing to buy it, charging what the service is worth, and give him participation certificates, but I believe the difficulty would lie entirely

Canadian Wheat Board
in the matter of administration. The Minister of Agriculture, who is familiar with these matters, may be able to give a fuller explanation.


James Garfield Gardiner: The difficulty which I see in doing what is suggested is this, that each individual delivers his grain to the board in exactly the same way as he previously delivered it to the wheat pools when the wheat pools were in operation. That is, it is delivered at a set initial payment. So long as the world price is below 70 cents, there would not be any material difference, but when it is above 70 cents, and they have participation certificates, it is only the wheat in the pool which can be part of that transaction. All the wheat then becomes pooled wheat, and if it is all sold above 70 cents you must pay to the individuals their proportion of that amount which is above 70 cents. So, if you take delivery from an individual of 5,000 bushels at 70 cents and throw that wheat in the pool, and take delivery of another 5,000 bushels at 75 cents, let us say, and throw that in the pool, you find yourself in a position where it is impossible to keep records and finally to pay out from a pool of that kind in the way which is intended under the act.


Victor Quelch: Participation certificates
will be paid on wheat at 70 cents?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Victor Quelch: If the price is below 70 cents and the farmer receives 40 cents, and if the average price was 75 cents, he will have the difference between 40 cents, and 75 cents.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no disadvantage to a man in doing that, because if he wants to sell his wheat outright after getting the
5,000	bushels delivered, he can deliver all his wheat, not to the board but to the elevator, and the elevator will deliver to the board. He sells or rather delivers 5,000 bushels to the pool through the elevator company. The elevator company can then buy his wheat at the same price as he could get for it from anyone else.


Victor Quelch: He will get the current market price.
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn)-: The minister says that the principle which motivated the government was the belief that any farmer who sold 5,000 bushels and got a bonus was really getting all that he could expect and should be compelled to sell the rest elsewhere. That is the underlying principle, but that principle was not in the mind of the government when the bill first came down. It 71492-247i
only occurred to the government when they were compelled, by pressure of western opinion, to raise the initial price. Actually, what this restriction appears to do is to give something with one hand and take it back with the other. The government appear to have raised the initial price of wheat merely by taking back, by putting on a restriction of
5,000	bushels, what they gave in the first instance, so that the total difference in outlay may be nothing at all.


James Garfield Gardiner: It will be to different people-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, to different people.


James Garfield Gardiner: -which is the whole
object. It goes to the people who need it, instead of to those who do not.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is a debatable point. The man with one or two sections of land may or may not need it; that question is debatable. It depends on how much lower the market price is than the initial price. Possibly some people will go bankrupt if the market price is sufficiently low and if they have to sell enough wheat over and above the 5,000 bushels at that figure. Therefore, no one can speculate on that. At any rate, the total outlay by the government may be no different, and what we have really done is to take back, by means of this qualifying restriction, what we are giving to the people in the next section. I cannot help thinking that we are discriminating against a class of people who should not be so treated.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: The question raised by the hon. member for Acadia is well worth considering. After all, these farmers who sell 5,000 bushels to the board and get 70 cents are expected to pay a ono per cent tax thereon, which may be all right. On the other hand, the grain which they have over and above the 5,000 bushels they are forced to sell on the open market, and in view of the fact that while they get no protection from the 70 cents they are nevertheless expected to pay a one per cent tax, I submit that in all fairness the farmers who raise more than 5,000 bushels, seeing that they are to be taxed one per cent to pay the acreage bonus, should get the advantage of some arrangement-I do not believe it would involve much extra work-whereby they could participate in future profits if there were any, and if there were no profit* they would not get anything.
Canadian Wheat Board


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: What
about losses?


Charles Edward Johnston: As regards the quantity over and above the 5,000 bushels, possibly a lower minimum could be fixed, but there should be some arrangement by which they could get some form of participa^ tion in a future price if the price of wheat rose.


Victor Quelch: We are told that 60 cents has been the lowest at which wheat has been in forty-nine years, with the exception of two years. Suppose you fixed a minimum of 60 cents over and above the 5,000 bushels; that would obviate all the difficulties to which the minister refers.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then you would have
to run two separate pools.


Major James William Coldwell: In this clause the word "producer" is used. Is that word defined?


William Daum Euler: This is the definition:
(d) "producer" includes, as well as any person actually engaged iin production of wheat, any person entitled, whether as landlord, vendor, mortgagee or otherwise, by contract or operation of law to the wheat grown by a producer or to any share therein.
That definition is in the act.


Charles Edward Johnston: Would it be possible under that definition of producer to meet a situation such as this? Suppose a man sold 5,000 bushels to the board and he owed a grocery bill of $100. Suppose the grocer happened to have twenty acres of wheat. What would stop this farmer from selling his wheat to the grocer at 70 cents and the grocer putting that in as his wheat?


William Daum Euler: He is incurring a penalty;
that is all. He is breaking the law. The man who is not a producer and sells as a producer is breaking the law.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 3-Payment to producers delivering wheat.


John Gordon Ross: I understand that this is the price section of the bill. We have listened for the last two or three days to a discussion of the cost of production in western Canada, and many figures have been quoted [DOT]from the reports of Professor Allen and Professor Hope, I have here part of a bulletin, No. 64, of the department of farm management, university of Saskatchewan. There are tables giving the operating costs, cash plus depreciation on equipment and buildings- that is, all the cash out-of-pocket costs of the farmer in producing wheat. The first table

deals with a half section of land in various areas of Saskatchewan; the second deals with a section in different areas having different types of land; the third deals with a two-section farm covering the same area. If this were put on Hansard it would clear up the question as to cost of producing grain. No man can tell the cost per bushel one year from another, and if I were allowed to hand it to Hansard it would be useful because it gives the actual cost in the production of grain on different sized farms in Saskatchewan.


Major James William Coldwell: I have no objection and the tables would be valuable, but what tables are they? In that bulletin there are a good many tables.


John Gordon Ross: There are eleven different districts.


Major James William Coldwell: And two tables for each district?


John Gordon Ross: There are three tables. There is a table for a section farm and one for a two-section farm.


Major James William Coldwell: And at the end of the bulletin there is a table which is a summary of them all. Is that the table which the hon. member wishes to put on Hansard?


John Gordon Ross: No; these are the cost sections of each table.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is that the one which includes the debt charges?


John Gordon Ross: No; operating costs, cash plus depreciation on equipment and buildings.


Ernest Edward Perley: What is the hon. member trying to prove?


John Gordon Ross: Just showing the cost of producing an acre of grain in Saskatchewan. There has been a great deal of discussion in regard to costs per bushel, which I say is fantastic; you cannot tell what it is. It differs from one field to another, one farm to another, one year to another.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Can you not take the average?


John Gordon Ross: You can make a comparison of costs per acre of grain in different years, but the cost per bushel depends upon the yield.


Victor Quelch: Does it include land charges? With the turnover one-third of the acreage you have to include the cost of the other two-thirds. It takes in all the acreage, both summer fallowed and cropped.

Canadian Wheat Board


Major James William Coldwell: In order to make these tables intelligible you almost have to include a portion of the introduction to the bulletin. The bulletin is really not a cost of production table, it is an expected farm return table; and at the outset it shows that Professors Allen and Hope who formulated these tables, I think in 1935, in endeavouring to find a base for the possible farm returns and the ability of farmers to pay a certain amount of debt, adopted a basis of 77 cents a bushel for No. 2 northern on the average Saskatchewan farm. That they took as their base, with the average return from field crops plus something for dairy produce and farm produce for the years 1910 to 1914 inclusive, I believe. I think something explanatory of that should go with the table.


John Gordon Ross: These are the proper costs as charged to an acre of land in grain as made out by the gentleman who speaks.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: For what years? The cost may differ in different periods.


John Gordon Ross: I think 1927 to 1935.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would they include all costs? For instance, depreciation on machinery?


John Gordon Ross: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


John Gordon Ross: The tables follow:
Operating Costs Cash-plus Depreciation on Equipment and Buildings for Half-Section Farm in Various Areas of Saskatchewan
Soil Type-Representative Area
Inferior prairie-Maple Creek	
Average prairie-Davidson-Craik	
Poor prairie-S. Cypress Hills	
Poor prairie-Gravelbourg	
Average prairie-Swift Current	
Fair to good S. park-Alameda-Wolseley	
Very good, park and prairie-Kindersley and Indian Head.
Fair to good E. park-Neudorf and Lemberg	
Av. northern park-Turtleford	
Best park-Melfort, Veregin	
Best prairie-Regina plains and Rosetown	
Average on cultivated acreage	
Average on total acreage	
Acreage
Cultivated	Wheat	Per acre153	62	$6 90301	146	4 42203	76	5 64242	135	5 21250	135	5 58229	82	5 75268	136	5 34194	73	6 58183	100	7 29221	103	7 22295	142	6 01. 231	108	$5 87 $4 24
Source: Bulletin 64, department of farm management, Saskatchewan university.
It will be noted that this table clears up two matters which have been in dispute during this debate. The first is the question as to what the department of grain management of the Saskatchewan university considered the cash cost of operating land in Saskatchewan. The second is the question as
to whether the better or poorer land costs the most to operate. It will be noted that in all cases excepting the first the land which was average or less cost less than average to work and in all cases excepting one where it is better than average it cost more than the average cost.
Operating cash costs plus depreciation on equipment and buildings for a section farm in representative areas in Saskatchewan
Soil type	Area
Interim prairie-Maple Creek	
Average prairie-Davidson-Craik	
Poor prairie-South Cypress Hills	
Fair prairie-Gravelbourg	
Average prairie-Swift Current, Rosemount, etc. Fair to good S. park-Alameda and Wolseley.. Very good park and prairie-Kindersley-Indian
Fair to good east park-Neudorf and Lemberg
Average north park-Turtleford	
Best park-Melfort and Veregin	
Best prairie-Regina pis. and Rosetown.. ..
Average on cultivated acreage	
Average on total acreage	
Acreage		
Cultivation	Wheat	Per acre304	181	$5 19598	286	3 68397	132	4 97450	306	4 68485	247	4 75465	181	4 86546	275	4 41360	128	5 89303	140	6 85448	213	6 43596	269	5 93450	214	$5 14 $3 61
(Source-Bulletin No. 64, department of farm management, university of Saskatchewan, 1935.)
Canadian Wheat Board

Operating cash costs and depreciation on buildings and equipment on a two section farm Soil type-fair prairie. Representative areas
[DOT]-Gravelbourg, Richmond and Golden Prairie:
Acres cultivated	 902
Acres in wheat	 628
Cash cost per acre cultivated.. .. $4 07 Cash cost per acre of total	 2 86
Power farm on best prairie land. Areas- Regina plains and Rosetown:
Acres cultivated	 1,180
Acres wheat	 725
Cash cost per acre of cultivated land $4 26 Cash cost per acre of total land.... 3 92


Leslie Gordon Bell: I have the bulletin here. No. 64, entitled "Studies of probable net farm revenue for the principal soil types of Saskatchewan on the basis of their past production.''


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but the hon. member for Moose Jaw has the floor.


John Gordon Ross: I sat down because I thought the hon. member was going to ask me a question.
This afternoon when I interrupted the hon. member for Peace River and said that he had read a statement made by the Right Hon. J. H. Thomas in which Mr. Thomas was explaining that he did not make a certain statement in regard to the holding back of wheat by the pools in western Canada, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and the hon. member for Weyburn both rose in their places to question it. I understand that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar made some remarks in regard to it at about five minutes past eight when I was not in the chamber. I think I should now cover that phase of the grain business, regarding the price of grain. I made the statement when the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar asked me if I said that the pools held up wheat.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not think I said that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It was I who asked the question.


John Gordon Ross: I said yes. In saying that, I did not mean that they did anything different from what everyone else did at that time. Everyone in Canada who had anything to do with wheat in that period refused to sell at that time even at $1.50 a bushel. They were advised at that time by some of the biggest financial men in Canada that in their opinion wheat was worth more than $1.50 a bushel. I have heard the statement made by people throughout Canada that the pools did not refuse to sell wheat in

1928-29 and 1929-30, but they along with everyone else did refuse to sell wheat at that price at that time.
In this country wheat has been sold through the Winnipeg grain exchange for many years. The wheat pools sold their wheat through the Winnipeg grain exchange; the wheat board has sold its wheat through the Winnipeg grain exchange, and in all the time the pools were in operation they had their salesmen on the floor of the Winnipeg grain exchange. Wheat is sold on that exchange as an auction market-not only option but auction. In other words, buyers bid for wheat and those who have it to sell offer it for sale in the pit. So long as wheat is offered at a stated price, it can never rise above that price. It is only when wheat cannot be bought at a stated price that the price starts to rise; buyers bid higher to get it, the same as in any other auction. In 1928-29 at the end of the crop year, on July 13, 1929, the price of wheat rose to $1,551 a bushel for No. 1 northern. On that day everyone on the Winnipeg grain exchange had refused to sell wheat at $1.50, otherwise the price would never have gone to $1.55, it could not have reached $1.51 so long as anyone was willing to sell at $1.50. The pools had their salesmen there, and every other grain organization in Canada had salesmen there to sell wheat if anyone wanted to sell it. But they all refused to sell wheat at that figure on that day.
Throughout the rest of the month of July, 1929, wheat ranged from $1.55$ No. 1 northern I ort William to $1.78$. But it never got down to $1.50 again. So that during the rest of that month wheat was never offered at $1.50 a bushel.
In August, 1929, the first month of the new crop year, 1929-30, wheat was offered at $1.73$. That was the price. During the mojith of August it ranged from a high of $1.73| to S1.51J, so that throughout the whole month of August wheat was never offered for S1.50 a bushel. During September, until the 16th day of that month, wheat ranged from S1.52J to $1.57$, and then down to $1.50. In other words, from the middle of July wheat was not offered at $1.50 on the Winnipeg grain exchange until September 16. These figures are taken from the Canadian Grain Trade Year Book for 1928-29 and 1929-30. This gives all the statistics in regard to Canadian grain, covering the prices of cash wheat and of options for every day during that period.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Was much wheat moved during the period my hon. friend is reviewing?


John Gordon Ross: Yes, a great deal. As a matter of fact, at that time the cash wheat ran considerably over the options; in other words, there was a high premium for cash wheat. The bidding for cash wheat was strong. I have quoted the cash wheat figures, and cash wheat was selling at a high premium at that time, proving that it was hard to get. During all that period no one in Canada offered to sell wheat at $1.50 a bushel. When anyone, anywhere in this country, says there was no refusal to sell wheat at $1.50, I think he had better look up the records, because no one could have offered wheat at $1.50 a bushel on the Winnipeg grain exchange during that time without that wheat being sold. The market could not have gone higher than $1.50 so long as anyone in this country was willing to sell wheat at that figure. For years we in the west have been hearing that this or that company did not refuse to sell wheat at that figure at that time. I make the definite statement that for sixty days in 1929 everybody refused.


Mr. HAYHURST:: Some brokers sold short at that time, did they not?


John Gordon Ross: My hon. friend is speaking of options and I am talking about cash wheat. It will be remembered that the 1928 wheat crop was the largest we ever had in Canada, and on August 1, 1930, when we went into the 1929-30 crop year, we were carrying the biggest surplus of wheat we had carried for many years, amounting to 131,000,000 bushels. At that time there was a visible supply, between Canada and the United States, of 377,000,000 in 1928-29 and some
406,000,000 bushels for export in 1929-30. Yet at that time we in this country were foolish enough to refuse to sell that wheat at what we have since found out would have been a very good price. I am not blaming anyone for that; at that time we were all of the same opinion, but I do say we-and I include the wheat pool and anybody else- had better stop telling the people of this country that Canada did not refuse to sell her wheat at that time.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, I made
a brief,, passing reference to what the hon. member said this afternoon. He has now given rather a long explanation of what he believes -and I have no doubt sincerely believes-to have been the case in 1929. I do not profess to be an expert in the grain trade, but it has never been my opinion that a man who does not grow wheat has any right to buy and sell wheat on the Winnipeg grain exchange. To my mind that is a form of gambling, and I do not agree with operations of that kind. As it happens, however, I have in my hand
Canadian Wheat Board
a copy of the submission of the wheat pool organizations of western Canada to the royal grain inquiry commission at Calgary and Regina, during April and May, 1937. I am not going to read the complete submission, but one section deals rather exhaustively with the very question dealt with by the hon. member for Moose Jaw. The submission states, as has been stated here, that a number of people believed that one of the causes of the depression in Canada was that in 1929 the pools refused	to	sell
wheat abroad. As the hon. member for Peace River mentioned this afternoon, it was alleged -and the statement was attributed to him- that Right Hon. J. H. Thomas had himself made some such insinuations. When Mr. Thomas came to this country, the pool officials met him, with the result that he made a statement to the press, which statement was placed on record this afternoon. For the sake of continuity I am going to place it on record again. He said:
My attention has been drawn to comment in Canada upon a statement made by me in the House of Commons on the first of April. The suggestion that the statement was based upon any feeling that the pool had been attempting to hold up wheat -is wholly baseless. My statement was made in reply to an opposition supplementary question and was based on assurances given me, by you, at Winnipeg, in September, that the pool had been anxious to sell at prices substantially lower than those prevailing. I fully accepted these assurances, and welcomed them as evidence of a friendly attitude towards my plana for encouraging more regular interchange of goods between Canada and Great Britain. I trust you will give full publicity to this explanation. As you know, I fully appreciate the difficulties with which the pool has been confronted, and I earnestly hope the situation may soon rectify itself .	.	.
As a result of that, it will be remembered that the then president of the pool, Mr. A. J. McPhail, and other pool members agreed with Mr. Thomas that from time to time there would be conferences regarding marketing conditions. In order to prove that the pools had offered wheat and had been, as they said, free and anxious sellers, in this brief they placed a table before the commission giving certain information dealing with the years 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929 and 1930, as of July' 31 in each case. The Canadian carryover in the United States and Canada, in millions of bushels, is given as follows:
Millions of bushels
1926
1928
1930
30-7 40-1 55-6 91-1 127'2 126-8
Canadian Wheat Board

The pool carry-over was as follows:
1926
1928
1929 1930.
Millions of bushels 12-2 21-3 38-6 42-8 84-6 64-6
I am now going to give two tables at once, if I may:
Pool	Percentage
percentage	of crop
of carry-	marketed
over	by pool
1925	
39-74	38-411926	
53-12	53-151927	
69-42	53-151928	
46-98	52-511929	
66-51	52-151930	
50-95	51-23
The point that arises out of that table is that the percentage of the total crop marketed as compared with the carry-over indicates that the pool was consistently a heavy seller.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Does that report indicate during what months in the 1929-30 crop year the wheat was sold?


Major James William Coldwell: I think so. Mind you, these are for the various years.


Malcolm McLean: I was referring to the 1929-30 crop year.


Major James William Coldwell: The pool figures also indicated that the stocks of pool wheat were to be found in all positions. I do not think it is necessary for me to read the next statement.


William Hayhurst: That refers to futures.


Major James William Coldwell: It gives information as to futures, and then goes on to- say:
We wish to draw particular attention to the figures in the first table


Henry Herbert Stevens: Cash quotations.

Canadian Wheat Board


Major James William Coldwell: Cash quotations. I
continue:
The following table, giving their export offers in comparison with the closing market prices during the three-month period, July, August and September, 1929, shows that there were 76 marketing days in these three months. On 47 days the pools' offers were under the market, on 16 over, on 5 on the market, and on 8 days no offers were made.
There are the facts. In order that one may understand exactly the implications of
the pool statement, the table should accompany the statement I have just read. Permission was given to the hon. member for Moose Jaw to include tables, and if similar permission is given to me I shall be glad to see that this table goes on the record.


James Garfield Gardiner: Whose table is it?


Major James William Coldwell: 
Thomas Alexander Crerar: I really dislike to throw
myself into this discussion again. The discussion a short time ago between the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) and myself I think was out of order, but the hon. member for Qu'Appelle leveled a rather severe
criticism at my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler). The hon. member claimed that my colleague was not following the procedure which had been established under Mr. McFarland's regime, in other words, that Mr. McFarland did give
Canadian Wheat Board

information to the banking and commerce committee which my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, is now refusing to give to this committee.


Ernest Edward Perley: Pardon me a minute.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have the floor. While
I have not had an opportunity to get the records of that committee, I have before me a speech made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle in the budget debate of April 2, 1935, and the quotation I am about to read will be found on page 2330 of Hansard of that year. After discussing the general wheat situation, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle goes on as follows:
I am a member of the banking and commerce committee and last year Mr. John I. McFarland appeared before that committee to make a statement on the government operations. He had nothing to conceal and was prepared to answer every question but we finally came to the question as to the amount of grain and the amount of money involved in these operations.
Precisely the information my hon. friend is endeavouring to get from the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It goes on:
Some hon. members contended that the answering of that question would serve no useful purpose and there was some discussion in the committee. Before we took a vote as to whether Mr. McFarland should answer that question, two questions were put to him. First, he was asked if it would serve any useful purpose to divulge that information. He answered that he did not think it would. Then he was asked if it might be possible that answering the question would do harm, and he answered that it was quite possible that it would. A vote was then taken and the majority was about three to one that he should not answer; only nine voted in favour of his answering. The only hon. member from western Canada who voted that that information should be given was the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly). He is always to be found in such company, not fighting in the interests of the farmer but opposing the government on anything which might be in the interests of western Canada.


Ernest Edward Perley: What is the hon. member
reading from?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In order that the record
may be perfectly clear, I am reading from a speech delivered by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle in the house on April 2, 1935, in the budget debate, and the remarks I have just quoted will be found at page 2331 of Hansard of that date. I submit, Mr. Chairman, in the best of humour, that if ever a member of this house was convicted out of his own mouth it is the hon. member for Qu'Appelle in the statements he made this evening.


Ernest Edward Perley: In reply to the minister
I admit that when I was asking for this information and said that John I. McFarland had given the information, I was in error; I should have said George Mclvor.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ernest Edward Perley: I said that the information was given to the special committee to which the bill was referred, and that on that occasion we got all the information we asked for. I was referring to the evidence taken before the committee in 1935. John I. McFarland was sick at the time, and Mr. George Mclvor appeared before that committee and gave us all that information in detail, as I stated a few minutes ago. That is the information to which I had reference. We got that information prior to the passing of the 1935 grain board act.


James Garfield Gardiner: Up to a certain date.


Ernest Edward Perley: I was referring to the
passing of the 1935 act, and the opposition to it, and I referred to the evidence that had been taken before the special committee before which Mr. Mclvor appeared1 as assistant to John I. McFarland, who was sick. That is the evidence to which I had reference, and the information which the committee asked for was given.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman w'ho gave information to the committee in 1935 when the grain board act was under consideration was Mr. Findlay, treasurer of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited. His evidence is here, and it deals with the operations in detail for 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, and up to a certain date in 1935.


James J. Donnelly: But not right up to date.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, it did not come right up to the date on which his evidence was given.


Robert James Manion: Since we are making corrections, I wish also to make a correction, but not of one of my own statements. We are dealing with the price of wheat, and therefore I shall not be out of order.


William Daum Euler: You will be the exception.


Robert James Manion: I want to deal for just a moment with the remarks which the hon. member for Moose Jaw made about me, not too kindly, a little while ago, saying how ignorant I was of the wheat business, and so on. I admitted that when I spoke; I do not pretend to be an expert. My hon. friend may be; I do not know. Just because one grows wheat does not make him an expert.

Canadian Wheat Board


John Gordon Ross: I said the former leader of the party was.


Robert James Manion: I do not think Mr. McFarland ever grew wheat, but he dealt with it all his life and knew something about it.
To show the hon. gentleman that he may not be right in his sweeping statement that there was nothing in the 6 cent preference on wheat, let me quote from another authority; authorities differ, of course-assuming my hon. friend to be one. From the United States press release dealing with the trade treaty I quote this paragraph relating to the 6 cent preference on wheat that we had in the British market:
Wheat-The granting of duty-free treatment for wheat by the United Kingdom should prove of marked value to American growers and the American wheat export trade. The import duty on non-empire wheat has been at the rate of 2 shillings per 480 pounds since November 17, 1932.
That is the 6 cent preference. It goes on:
A duty of this size (about six cents per bushel) applicable to wheat from some countries and not others often is sufficient to divert the trade.	.
The concession of free entry for American wheat should benefit also the American transportation and port business.
Now I jump to the bottom paragraph:
The United Kingdom is the leading wheat-import market of the world. Formerly about a fourth of the total American wheat exports were regularly shipped to the United Kingdom. Under the influence of the world economic depression and the establishment of an import duty in 1932-
That is the 6 cent preference:

(with empire wheat remaining duty-free) imports of American wheat into the United Kingdom dropped from 39,267,000 bushels in 1930 to only 9,000 bushels in 1933, while imports from empire sources for the corresponding years rose from 79,234,000 bushels to 140,459,000 bushels.
I do not need to go any further. There are a great many other statements dealing with the matter, but this is good enough authority for me. It may be exaggerated; I do not know. But when my hon. friend says that the right hon. gentleman who preceded me never referred to it, I remember him many times in his most oratorical tones, referring to the foreign ship going over to Great Britain with wheat, and the British ship going over with a cargo of wheat and enjoying the preference in the British market, emphasizing what a great advantage this was to us. So I think my hon. friend's remarks about my statement were not in order.


William Hayhurst: Mr. Chairman, I have been trying to catch your eye for an hour. It just shows how difficult it is to get anywhere with hon. members reading long passages from books. If I had a book here I would keep the committee listening until eleven o'clock. I do not understand why hon. members do not put the whole book on Hansard, so that everybody can read it. Why should we sit here six hours a day to hear books being read?
But speaking of wheat, here is a page I might read from a report of the Searle Grain Company. These reports are read in this house over and over again, and it is a great advertisement for the company. I am a member of the wheat pool and have been since its inception. I have sold wheat to the pool, but in 1929 I was absolutely against the pool's policy of holding wheat. Why? And why do I object now to reading these wheat pool pamphlets? Because I was opposed to their policies then, and what happened? Wheat is a national commodity, and with the brokers in Winnipeg selling against futures in opposition to the wheat pool's holding policy, the wheat pool could not stand up against it.
There are many places in the world where wheat is sold-Chicago, Winnipeg, London, Liverpool. You can go to Antwerp and Berlin. This is an international commodity and unless you study it as such you will never understand it. A merely provincial or even a dominion policy is entirely too limited. I believe that under section 2 it should be the policy of the wheat board to sell wheat. What happened in Chicago in 1929. Millions of bushels of wheat were sold on the futures market by Russia. Russia was willing to dump wheat in London, and did dump a good deal there. She mechanized her farms and increased her production at the expense of the farmers of the United States and of the Canadian west. I am one of the sufferers from the very policy which some of these people are advocating to-day. If I had not had my wheat in the wheat pool I might have been quite well off to-day. I am not running down the wheat pools, but I am criticizing the policy they adopted in 1929, as I would criticize it if it were followed by any other group. They will not listen to individuals. They will listen only to groups of people. They were unwilling to look at the international situation as a whole.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has spoken of Roumania. AVhat happened. I speak from memory, but my recollection is that Doctor Helmuth Wohlthat, German trade commissioner, entered Roumania last February and started a series of commercial agreements at Bucharest with the Roumanian
Canadian Wheat Board

government. As a result, a general German-Roumanian treaty was signed which gave Germany control of a certain amount of Roumanian wheat. I know, of course, that they are also given control of large quantities of oil. Germany needs oil and wheat. The other day I spoke upon this subject, although briefly, because I did not wish to hold up the business of the house. But let me say that to-day's processes of international trade are far more important than these petty things which happen between one province and another. In the world to-day we are confronted with realities, and unless we face them "we are sunk." Talk about being politically bankrupt-maybe we shall have to have a Hitler in Canada to lead us out of the morass. I know that some of our communist friends say we should have a Stalin. I have no faith in either of these gentlemen. I am in favour of a certain amount of economic nationalism, because I realize its prevalence in the world to-day. Upon what is Roumania's treaty with Germany based? It is written in the treaty that there must be mutual respect as the first condition of friendship; that is a way of getting into Roumania on the part of the German reich. They will take wheat from Roumania; for Germany's deliberate intention is to de-industrialize Roumania in order that it may become a country of peasants, producing wheat and other raw commodities for the Germans, who will be the industrialists. Also they are very much interested in the Dobruja province, which is next door to Bulgaria. I do not need to go further into this international situation. I have studied it a great deal. I have in my constituency more people from more nations of the earth than has probably any other hon. member. I receive letters from these people, who in turn get letters from their homes, and I have some knowledge about the internal situation of their countries.
In conclusion, let me say that to go back to 1929 and to illustrate certain methods by pamphlets which were produced by certain people, and read those pamphlets into Hansard, seems to me foolish. It would be more helpful to go to the Chicago grain exchange and find out who sold wheat short there and on other markets. It is not the Canadian people who did it. We were ruined by an international cartel of traders, but we were not wise enough to see what was going on. The same spirit is abroad in the world to-day, while we sit here carping about petty politics.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I wish to say just a few words with regard to the question of withholding wheat from the market in 1928, 1929

and 1930. It happened to be my duty in 1930, when I attended the imperial conference in London, to straighten out or attempt to straighten out some of the difficulties which resulted from that policy of Canadian wheat marketing. I am not going to lay the blame upon the pools or upon any companies, I am going to say that the policy was a policy of Canadian wheat marketing. What happened was that there was an impression on the great British market that Canadians were deliberately holding back their wheat. Not only in Great Britain, but in Switzerland, Belgium, Holland and other European countries, large milling companies changed the screens on their mills and altered their milling methods so that they could use the' softer wheats from other countries. I remember meeting officially the members of the Baltic exchange in London, and the Liverpool exchange, and discussing the whole matter.
Hon. members will recall that the pools sent to the old country a salesman named Mr. Smith, whose first name I have forgotten. He resided in the old country, and an attempt was made to, shall I say, shortcut the British wheat merchandising organization. This was greatly resented over there. Reference is made in the Turgeon report to Sir Herbert Robson. Sir Herbert, who, I believe, died about a year ago, was one of the greatest advocates of Canadian wheat, and did his utmost to straighten out the difficulty between Canadian wheat marketing organizations and the British buying organizations. It was abundantly clear, however, that there was resentment in the British market and on the continental markets against the attitude which Canadian organizations had assumed. That attitude, furthermore, had much to do with the introduction of a bonus on wheat in Great Britain. It will be recalled that prior to that time the annual production of wheat in Great Britain was only from twenty to twenty-five million bushels. Since then the production has increased. I have not last year's figures, but I believe the amount is now between fifty and fifty-five million bushels, which to that extent represents a smaller market in Great Britain for our wheat.
What to my mind is really more important is the change in the milling processes and methods on the continent. Once they turn to Argentine, Australian and other non-Canadian wheats they are very slow to come back to the hard wheats of Canada. There is no doubt in my mind that we were most unfortunate in the policy of the day. It had very serious results. It is questionable whether there is any advantage in hashing this over

Canadian Wheat Board
again, except for one thing, that we should be careful to avoid in future any such error as we made at that time.
It will be recalled also by those who were associated with the pool that, shortly after the adjustments we were able to make in 1930 were achieved, the pool salesman was recalled from Great Britain and marketing returned to its normal sources.
Let me say, in conclusion, just one thing which I think is of paramount importance when we are discussing the export marketing of Canadian wheat. I believe it is most unwise to attempt to market wheat in Great Britain other than through the established agencies, and in accordance with the methods, practices and customs of that country. That is not because our different ideas of marketing may be wrong, but the point is that existing agencies in Great Britain perform an excellent service; they are well established; their fees and other charges to the British people have been reduced to a moderate and reasonable basis, and they are wedded to well established practices in connection with the handling of this trade. That applies not only to wheat but to all commodities. Any one who knows British methods is aware that no country in the world has a wider and more efficient system of merchandising than has Great Britain. And so what I say is this: We, as Canadians, made a blunder in that period from 1928 to 1930, and at least we should learn from our knowledge and experience of that time to avoid a repetition of those mistakes.


Malcolm McLean: With the closing remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens), in fact with all of them I agree; but it is necessary to repeat some of the things he has touched upon in order to meet statements and claims made in other corners of the house for which there is no good foundation. The opening remarks of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hay-hurst) were vindicated a little later by the splendid speech of a few minutes which he made when he discussed the folly of reading from books by professors and other amateurs, academicians and so on. .


Leslie Gordon Bell: Do you call the wheat pool's statisticians amateurs?


Malcolm McLean: The chap who prophesied a year or two ahead exactly what wheat would be worth to the farmers, exactly how much wheat there would be in the world, exactly what the farmers would make or lose, was a statistician who undoubtedly did irreparable damage to the organization which he served and to the farmers of western
Canada. He was not a practical man. It simply illustrates, however, the folly of prophesying how much there will be of anything at some distant date, and particularly when the prophecy is made with regard to a commodity which, if I may so put it, is as temperamental as wheat. No one knows how much wheat will be available four months from now or what it will be worth; no one knows what the price will be. As I listened to my hon. friends stating what the price should be-that 70 cents advance payment was not enough and that we should fix a price of 80 cents-I could not help thinking that all the time we have been discussing initial advances, the fact remains that within three months, indeed in two weeks' time, the selling price on the open market may make all such calculations look entirely foolish.
The only reason why I want to go back a little while is to deal with the matter from an authoritative book, not from any work of propaganda, not from any book published by any company or private interest of any sort, but from the report of the royal grain inquiry commission, 1938, which makes a survey of the situation starting back about 1929. I am going to quote from this report to bear out what the hon. member for Kootenay East has said, namely, that we should reimpress upon our memories the important lesson which our past mistakes should have taught us in order to avoid repeating those mistakes in the future. I will connect this with the clause at present under discussion dealing with the limitation of grain and the price per bushel which the board will pay as an initial payment if this legislation is passed. On page 71 of the report of the royal commission I find the following statement:
Whatever may have been the motive behind these purchases of futures, the action taken in each case was in its nature speculative and was based upon the confidence of the management that prices would rise, and, probably, that the pool's purchases would themselves influence the market upwards.
The real reason why the organization was set up in the west was to market grain and to enable their farmer shareholders to get as much as, or more than, they could if they were dealing elsewhere, and in order that the profits, and costs of operations of speculators would be eliminated entirely, or as nearly so as was possible, so that the European consumer's dollar would reach the western farmer almost intact. Yet speculative operations were indulged in when not necessary.
On the two occasions, namely in April 1925, and in May 1929, the speculation turned out happily and the pool made profits.
Canadian Wheat Board


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not put the book on Hansard.


Malcolm McLean: It ill becomes any of my hon. friends over there to talk about putting books on Hansard. For four sessions they have all read more irrelevant material than any members in any other section of the house, and they should not begrudge me the few minutes I am now taking to read.


An hon. MEMBER:: Go ahead.


Malcolm McLean: Certainly I will go ahead. Thanks for the permission.
at cue euu oi

stocks were 85,000,000 bushels,' of' which
33,000,000 had been sold but not delivered, unsold stocks of 52,000,000 or an increase or 34,000,000 bushels. During that crop year (1928-29),	the total Canadian carry-over
increased by 36,000,000 bushels. In other words the non-pool carry-over had remained virtually stationary while the unsold pool carry-over increased by 34 million bushels.
I am now going to leave that and come to the third reason the commissioner gives concerning this matter, found on page 73:
Thirdly, there is little apparent reason for making any comparison between what was done with pool wrheat and what wras done with other wheat. The pools were an agency to sell members wheat to the best possible advantage, having in mind certain principles of action to be found in their charter and their contracts. \v hat was done with other farmers' wheat and the price obtained therefor was not its concern. The pool carry-over should be considered, not so much in relation to other carry-over, but rather in relation to the objects of the organization and the policy which should have been followed to attain these objects.
Then 1 am skipping a good deal; I continue a little lower down.


Ernest Edward Perley: Put it all on Hansard.


Robert James Manion: Dispense.


Malcolm McLean: If my hon. friend had dispensed with a lot-I did not catch where that came from-well, he has not offended by making long quotations, but my

Canadian Wheat Board
hon. friend behind him who says "Put it on Hansard," would be well advised to take a little of his own advice.
There can be no doubt that the origin of the pool's difficulties-


Mr. MARTIN:: What is my hon. friend reading?


Malcolm McLean: I am reading from page 73. My hon. friend's memory is not so long as it would be if it were a brief demanding high protection on some commodities made somewhere else in Canada.
There can be no doubt that the origin of the pool's difficulties, so far as its own actions are concerned, lies in its failure to dispose of its share of the 1928 crop (by contrast, the non-pool Canadian carry-over did not increase in 1928-29) which left it unprepared to meet the price crash in 1929-30. It is true, as Mr. Bredt said in evidence, that neither the pool nor anyone else had reason to expect that in the particular year. 1929-30, world wheat shipments would decline by 300 million bushels, but the general possibility of difficulties in the world wheat position had long been known to the pool-
And here is the remark of the commissioner:
-and it did nothing to prepare itself for any untoward eventualities.
The pool had, in the central report of 1927 (dealing with operations in 1926-27) pointed out that world production was increasing and that accordingly "the outlook during the year was, if anything, for lower prices."
Yet it went on holding and buying speculatively.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I cannot hear what is said.


Malcolm McLean: 
William Hayhurst: Mr. Chairman, I think the point is not well taken.


An hon. MEMBER:: How many more pages?


Frederick George Sanderson: Order.


Malcolm McLean: After dealing
with the run of the market the commissioner said:
On May 9, the day the pool commenced buying futures-
That is the story.
-the cash price was $1.10|, and on May 19, the last day of the pool purchasing, it was $1,121. The decline then continued until abruptly reversed by a rise of 6J cents on June 4, which put the price at $1,141.
So it will be seen that at that time we were pursuing the policy pursued later by Mr. McFarland who in 1935, in a few days' marketing disposed of a few million bushels and bought back in the option market more than he had sold for cash, in an effort to hold up the price.
I said I would close. Just a few words of what I think is the most important section of this report. I am going to be through in plenty of time, so that I may not be charged with delaying the bill.
On page 185 the report says:
Whatever attractions a compulsory government board may present at first sight, its practicability, in my opinion, will not stand analysis, either from the point of view of overseas markets or that of domestic conditions.
I have no doubt that the creation by Canada of such a compulsory board, that is, a complete selling monopoly of Canadian wheat, would be regarded abroad as a further restriction upon the freedom of trade and commerce, coming at a time when our efforts should rather be directed toward the removal of such restrictions. Within the ambit of the grain trade itself, that is, in the eyes of millers, merchants, etc., it would of course be considered as an attempt or a design to revert, in more intensified form, to the situation which existed, and which came in for unanimous criticism overseas, in the last ears of pool marketing and under stabilization, t would meet, I am sure, -with antagonism, at least passive, and perhaps even active in some places. There can be no doubt that our overseas customers dislike and distrust monopoly, in itself, and also because there is no saying where successful monopoly might lead, and they will certainly not contribute to making a success of it. We would consequently be going into diminished markets, among many free competitors, under a great handicap; because goodwill is in itself a considerable aid in business and its importance in our grain trade is greater now than ever before.


Ernest Edward Perley: If the hon. member is
going to read the whole report, let him put it on Hansard.
Canadian Wheat Board


Malcolm McLean: Then the commission goes on to speak of the difficulty that would come to the government wheat board if a compulsory policy were adopted.
This is the sum of the situation:	If a
price much above the market were paid as an initial price, the government board would certainly get all the grain. If all the wheat that is offered were to come to the board because of its paying that high price, you would in effect, without any legislation at all, render it a compulsory grain board, because no one would be able to sell outside it, and the commissioner points out that to encourage anything like a compulsory grain board would again estrange our customers from us. Many are just coming back to us as a result of wheat being sold in competition with wheat from other countries, as well as a result of the splendid advertising that has been done in the old country, and the experiments that have been carried on in cooperation with millers in that and other countries.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay the committee any longer, although there is much more that could be said.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I want to refer to this section with reference to the matter of the fixed price. This afternoon the hon. member for Marquette quoted something that I said last night and intimated that I had not been clear as to whether I was in favour of leaving the price to be set by order in council or having it set at 80 cents. It is quite conceivable that I did not make myself quite clear, so let me try to do so now. In principle, given a wheat board with an advisory committee on which producers have representation, it would seem to me good policy to have the price set by the wheat board and the advisory committee with the approval of the governor in council some time at the latter part of July or early in August when they could gauge better the condition of the crop and the price outlook. That, I say is in principle. But I would not be prepared to do that now-


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: "In principle" does not mean anything.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -because this government have shown that at one time they were prepared to fix an initial price of 60 cents. Therefore I would not be prepared to leave this clause open so that the government could fix the price, because I believe that price would be set low, judging by the first draft of this bill. Accordingly I am in favour of having this price set by statute. It ought to be set not lower than 80 cents, but I think 
that if a government were sympathetic and we had a wheat board with proper representation of producers on the advisory committee, the price could be better set as we get closer to the actual time of taking off the crop.
Might I now ask the minister a question? Last night, when I was speaking, I believe the Minister of Agriculture interrupted to say that the wheat growers had never had participation certificates since this board was set up. I assume he means the board under this government and not since the wheat board was set up.


James Garfield Gardiner: They have never had an opportunity of drawing anything on the participation certificates since the wheat board was set up in 1935.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But participation certificates were issued from 1935.


James Garfield Gardiner: Certainly; they are
issued every year, but the farmers have never participated.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But the participation certificates have been issued. That was the point I wanted to make.


John Horne Blackmore: Just before the section carries, I should like to clear up just one matter between myself and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It has been brought to my attention that this afternoon, when I was busy at something else, the minister implied that I had said something that tended to set the east against the west. If he interpreted something I said in that way, I should like to make it clear-


William Daum Euler: I merely referred to the hon. member s statement that the government had betrayed the west, and I thought it was a most unfortunate remark.


John Horne Blackmore: I would be prepared to stand by that remark, but certainly I would not want to be accused of saying anything that would set the east against the west.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Major James William Coldwell: No, Mr. Chairman. I have seldom read anything in the house, but last night and to-night I felt that rather than make a forty minute speech it would be quicker to read a carefully prepared statement, which I did. That, however, is not what I rose to say. I simply wanted to say -that again in this evening's paper I noticed that the Australian government was considering a price stabilization plan for wheat, and the price being discussed is 3s. lOd. Someone

Canadian Wheat Board
will say that at the present rate of exchange 3s. lOd. is around 65 cents, Australian currency having been depreciated in terms of sterling.


William Daum Euler: Twenty per cent.


Major James William Coldwell: That is quite right. What I want to point out is that if we took that at the normal relationship between Australian currency and sterling, translated into our money and counting a cent as a halfpenny, 24 cents to the shilling, which is about the normal exchange, we would have a price of 92 halfpennies or 92 cents a bushel.


James Garfield Gardiner: And you pay on the same basis for everything you buy.


Major James William Coldwell: No, because the domestic Australian price level is not inflated to the extent of 20 per cent; it is considerably less than that. What I want to say is this, and I know some of the monetary reformers in the house will appreciate this point: If we had used the banking system in order to benefit the producers of this country, our producers might have received during the past few years an amount in their own currency sufficient to enable them to meet their debts, instead of having, as we had in 1932, a sadly lessened amount of our currency with which to pay our debts. I am pointing out to this committee again that the Canadian producers of farm products including wheat, butter and so on- yes, and fruits, which come in competition with Australian fruits-is receiving a relatively small amount of his local currency to meet his old and new debts; that the Australian producer on this basis may receive 92 units, while under this legislation our farmer is getting 70 units.


James Garfield Gardiner: He may some time.


Major James William Coldwell: But that is just as useful to pay taxes, debts and so on.


James Garfield Gardiner: You say they may set that price.


Major James William Coldwell: I say they are considering it. We have not set this price yet. In pointing this out, I want to plead with the government once more to reconsider this section and increase this initial price to an amount which will be more commensurate with what is actually needed by the farmer on the prairies. It is not too late to do that even yet. The government has shown that it can take a bill out of the house and, in the course of a few days, bring it back with many changes, and I suggest that now, before the bill leaves the committee, they might do something of this kind. We cannot do it. If it were not against the rules of the house I would move it myself, but a private member cannot
move anything that will increase the expenditure by the government. In view of what is happening in other countries, where they are guaranteeing to their producers a return for their products, I am urging the government to consider, even at this late date, increasing the amount in this section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Penalty.
William Daum Euler: Since we have deleted the word "produced" from section 2, a similar amendment is necessary to this section.


James Garfield Gardiner: I move that the section be amended by striking out the word "produced" in line 8.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: While section 3 was being discussed, I had plenty of time to read section 4, and I think I see in it a loophole big enough for nearly 5,000 bushels of wheat to go through. The clause reads:
No producer shall sell directly or indirectly to the board more than five thousand bushels of wheat produced-


William Daum Euler: The word "produced" is out.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: That does not help.
-in any crop year and every person offending against this subsection . . .
I need not read the remainder. What does it mean when it says "no producer shall sell directly or indirectly to the board more than five thousand bushels of wheat"? It means that if I produce 100 bushels and my neighbour produces 10,000 bushels, and if wheat is selling at 60 cents, I can buy wheat from my neighbour at 65 cents and sell it to the board, to the extent of 5,000 bushels, at 70 cents.


William Daum Euler: And make yourself liable
to a penalty.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: No, I do not. Section 2 forbids the board to buy it, but there is nothing to prohibit the producer from selling it.


William Daum Euler: It says so; "No producer shall sell directly or indirectly."


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: I think it should read in this way:
No producer shall sell directly or indirectly to the board any wheat other than wheat of his own production, or more than five thousand bushels thereof, produced in any crop year.
I think we should have the words "no wheat other than wheat of his own production" because, as I say, he can buy from his neighbour. Then his neighbour is not
Canadian Wheat Board

liable, because he is not selling to the board directly or indirectly; he is selling outright to the other farmer. It is then the wheat of the other farmer.


William Daum Euler: That is why the word
"indirectly" was inserted.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: That would apply to my neighbour from whom I buy, but then he would not be liable because he would not be selling indirectly to the board; he would be selling directly to me, and I would pay him for the wheat. Then I would turn round and sell it to the board. You have the loophole there, and I think it is very important. I have the amendment prepared if you want it.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 6-Application to wheat produced in the eastern division.


William Daum Euler: In order to remove any misconception there may be as to the intention of the government that this legislation shall apply to eastern Canada, my colleague will move an amendment:


James Garfield Gardiner: I move to:
Strike out section 14 and substitute the following therefor:
"14. The provisions of this act shall apply mutatis mutandis to wheat produced in the eastern division and the sums certain to be paid producers delivering such wheat shall be fixed by the board with the approval of the governor in council so that they shall bear the same relationship to the sums certain payable in the case of wheat produced in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia as the price of wheat produced in the eastern division bears to the price of wheat in store at Fort William."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. NEEDHAM:: If this bill is carried, when will it come into effect?


William Daum Euler: Immediately.


Joseph Needham: That leads mie to another question. If it comes into effect immediately, those farmers with wheat on hand will be penalized.


William Daum Euler: Perhaps I might correct that and say that it will not come into effect until the end of the present crop year.


Joseph Needham: That is what I wanted to know.


William Daum Euler: The present crop year is on the basis of 80 cents.


Robert James Manion: Does the amendment just agreed to, make the 70 cent rate applicable to Ontario wheat on exactly the same basis as it applies to the west?


William Daum Euler: Exactly.
[Mr. Robichaud.l


Robert James Manion: That is clear?


William Daum Euler: Yes.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.


MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
The house having reverted to the order, Presenting reports by standing and select committees.
Mr. G. W. McPHEE (Yorkton) presented the fourth report of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.
Mr. McPHEE moved:: That such part of the fourth report of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, relating to Bill No. 71, for the relief of Zdenka Pauline Otillie Josefine von Ehren-feld-Pop Drummond, otherwise known as Yvonne Drummond, as presented to the house to-day, he now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East) the house adjourned at 11.07 p.m.
Friday, May 12, 1939