[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: In the absence of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) who, I am sorry to say, is not in his seat to-day, I should like to call to the attention of the ministry a matter of some importance with respect to recruiting. We all know that there are many people in this country who want to enlist. A complaint has reached me from British Columbia with respect to that matter. It is in the form of a telegram from a gentleman who for many years was a respected member of this chamber, Mr. J. A. Fraser, of Quesnel. The telegram will speak for itself. It says:
A week or ten days ago notice was given that a recruiting officer by the name of Major Gale would be in Quesnel on July 29 to sign on applicants for war service. Result 40 applicants reported here but no recruiting officer has to date arrived. Some of these recruits came from sixty miles west of here, others from forty miles south and still others from forty miles north of here. A number of these men disposed of their possessions prior to assembling here while others gave up positions to volunteer. Last night these men had to be provided with meals and lodging at the expense of the community and a subscription was taken up by citizens to provide food and lodgings for these volunteers. Surely nothing could do more to discourage recruiting than bungling of this kind. Trust you will have an opportunity to inform the government of this deplorable situation.
John A. Fraser
I do not for a moment desire even to suggest that responsibility in the matter rests on national defence headquarters, but somebody in the military district of British Columbia has bungled. I rise merely for the purpose of drawing attention to the matter and asking the minister to see that there is no recurrence of this condition.


Mr. TURGEON:: The matter referred to by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) relates to a question of recruiting in my riding.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Order;
this is not debatable.


James Gray Turgeon: I rise to a question of
privilege. I want to bring to the attention of the house the fact that the Minister of National Defence has had this matter under review for two days. And the day before yesterday-


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is not
a question of privilege.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: It is all right; what is the matter with it? He has as much right to speak as you have.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, he
has, has he?


James Gray Turgeon: I am still on my question of privilege.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I direct your attention to the fact that the hon. member, if asked a question, has the privilege of answering it on the floor of the house.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbuiy):: How can
he have knowledge of it?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: He is within
his right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is
no question before the house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And there is no monopoly of privilege.


Georges Parent: The hon. member has
not yet had an opportunity to state his question of privilege as it affects him.


James Gray Turgeon: I was proceeding to state my question of privilege when I was interrupted. My question of privilege is that this is a matter relating to recruiting in my constituency.


Mr. MacINNIS:: That is not a question of privilege.


James Gray Turgeon: The matter has been
under consideration by the Minister of National Defence. Two days ago the adjutant general at Ottawa telegraphed the district officer commanding at Victoria giving instructions to have the matter attended to.


Angus MacInnis: Shout the way you were
shouting the other day.



MOBILIZATION OF RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: May I ask the government whether the regulations under the National Resources Mobilization Act will be tabled to-day so that we may have an opportunity to discuss them? It seems to me that the house should not close until we have had an opportunity of seeing these regulations.


Richard Burpee Hanson: An opportunity for discussion.
Mobilization of Resources


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of National War Services):: Do I understand that it is the regulations with regard to registration that are wanted?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister knows exactly what we want.


Grote Stirling: Under section 5 of the act.


James Garfield Gardiner: With all due respect to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) may I say that he made a political speech last night and apparently he has not got over it; he has already repeated half of it on the floor of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the leader of the opposition will tell me just what he wants, I shall try to answer him.


Grote Stirling: If the minister does not understand the provisions of section 5 of the National Resources Mobilization Act, may I tell him that that section states that the regulations under the act shall be tabled forthwith if the house is in session. It is those regulations that we want to see.


James Garfield Gardiner: The regulations under that section would not be brought down by the department which I am administering. Therefore I am not in position to answer.


Mr. POWER:: So far as the Department of National Defence is concerned, the regulations will be brought down shortly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before the house prorogues?


Charles Gavan Power: If they are prepared, yes, if they are not prepared, no.


Mr. CHURCH:: Will the minister consider allowing industrial plants to have registration cards the day before in order that employees may fill them out at home? This would save time and red tape.


James Garfield Gardiner: The cards will be sent to industrial plants just as soon as they can be got to them after the plants have made application. It will not be necessary for the workers to take them home. If they did take them home, the cards probably would not go through the tabulating machines when they came back. They are made of cardboard and if they are carried around in pockets they would probably be useless. The registrars will have cards at industrial plants in sufficient time to enable them to be filled out before registrars are appointed in the plants.

While I am on my feet 1 should like to make a statement which will probably answer what the leader of the opposition had in mind last evening. He was entirely wrong in suggesting that under this system it will take three months to find the number of single men. We should know that in three days.


Thomas Langton Church: Just a lot of red tape.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no red tape; we have cut it out.



PRIVILEGES GRANTED TO MENNONITES AND DOUKHOBORS WITH RESPECT TO MILITARY SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner) to a matter which has apparently been brought to the fore by his remarks on July 30. The following telegram was addressed to me, but I think it should have gone to the minister. It is from Warner, Alberta, and reads:
We heartily endorse your demands made of Mennonites, Hutterites and Doukhobors. Twenty-eight colonies of Hutterites are living in southern Alberta under communistic conditions. Our people are strongly opposed to this situation. Hutterites should be shown no preference.
George W. Morton, President, Board of Trade.
Until I received that telegram, although I had heard of Hitlerites, I did not know of the species described as Hutterites. At the risk of being out of order I should like to call the minister's attention to a statement in this morning's paper by Captain Tom Magladery, president of the New Liskeard branch of the Canadian legion.


Charles Gavan Power: Why not read the speech of the leader of the opposition?


George Black: This statement
appears in the Ottawa Journal of this morning, and I ask the minister to read it himself.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Mr. Speaker, I discussed this matter briefly with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) just prior to his illness, and I am receiving letters from families and groups such as referred to by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) with respect to it. Mothers are asking if their sons to the second and third generation are exempt from service under the original order in council passed many years ago. I should like to receive direction from some member of the govern-

Canada's War Effort
ment so that I can advise these mothers exactly what the position is so far as their sons and grandsons are concerned.


James Garfield Gardiner: I presume my hon. friend's question has to do with the order in council of 1873 and the order in council of 1898. The procedure I outlined the other day was followed in the last war and we thought it advisable to follow it in this war. That procedure does permit the descendants of those who came to Canada at that time to have the privileges granted by the orders in council of 1873 and 1898 as they were then drawn.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: May I inquire if that goes on from generation to generation?


James Garfield Gardiner: That will depend, I suppose, upon what generation after generation of parliaments do about it. But up to the moment it has been thought wise to follow the practice of acknowledging contracts entered into with people who came to this country under agreements covered by order in council. There will probably be some method found of using the services of these people in a way which will help in the winning of the war.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Could we have these orders in council tabled? I do not think I have ever seen them. I do not think it was ever the intention that this arrangement should go on forever.


James Garfield Gardiner: I read the substance of them into the "eyewash" that was placed before the house the other day.



CANADA'S WAR EFFORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) asked the government to table the commitments of the Canadian government, or at least information as to these commitments, as well as an estimate of the amounts recoverable from the British government.
I think there is only one useful definition of the word "commitments" which can be adopted. It means the amounts already spent during the present fiscal year, the amounts agreed to be spent during the present fiscal year and the amounts which it is estimated will be required to be spent during the present fiscal year. The last and first of these definitions may not come within the legal meaning of the word, but it is impossible to separate the amounts which it has been agreed to spend from the amounts that actually are being spent or have been spent. It is also impossible to separate them from the amounts which in all common reason we shall have to expend, such as pay for the forces or allowances to dependents. This means that we shall have to include those amounts which we estimate will be required to be spent. With that definition of "commitments" I may say that for the present fiscal year the commitments for war services are $1.036,118,16S.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will that include pay and allowances?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have the details here.
I can place them on Hansard, I can give them to my hon. friend, or I can read them, whichever he prefers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It will be satisfactory to me if they are put on Hansard.


James Lorimer Ilsley: With regard to the amount recoverable from the British government, it is estimated that this will be $96,000,000; leaving a total of dominion commitments amounting to $940,118,168. The hon. gentleman will probably say at once that our war appropriation is only $700,000,000. My answer to that is the statement I made in the review I presented to the house two or three days ago, when I said that it is certain that parliament will reassemble well before the end of the fiscal year when additional requirements can be provided for.
The details of these commitments have been prepared as carefully as possible. It will be understood that necessarily they are approximate only, but they are as close to accuracy as is possible. The statement is as follows:
Canada's War Effort

War appropriation, 1940-41
National Defence- Militia services ... Naval services ....
Air services	
Other services ____
Munitions and supply Other departments ..
Items for which estimates have been approved $394,102,003 103,679,675 217,791,243 7,550,591 51,500,000 41,864,990
Items for which tentative or no estimates have been approved $101,772,936 19,720,325 16,501,395
78,500,000
3,135.010
Total

$816,488,502	$219,629,666 $1,036,118,168
Estimate of amounts recoverable from the British government and included in our total of requirements for the fiscal year are:
Estimates as summarized	
Estimated recoverable from the British government-
Air	
Militia	"!!!!!!!!!!!!"!"!
Munitions and supply

Net dominion commitments
940,118,168



FARMERS' CREDITORS


James Lorimer Ilsley: I regret to report that the free conference between the managers appointed by the House of Commons and the managers appointed by the Senate to consider the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 25, to amend the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, was not productive of any result. The managers were unable to come to an agreement, and I am afraid that with the Senate insisting upon its amendment and the house finding itself unable to accept that amendment, the result will be that the bill will not pass.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is really a pity, because the Senate amendment did not go to the crux of the matter; it had to do merely with procedure. If the government want to help the farmers of Manitoba I think they would be well advised to accept the Senate amendment.


Mr. CRERAR:: It would destroy the whole act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As a lawyer I do not agree with that for a moment.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think this is the place to debate it, Mr. Speaker. It was fully debated in the conference, and if there were to be a debate here there are powerful considerations to be advanced on the other side.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I would ask the Prime
Minister, in view of the difficulty that has

arisen, whether he will consider his long-promised reform of the Senate at the next session of parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is something I have been considering all my life.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct a question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) with respect to bringing down a report on the contracts awarded. The month of May has gone by, June has gone by and July has gone by. May we not have a list of the contracts awarded for at least the month of May, and perhaps June, before parliament prorogues?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: Mr. Speaker, I will do my best to have the reports presented. I understand that some of them are now in the hands of the printer, but I will ascertain the exact situation.


EUROPEAN WAR
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: I know the house will be interested in word which I have received and with respect to which I am now able to make an announcement. It is the safe arrival in the United Kingdom of another large con-

Unemployment Insurance
tingent of the Canadian active service force. A number of the members here will have some knowledge of what the force consists of. It includes a large force of the troops of the second Canadian division, accompanied by Major General Odium, the general officer commanding, and includes also certain ancillary units and certain reinforcements.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 98, to establish an unemployment insurance commission, to provide for insurance against unemployment, to establish an employment service, and for other purposes related thereto.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps it
would be only fair to the house that I should give an explanation of the amendments, which are not numerous, being only six in number. Of that number four are definitely intended to clarify the wording of particular sections of the bill.
On page 2 of the bill, at line 34, the word "two" has been deleted and "three" substituted. That is necessary by reason of adding section 103 to the act providing for the repeal of the Employment and Social Insurance Act of 1935.
At page 15, line 44, the words "subsection one of" are deleted. This has no particular bearing except to make clear that the whole section rather than merely a subsection shall be excluded.
At page 26, line 3, the words "the House of Commons" have been substituted for the word "parliament." That deals with the disqualification of membership on the advisory committee, and the amendment I believe will meet with no objection.
At page 34 the word "such" in line 2 of paragraph (m) is left out, purely for purposes of clarification.
As I have indicated, section 103 is added to the act.
The only other addition is to add in part II of the first schedule the following paragraph :
(fl) Employment in a hospital or in a charitable institution where in the opinion of the commission such hospital or charitable institution is not carried on for purposes of gain.
Some lion. MEMBERS:	Hear, hear.
Mr. McLARTY:: That amendment was
urged upon this house and I rather judge, Mr. Speaker, that it meets with the approval, certainly of a section of the house.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Nothing for the loggers?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Bearing in mind the
numbers who are covered by the act it would be unfortunate I think not to concur in the amendments that have been made. I believe this house can quite properly concur in them, and I so move.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.


COMPENSATION (DEFENCE) ACT PROVISION FOR PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION FOR PROPERTY TAKEN FOR WAR PURPOSES
[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Acting Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 123, respecting the payment of compensation for the taking of certain property for war purposes.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it
intended to go immediately into committee and have the discussion take place there?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Vien in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Before this goes any further, Mr. Chairman, may I say that we have just got copies of the bill and certainly I do not think a single member of the house has had an opportunity to read it. I think the minister should give a general statement on the bill in addition to what may be found in the explanatory note, and inform us what the rules are to be. This is a legal bill, and certainly we ought to know exactly what the intention of the ministry is, and how it differs from the present common law position. After all, the citizen has some rights, even in war time.


The CHAIRMAN:: In my opinion this question would be quite proper in relation to section 3.


Major James William Coldwell: I wish to support the suggestion of the leader of the opposition. The bill has just been handed to members of this house. It is a long bill, and before I agree to a single clause of it I should like to know what it means. I think we should have an explanation of the bill.


Mr. CARDIN:: As I indicated in a short explanation when the resolution was before the house, this bill copies to the letter a similar bill which was passed in the United Kingdom
Compensation Act

in 1939 to help determine the amount of the indemnity or the price for vessels and aircraft required or acquired during the war and for war purposes. The English bill covers a much larger number of items than the present bill, because in England they included the acquisition and requisition of all properties, lands, buildings, and vehicles of all sorts. Under the proposed legislation we deal only with vessels and aircraft, because it is the opinion of the Department of Justice that existing legislation will adequately cover the needs of the war, that our expropriation acts and other legislation with relation to the acquiring of properties are more extended and detailed than the legislation existing in England. It was therefore decided that we would be satisfied with the existing statutes so far as lands, buildings and so forth are concerned. But in regard to vessels and aircraft we have no existing legislation which meets the present necessity.
The leader of the opposition drew the attention of hon. members the other day to the view that there is always a market value, and that we can always fix the indemnity for the acquisition or requisition of a vessel or an aircraft, basing it on what is the market value. But the contention is that there is no such thing in Canada at the present time as real market value attaching to ships and aircraft, because there is no open market, Nobody except the government buys these things on the regular market and the value of the ships or aircraft which the government may decide to acquire or requisition for war purposes may be affected by the condition of the war. Certain things which had practically no value, or very little value, may at the time the government decides to take them over acquire a certain value in the minds of the proprietors. In view of that fact it was thought advisable to establish certain rules to determine what should be the indemnity or the price to be paid the owner of a vessel or aircraft when it is decided to acquire them for the benefit of the crown and for the prosecution of the war.
The acquisition and the requisition of vessels and aircraft and any other things required for war purposes is effected under the War Measures Act, by which is meant an order in council, and when there is any dispute between the owner and the representative of his majesty, the courts, and more particularly the exchequer court, are given authority to determine what is the amount of the indemnity which should be paid for the use of the vessel or aircraft. It has been represented to the department, and the officers of the Department of Justice admit it, that at the moment there are no rules or precedents which could help to govern the exchequer

court in determining the value of the vessel acquired or requisitioned, and that it would be advantageous that parliament should establish certain rules which would help to guide the exchequer court in that respect.
Someone has said that an order in council-could meet the purpose, and that it would suffice if an order in council were to set out the principles to be followed in determining the value to be paid for the vessel or the indemnity to be paid for its use. But others have expressed a doubt whether the exchequer court would be satisfied to adopt or apply the dispositions of an order in council. That is one of the reasons why it was decided that we should follow the example of the United Kingdom and pass legislation similar to that which has been passed there.
The main principle of that legislation is that, in determining the value of the vessel acquired or the indemnity to be paid for its use, no account should be taken of excess value resulting from the war. As I said the other day, it is impossible to determine exactly at the present time what amount should be paid for the use or the running of a vessel which is required by the crown. We do not know exactly for how long the vessel is to be requisitioned, and if it was impossible to ascertain what compensation should be paid to the owner because of the fact that the period of the requisition is not known, the owner would be deprived of any compensation.
The bill provides for monthly payments in the case of indemnity being paid for the use of a vessel.
These are the main principles embodied in this bill. Section 4 explains in detail how we come to determine what price should be paid for a vessel or aircraft required, or what indemnity should be paid for the requisitioning of a vessel or aircraft, and states at the same time that the indemnity can be paid monthly.
I do not know that I can add much to these observations. I believe I have given the exact meaning of the bill and the reasons it has been presented. The main reason, I repeat in answer to the leader of the opposition, is that we feel that there is no such thing at the present time as market value upon which could be fixed a price or an indemnity for the acquisition or requisition of a vessel or aircraft. That is why we considered it absolutely necessary to lay down certain rules which would help the courts, and even those who are negotiating agreements with the owners of vessels, to come to a satisfactory conclusion which would be fair to the owner and at the same time not too expensive to the crown. There is no justification for the crown, even during the war,

Compensation Act
paying excessive prices for vessels or aircraft to be used for war purposes. It is owing to the fear that we might be exposed to the payment of such prices that this bill has been introduced, setting out certain rules which will govern in determining price or indemnity.


Mr. GREEN:: Yesterday morning the minister promised that when the bill came up for consideration he would give us information as to the number of vessels that had been taken over and the amount paid to date. It would give the committee a better background for the study of the bill if the minister would give that information.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yesterday when the hon. member raised the point he indicated that it might not be possible to obtain the information. I sought the views of the department in that regard and asked to be supplied with a list of amounts paid for the requisitioning of vessels already in the service of the government. I was informed by the Department of National Defence that it would not be in the public interest to give the information, as to the number of vessels requisitioned, and so on, but I am quite sure that the hon. member could obtain it privately.


Howard Charles Green: I do not mean the names of the vessels.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The number.


Howard Charles Green: The minister should be able to give the total amount paid to date. It could not possibly do any harm to the country to have that information.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Unfortunately the answer
given to me was rather general. I was informed this morning that in the opinion of that department it would not be in the public interest to divulge the number of vessels acquired by the government for war purposes.


Howard Charles Green: Cannot the minister say
how much has been spent to date in taking them over?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They gave me the same answer. They thought it would not be advisable to divulge the amount or the number of vessels that had been requisitioned.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That latter part of the minister's statement certainly cannot apply. I quite agree that with respect to the number of vessels taken over, it might be against public policy to give that information; but as to the cost, I think the House of Commons and the country ought to know what the payments and the probable commitments are. To lay down the principle that
we are not to know the money value of services is to deny the very thing that we are here for. What is responsible government? Surely the minister himself will not agree with that principle. I would ask him to be good enough to communicate with the Department of National Defence and intimate that, in his opinion and in the opinion of the house, we ought to know what the financial commitments are. I do not know. I have not raised the question, but it was properly raised by my colleague, and on that score alone we are entitled to the information.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: From certain points of view objection could be raised by the officers of the Department of National Defence because, if information is given with regard to the amount the government is paying for the requisitioning of vessels for war purposes, deductions can be made by those who know something of the subject, by comparing the number of vessels we had previously, the value of those vessels before the war, with the amount that we are paying now for the ships acquired or requisitioned. There is another point as to the amount paid for vessels already requisitioned and acquired; in many cases the indemnity has not been fixed. This legislation proposes to fix it. So that the information that might be given to the committee at the present time would not be complete for that very reason. I can see. however, that from certain angles the request of my hon. friend may be a reasonable one. At any rate, I can give an undertaking. Another opportunity may arise before we are through and if possible I will supply the information.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We could hold the bill open for a little while during this day. I would say to the minister with regard to his last argument that it does not carry weight, because this bill will shear the ground from under these people if it goes through, and it will not have the effect that he suggests. The minister, in his concluding statement, just before the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) rose, gave exactly the reason why this bill is being brought forward. The crown is afraid that it will have to pay extravagant prices on the acquisition or requisitioning of these various types of ships. That is a correct principle and I am heartily in accord with it, but I do suggest that the basis of the minister's argument is not sound. For instance, he says at one point that there is no open market for ships; the government is the only buyer. The government is the only big buyer because the government has stepped in and become the only big buyer. But there is no reason in the world
Compensation Act

why there should not be, and there ought to be, perhaps, as between subjects of the crown, a market for ships. If there were freedom and the government did not take everything in sight there certainly would be a market for ships. Because there is a scarcity of shipping the government has stepped in and taken everything at once, and therefore in effect it has made it impossible for others to purchase. But if there were a free market there would certainly be a value for ships.
The explanatory note says that the values now existing are purely artificial. I deny that. Values are a question of fact based on the particular circumstances of every case, and my view is that that sort of thing, where there is lack of agreement, should go to the courts. I have not been able to read the whole bill through, but is there not a provision in it that where agreement cannot be reached recourse may be had to the exchequer court on the basis of the rules laid down in the bill? Is that in the bill?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is in the War Measures Act, section 7.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then we have not entirely deprived the courts of jurisdiction in the matter?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If I understand the minister's explanation correctly, what we are doing in this bill is to set limitations beyond the common law. That is exactly what I thought the situation was when we were in the resolution stage yesterday. Well, I agree that the treasury should be protected against speculators. There is where the danger comes in. That occurred in the last war. I believe a good deal of junk was bought and sold at very high prices during the last war and men got rich, a few in Canada and many more in the United States. That sort of thing ought not to be permitted. But I do hope that in the framing of these rules of law, because that is what they are, inasmuch as they are given the force of a statute and are therefore binding on everyone, crown and subject alike, some consideration will be given to the rights of the subject.
Take the case of a man who, we will say, acquired, long before war was ever thought of, at a cost of half a million dollars, a ship admirably adapted by reason of speed, power and construction to war service with convoys. That is just an illustration that occurs to me at the moment. After slight alteration it becomes an armed vessel of the Canadian navy. We will assume that this vessel-and I am only

assuming it-prior to the declaration of war had been making money in the merchant service. The moment war broke out that vessel would assume appreciable value, not for the purposes of the government but in the interests of the owner; and I submit to the minister that the proper criterion for measuring values in expropriation proceedings is not the value to the government that is the requi-sitioner or taker of the ship but the value to the owner himself that can be attributed to the vessel at the time of the expropriation. We ought not lightly to disturb that measure of value. How far this bill departs from that I do not know.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It does not.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If it does not I am content. If it does I think perhaps an injustice is being done to some of our citizens. If it does not go any further than that; if it leaves alone the common law principle, with the parties at arm's length to fight out the matter before the properly constituted tribunal, then I am satisfied that justice will be done.
Let me reassure the house that the treasury will not be mulcted in huge damages because of the fact that these ships may be of great value to the government of the country in time of war. No court will ever assess values to an owner on that principle. The reverse is followed; it is the value to the owner at the time of the taking or requisitioning, not the value to the persons taking the ship. If the minister needs any help in respect of that principle I would refer him to the case of The King v. Nagle, reported in the exchequer court reports. In that case the old Canadian government railway was the only possible purchaser of a gravel pit. The owners proceeded on the other principle and tried to assert that there was so much gravel in that pit, that it was of a superior quality and worth so much on the basis of value to the railway as ballast. It is a long time since that case was tried; I tried it myself. The railway was the only possible buyer and taker, and of course the action failed. It was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, where counsel for the crown was not even called upon to respond, but if I recollect aright the principles involved are contained in the judgment.
If these principles are not disturbed I am content; but if in the dying days of this session we attempt to set up a statute which imports new legal principles with respect to the law of compensation, then I think we ought to pause. I am content to leave the matter at that for the moment.

Compensation Act


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am quite sure that no one will suffer as a result of the application of this legislation. Its only purpose is to protect the public treasury against exploitation-


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is fair.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: -and artificial values which an unscrupulous owner might attribute to his vessel._ Under section 4 the indemnity to be paid in case of the requisitioning of a vessel is set out as follows:
4. (1) The compensation payable in respect
i ? re<luisition of any vessel or aircraft shall be the aggregate of the following sums, that is to say,-
(a) a sum equal to the amount which might reasonably be expected to be payable by a person for the^ use of the vessel or aircraft during the period of the requisition, under a charter or contract of hiring whereby he undertook to bear the cost of insuring, maintaining and running the vessel or aircraft-
In other words the compensation should be equal to the amount that reasonably should be paid for the use of the vessel.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is reasonable, of course, depends on the circumstances of each case.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That will be established by the agreement, and if there is no such agreement the court will determine it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: By evidence.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, by evidence.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to direct the minister's attention to one point in connection with this question of an absence of value or a purely artificial value. Paragraph (d) of section 4 reads:
(d) in a case where, during the period of the requisition, a total loss of the vessel or aircraft occurs, a sum equal to the value of the vessel or aircraft immediately before the occurence of the damage which caused the loss-
Does not that assume a value, and must it not be a market value? I should think it must, without doubt. That section and the minister's statement just do not jibe. It refers to a sum equal to the value, and in every case you must get back to the value. What is the value? It means the market value. What market value, and when? It is the value of the ship as proven in evidence at the time of the loss, in this case, not at the time of the requisition. Of course this deals with a case where title does not pass.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The terms of that paragraph are corrected, if I may use the word, or modified by paragraph (i) of subsection 1 of section 4, which provides that no account
shall be taken of any appreciation in the value due to the war. I suppose that brings us, in the interpretation of paragraph (d), to the real value of the vessel at the moment it was destroyed or lost, and that value is subject again to agreement between the parties or to adjudication by the courts if there is any difference of opinion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is no trouble in case of agreement, of course; the act would not apply.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: And when there is a dispute of any kind it is always referred to the courts for adjudication, but in adjudicating any case the court should not take into account the excess value or appreciation due to the war. This is a sort of direction that is given to the court, excluding the excess value or appreciation that the vessel or aircraft may have acquired due to the war.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that
in the British act?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. As I said before, the act is copied practically word for word from the British act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not going to delay the passage of this bill, and I am not interested in behalf of any shipowner. No one has communicated with me about it. I do not suppose they have had the opportunity; I do not suppose the shipping world even knows this bill is going through parliament.
Having registered an appreciation of the reasons for the bill-and I do appreciate the reasons for it-I think it is also my duty to express dissent from any impairment to the common law principle. If the minister can give me an undertaking that in no way does the bill impair the present common law principle which has stood the test of time, both in peace and in war; that it does not impair common law rules and the rights of the subject, I am satisfied with it. But I am really afraid that the minister's statement in that connection is not quite correct. Otherwise I do not think there would be much necessity for this bill.
I am content to trust the courts on the basis of the present law in force in Canada, whether it be statutory or common law. This is a measure which ought to have been brought down long before this late hour in the session. In ordinary times we would want time to study a measure such as this. Those whose interests may be hurt should have an opportunity to be heard. But there is not time for that now. With the theory
Compensation Act

of the bill, namely that of protecting the public treasury, I am in full accord. That is a fair statement of my position, and I suggest it ought to be the position taken by every hon. member, including those on the government benches.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My understanding is that the bill only protects the treasury against exploitation, and would preclude the possibility of taking advantage of appreciations due to the war. That is what it does.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, that is a pretty wide-open phrase. You could drive several pairs of horses through it.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Of course my hon. friend has had much experience along these lines. We cannot accept, as a right covered or protected by common law principles, the appreciation of a vessel due to the extraordinary circumstances of war. It is against that sort of thing we wish to protect the treasury. In making his observations my hon. friend referred to possible exploitation of the crown, and it is against that we are protecting ourselves.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And I agree with that.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It precludes the owners of vessels taking advantage of the situation. I am sure that in the bill there is nothing which would deprive an owner, acting in good faith, of anything that belongs to him. He would not be prejudiced in any way by the bill. Our only intention is to make sure that the courts have something to justify their refusal to take into account appreciation due to the war. Officers of the departments of justice, national defence and munitions and supply, and counsel of these departments, were afraid the courts might hesitate to decide a case on the basis of an order in council.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Undoubtedly this method of legislating is preferable to that of legislating by order in council under the War Measures Act. I am heartily in accord with that procedure. But coming back to the point I have been endeavouring to make: Will the minister say on the advice of counsel in his department that this bill is a declaration or clarification of the principle of the common law, or on the other hand is it a restriction of that principle? Counsel, who is sitting in front of the minister, might be asked that question.


Mr. FACTOR:: It may be a common law principle so far as appreciation under war conditions is concerned. That is all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I prefer to take my law from the Department of Justice.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My personal opinion might not be worth very much, but it is that this measure does not change the privileges or advantages an owner may derive from the common law'. It does not change the common law. On the contrary it protects against speculation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That provision is to be commended; the crown ought to be protected against speculation and exploitation. Let me carry a step farther the illustration I gave a moment ago. We will say that a ship taken for war purposes is on a commercial venture, sailing to a foreign port, under charter or as a common carrier. We know that freight rates have risen tremendously. There is a future potential value of that ship as a common carrier or as a chartered vessel. In the circumstances the owner is entitled to look forward to a substantial profit from the operations of the ship as a commercial venture-and incidentally in those circumstances this government would take seventy-five per cent of any excess profits which might be made. Having in mind the words of the section, "due to the war," unquestionably any court would hold that the war has caused the increase in freight rates. That being so, under this measure the owner would not derive any special benefit" from the potential value of the ship as a venture, or the expectations he might have of increased earnings. Having in mind the expression "due to the war" contained in the section, I believe any court would hold that the war has caused the increase in freight rates. I do not think it is quite fair. On the other hand buyers, sellers-shipmongers, if I may use the term, or men who might go down to the United States and buy the hulks of old vessels-would be affected. I understand something of the kind has been going on; attempts have been made to bring old hulks back to Canada, change the registry, if necessary pay the tariff charges, and unload them on the government. That sort of thing ought to be stopped, without question. On the other hand legitimate commercial ventures should be protected. A man who has a ship of the kind I have described, operating on a commercial venture in the face of rising freight rates and passenger rates and the like, should not have his rights impaired by this legislation.
What is the position in England? Over there we know the shipping control has taken over everything. For instance the Canadian Pacific steamships traversing the Atlantic and Pacific oceans are being operated by the

Compensation Act
railway company not for its own account but as agents for the British government, and for the account of the British government. Any losses are cared for by that government. Any gains, after proper allowances for requisitioning, go to the British government. That is well understood, and it is a fair arrangement. But I am just afraid that in this wide-open section, wherein we find the expression "due to the war," the government has not given full consideration to the rights of people in legitimate business. It is quite proper of course to apply the principle to speculation.


Howard Charles Green: Has not a board been set up to decide what sums should be paid for these vessels? It was my understanding that a board was sitting in Vancouver last fall before which vessel owners might appear and make claims in certain amounts for their ships. If I am correct in my understanding, what has happened to the board? Is the government now changing its policy, or what is the position?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: These boards are purely
advisory.


Howard Charles Green: They advise whom?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They advise the Department of National Defence.


Howard Charles Green: In one instance of which I know, a man's boat had been requisitioned, and he appeared before the board to state his claim for compensation. That would not look as though the board were only to advise the department. They would seem to have much wider powers than that.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that the
board only advises the department. They make investigations and take evidence, and in their report they make recommendations. But they are not a deciding body.


Howard Charles Green: Is that preliminary to fixing the terms of the agreement between the government and the vessel owner?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Have any cases actually
been referred to the exchequer court to date?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Not yet.


Howard Charles Green: So that to all intents and purposes this business of referring the question of value to the exchequer court has so far been a dead letter.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is eyewash.


Major James William Coldwell: The first words in the fourth paragraph of the explanatory note are: 95826-147
"The legislation is of necessity very detailed."
It seems to me that a bill of this description which establishes a principle upon which compensation will be paid for property and which is of a "very detailed" nature ought not to have been introduced at this late stage of the session. We have not had an opportunity of looking into the matter and we really do not know what we are doing. The Minister of Mines and Resources speaking on another matter probably expressed the opinion of a great many of us when he said yesterday that he found it difficult to get time to bring clear thought to the solution of some of these questions. This bill v*s placed in our hands about an hour ago, and the explanatory note states that the legislation is of necessity "very detailed".
Having made this brief protest, I should like to ask a question. This bill is said to follow the British act of 1939. I should like to know if that act was set aside by more recent legislation which was passed on May 22nd last. I read the debate which took place in the British House of Commons.
I have not the British Hansard with me, but my recollection is one of the ministers, I think it was Mr. Attlee, stated that the government had taken power to take over every form of property in Great Britain, that at the moment they were not bothering about compensation, that if necessary that could wait until after the war. We do not know what is going to happen in connection with property during this war, particularly property of this type. We do not know what values will be when the war ends. It seems to me that no final disposition should be made of property of this type which is taken over by the crown until we know what the conditions are going to be when the war ends. Otherwise it may be found that people whose property was taken over early in the war received compensation upon a basis different from that applicable to property taken over later in the war. I do not know whether this point has been considered by the minister. I can see the force of introducing legislation to provide a basis, but on the other hand there is a common law basis. Would it not be possible to provide for partial compensation?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That can be done now without prejudice.


Major James William Coldwell: So that we might have an equitable, fair and just disposition of all property taken over by the crown when considered in the light of conditions when the war ends.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, there are
one or two matters which have come up since

Compensation Act

the resolution was before us and which I think should be mentioned. Section 2 contains the definitions. I should like to refer to a matter which I brought up in 1937, 1938 and 1939 and which I think is relevant to this bill. The government will be paying the maximum amounts for property taken over because of its short-sighted policy in connection with shipping on the great lakes. We have been too late in everything. When we were in office we were sometimes too late, so that I am not making any criticism in that connection. I visited the Welland ship channel last Saturday, and while I found it nearly cleaned out of boats, only a few years ago there were scores of boats tied up at the different harbours, along the St. Lawrence and in the Welland ship channel upon which this government spent $125,000,000. In 1937, 1938 and 1939 you could pick up almost any British paper and read where ships were being offered for sale, sometimes ocean liners for $50,000 odd, just enough to pay taxes. Because of the tremendous growth in our shipping through our becoming the fifth trading nation, we will have to pay dearly for not having done something.
Instead of negotiating charter parties or making requisitions for ships, I think the government would be better advised to buy these ships outright and take bills of sale. The text of the bill has been changed since yesterday. The definition of "war" has been substituted for "emergency," which appeared in the British act. The old definition of "ship," as being a craft not propelled by oars, is not used. Many changes have been made in the bill which will cause doubt when the matter is brought before the courts. "Reasonable wear and tear" has been changed to "fair wear and tear," but there is no definition of "fair wear and tear."
Some years ago the proposal was made to place all shipping under the board of transport commissioners. There will be considerable controversy regarding the amounts of compensation to be paid. These charter parties will be only for the duration of the war and boats will be needed to carry food overseas many years after the war. Some vessels are under British registry, some under United States registry and some under Canadian registry, and there will be difficulty in that connection. The other day there were two boats from Norway in Toronto harbour. Many of these boats are quite old. When they are taken over is the government going to pay the cost of arming them? In a by-election in January of last year the minister referred to the venerable old cannon which we have, and some of the ships which will be taken over will be almost as old. I 
do not see *why the transport board should not act under this bill instead of having to set up courts all over Canada to deal with compensation claims.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the minister say that there is great urgency for this measure, that the disputes are at such a stage that this legislation is imperative now? This is very important legislation and if it is not urgently necessary it ought not to be brought down two days before the end of the session. Can the bill not be allowed to stand over until the next session? In the meantime no one can sue the crown without a fiat, and those who have claims against the government and are pressed for money could be given interim payments without prejudice. No interest will be hurt. Give us a little more time to study this bill. Let us be fair to the shipping interests, who are entitled to be heard. I do suggest to the minister and the government that legislation such as this, which violates the common law principle and sets up new principles of law, is unsound and ought not to be passed without the fullest consideration. Of course if the minister says that the bill is urgently required because of war conditions, with me that overrides everything. But if he cannot honestly say that, I do urge him to accept my suggestion.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Mr. Chairman, I need not say, because the committee knows, that I am not personally responsible for this legislation. I inherited it through taking over the Department of Justice in the absence of the minister. Personally I had nothing to do with the drafting of the measure or with studying the principles which are embodied in it. I will be frank with the committee and say that I made practically the same observations which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) has just made; and I asked if we could not for the present proceed by order in council under the War Measures Act. I myself saw the importance of the bill; and I must confess that it is difficult for me to understand the meaning of every word in it, because it is a complicated piece of legislation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Very
technical.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, and I suggested that we might possibly deal with questions arising at the moment under the powers of the War Measures Act. The suggestion was met with strong opposition by the officers of the departments of justice and national defence, and by counsel of the Department of Munitions and Supply. They said: We need this legislation; even though it is late in the session it is absolutely necessary that it be passed now.

Compensation Act
That is the position I am in. I am here representing the views of the technical officers and advisers of the departments I have just mentioned. Not much harm can be done by passing the bill, because if any abuse arises under it and any change becomes necessary there will be no great difficulty in amending the law at the next session of parliament. In the meantime we may receive representations from the shipping interests, and if they have suggestions to make that are worthy of consideration we shall have them before us in time to amend the legislation at the next session. I am conveying to the committee the request that has been made to me to have this legislation passed how, under the circumstances.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not doubt that the minister has had that request, but did they give any reasons for the request? -which is much more important than the fact that the request was made! I have no doubt that the officers want this legislation. They have a theory or principle in mind to substantiate. But why this long delay? We have been at war for nearly a year and these officers have been requisitioning ships since last September. These questions must have arisen before. I do suggest to the minister that he has not yet given us a reason why we could not postpone this measure for another year if there is a law under which they can operate in the meantime. The fact that we are going to have another session of parliament does not alter the situation. That is just the. old argument of to-morrow, to-morrow.


Mr. POTTIER:: Mr. Chairman, coming
from a marine constituency I can well understand the reason for this legislation, and I think it should go through at this session. I well remember that when the war broke out a number of people were going around the shore trying to get options on vessels which had been tied up. They thought they were going to make money through the government taking over the vessels from them. It was notorious all along the shore how prices of ships would go up, and people were thinking: Now is the chance to make a dollar!
I am not a bit afraid of the shipping interests being hurt. They are well able to take care of themselves; but I do know something of the atmosphere and feeling along the shore. My fear is that the treasury might be hurt. I am not at all of the opinion that we are inserting in the bill regulations that are too strict. I read section 4, paragraphs (a), (e) and (i), and putting them together I am of the opinion that the shipowner will get a fair price for his vessel or get a fair charter.
95826-147$
I am afraid that if we do not put this legislation on the statute book the thought that is in the minds of some that they are going to make a dollar through the need for shipping to win the war may be translated into action to the detriment of the treasury. We cannot be too clear in putting on the statute book legislation that will protect the treasury. The shipowners will take care of themselves. If they do not, this will be the first time it has ever happened. We all know what happened in the last war and the huge sums of money that were made-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not out of the government.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: Yes, we had boats which the government owned, and an amount of ten or fifteen or fifty thousand dollars may not seem much because you can say: There is a great shortage of shipping, and ships are wanted to win the war. I say that this legislation should go through if for no other reason than to warn the shipowners and shipbrokers that parliament is looking after the treasury.


Major James William Coldwell: It seems to me that
under the War Measures Act or the mobilization act we already have all the power we need to do anything that may be necessary. I entirely agree with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) that this bill ought not to be placed on the statute book without thorough and proper consideration. In my opinion it should have been referred, like the wheat legislation, to a committee where it could have been gone into thoroughly. I am not arguing in this way because I believe the shipowner should be over-compensated; far from it. I believe that under our mobilization act we should take such property as we require without compensation, except to give the very minimum of return as an interim payment. I fear that at the earlier part of the war higher compensation will be paid than at a later stage. I cannot	see	why, if	this	bill is	so necessary onthe	day	before	we	expect	to prorogue, itwas not equally necessary the day after we assembled in session. I can see no force in bringing down, at this late stage, detailed and difficult legislation of this nature involving all kinds of property considerations, without	our	having	an	opportunity to inquireinto	all	its implications. I	am not assuming that we should allow shipowners to hold up the government; indeed, my contention is the exact reverse, that we should use the powers we have under our mobilization act. We are going to use it for the mobilization of men, and the house has not even been
Compensation Act

asked to discuss the compensation which shall be given to these men when they are mobilized. We should adopt the same principle therefore in regard to all kinds of property relationships.
Section 2 of the National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940, reads as follows:
Subject to the provisions of section three hereof, the governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations, requiring persons to place themselves, their services and their property-
I repeat that:
-their services and their property at the disposal of his majesty in the right of Canada, as may be deemed necessary or expedient for securing the public safety, the defence of Canada, the maintenance of public order, or the efficient prosecution of the war, or for maintaining supplies or services essential to the life of the community.
When the mobilization bill was under consideration we said over and over again that if we were going to take man-power we ought as a condition precedent to take over such property as we required. I think the government should use its powers under the act to take over-under its provisions-[DOT] such property as is required, setting the compensation later, whenever it is wise to do so.


Howard Charles Green: This bill purports to establish a basis for determining a fair compensation to be paid for these ships. I understood the minister to say that it was to be open to the owners to go to the exchequer court if an agreement could not be reached as to the amount to be paid. Why not provide for that in the bill? Why not set out in the bill that there is the right to go to the exchequer court, or, as the hon. member for Broadview suggested-and this might be even more workable-to go to the board of transport commissioners?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The power to go before
the exchequer court is already provided for in the War Measures Act. There was no necessity of repeating it in this bill. The power which exists is that of going before the court in the case of any dispute which may arise as to compensation or payment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the
minister that section under his hand? Would he read it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is section 7 of the
War Measures Act:
Whenever any property or the use thereof has been appropriated by his majesty under the provisions of this act, or any order in council, order or regulation made thereunder, and compensation is to be made therefor and has not been agreed upon, the claim shall be

referred by the Minister of Justice to the Exchequer court, or to a superior or county court of the province within which the claim arises, or to a judge of any such court.
That is the law at the present time.


Howard Charles Green: May I point out to the minister that that is not broad enough to cover another bill? May I have the minister's answer to that submission?


Thomas Vien: If the hon. member will read section 3 of the new bill, he will find that it is stated that-
The provisions of this act shall apply to the
determination of any compensation payable for the requisition or acquisition of any vessel or aircraft or the requirement of any space or accommodation in any vessel heretofore or hereafter requisitioned, acquired or required by or on behalf of his majesty under the provisions of the War Measures Act.


Howard Charles Green: That does not necessarily mean that the provisions of the War Measures Act which the minister has just read will apply to this legislation.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Oh, yes. This bill provides only for rules which help in determining the amount to be paid to the owner for a vessel which has been taken from him under the War Measures Act. I repeat, and I have the authority of the department for my statement, that by this bill we are trying only to provide certain guiding rules which will help in the courts, and the officers of the department in the case of an agreement, to determine what is the fair and reasonable amount which should be paid for a vessel or for space required on a vessel. This bill has nothing to do with the acquisition or requisition; it affects only the fixing of the amount to be paid after we have acquired or requisitioned a vessel.


Howard Charles Green: It is the intention of the government that the right to go to the exchequer court under the War Measures Act shall be retained?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Certainly, in all cases.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: I notice in section 3 that the act shall be retroactive. Would the minister explain why he is making this legislation retroactive?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The act is to have retroactive effect because we want to apply it to the requisitioning or acquiring of vessels which has already taken place but for which the compensation or the price has not yet been fixed. It is intended more particularly to apply the act in cases where we have requisitioned a vessel but have not yet fixed the indemnity.

Compensation Act


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Was not the government empowered under the mobilization act to fix compensation? I do not see what was the point of that act if it did not give the government the power to take over any material resources and fix the compensation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On the
question of retroactive effect, I do not think, having regard to what the minister has stated, it is at all objectionable. The act is to be retroactive onty incidentally, to take care of those cases in which compensation has not yet been fixed. I think that the greatest argument against the bill is on the other principle, that it is an alteration of the common law. The minister has not yet told us the reasons why the departmental officials are urging this enactment. If they are secret and against the interests of the state I will not press for them, but if not, I think they should be disclosed.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister has not
yet answered the question I asked.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, let
him answer, please, the question I asked. It was asked first.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The justification of the
attitude taken by the officers of the department is that they do not feel sure that the courts, in determining the price or the indemnity to be paid for a vessel, will take into account the conditions created by the war, including appreciation due to the war. It is their view that, even though we covered that point by an order in council, the courts might not attach the same importance to a restriction resulting from an order in council as they would attach to legislation of parliament. They wanted to be sure that such appreciation as was due to the war would be taken into consideration.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is
a democracy and we cannot trust the courts! That is a terrible reflection on the courts. Surely the officers of the department, counsel in the department, should not take that attitude. I have never heard such a statement. I repeat, it is a reflection on the courts, a suggestion that they will not administer justice. The fact of the matter is, the departmental officials know that because of the war, willy-nilly values of shipping have gone up and they do not want _ to give to the owner what they would consider an unearned increment. I agree with that so far as it applies to the speculator, to the broker and the middleman. But with respect to the bona fide merchant marine man, if I may use that term, and I think it is permissible, he is entitled to the benefit of the law as it is if you take away his ship. The government should do what the British government does in connection with vessels converted for war purposes. The whole character of the vessel is changed, the government acquires the ship outright, and pays the market value. If the market value cannot be determined, then surely we can trust the courts.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The principle that prevails in England in connection with the requisitioning of vessels is exactly the same principle embodied in this bill. We have not changed it. We are simply reproducing, for the purposes of Canada, the provision that is embodied in the British act. Under the War Measures Act we have the power to require or to requisition vessels, but we wish to help to fix a reasonable indemnity to be paid the owner. That is all that is being provided for.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Has no indemnity or compensation been paid on any of the materials acquired so far by the government under the War Measures Act?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, but the bill does not preclude agreements between the owner and the representative of the crown. When there is an agreement between the owner and the government there is no difficulty at all.


Charles Edward Johnston: This will take the place of the War Measures Act only in regard to settlement?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is supplementary to the War Measures Act in connection with the fixing by the courts of the price or indemnity.


Mr. GRAYDON:: When was the British act passed?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In 1939.


Gordon Graydon: After the war broke out?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Section 3 applies to vessels heretofore requisitioned. Is it intended to open up the terms of any agreements already reached?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: Why is it retroactive, then?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It applies to cases where the indemnity or the price has not been fixed by agreement.


James Lester Douglas: Where they are still in abeyance?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Where the question is still open.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Compensation Act
[Stage Direction]
On section 4-Compensation payable for the requisition of a vessel or aircraft.
Richard Burpee Hanson: How many members have read section 4? I appeal to the lawyers. It is ridiculous to pass a bill like this so quickly. This is the section that sets up the new rules of law, importing new departures from the common law. I indicated one in 4(1) (d). However, if the government is bound to put it through, will the minister promise that the measure will be further studied between now and next session and that it will be submitted to those who may be affected, apart from the treasury? The treasury will look after itself.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes; I certainly will.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And will he come back and rectify any errors, omissions or injustices?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes; I have no objection.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is fair enough. On that basis we shall have to let it go through if the government is bound to put it through.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I wish to move an amendment in respect to paragraph (iii) on page 3 of the bill. There is no necessity for this paragraph because it is covered by section 5. It refers to any vessel acquired after it has been requisitioned by the government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is taken care of by another section?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: By section 5.


Mr. MICHAUD:: I move that subparagraph (iii) of paragraph (e) section 4, subsection 1, be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Howard Charles Green: Paragraph (d) of subsection 1 provides that where a vessel or aircraft has become a total loss the owner shall receive a sum equal to the value of the vessel or aircraft immediately before the occurrence of the damage which caused the loss. I take it that the government have power to improve a vessel, that is, to expend any sum of money they may wish to in order to improve it. If they did that it would hardly be fair, if there were a loss, for the government to pay the owner the cost of the improvements which they had made themselves.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It would be the value of the vessel immediately before the occurrence of the loss or damage.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not the point the hon. member is making. Where a ship has been taken and the com-I" Mr. Cardin.]
pensation has not been fixed, the government having made large expenditures for improvements, such as new boilers, on that ship, a loss occurs-a total loss, or a constructive total loss, which is a term well known in marine insurance law. Then, under 4(1) (d) the government, if the section stands by itself, will be paying the value not only of the ship but of all improvements, unless there is another section that takes care of that. I believe I have correctly stated the hon. member's view.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That section is taken care of by subparagraph (i) at the top of page 3.


Howard Charles Green: The point is not covered
adequately by subparagraph (i), because it says that no account shall be taken of any appreciation in value due to the war, which means general appreciation in the value of the ship because of the war. The government should be protected against paying a second time money which they have spent in improving the ship. They may spend $100,000 or, if the ship is a large one, half a million improving it, and under section 4(1) (d) as it stands the government in the event of a total loss would have to pay this additional amount.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The point is really covered by subparagraph (i) at the top of page 3. Of course in that case, as in any other, the question will be finally decided by the courts if there is no agreement; and the paragraph at the top of page 3 again excludes excess value or appreciation due to the war.


Howard Charles Green: It is defective draughtsmanship.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: And then subsection 6 at the bottom of page 3 defines what is a total loss.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Under
subsection 6 it is declaratory, which according to my memory is the common law at the moment. It goes on to say:
-and accordingly shall be construed as including
constructive total loss-
There may be some overriding provision in the rest of the section, but subsection 6 will not help the minister. The only words he can rely upon to meet the situation mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver South are:
-no account shall be taken of any appreciation in the value thereof due to the war-
If the ship is changed at a great deal of expense, perhaps new boilers put in, that may not be due to the war but rather to the necessity of making the ship serviceable.
This bill should have further consideration. If the minister does not really need it, put

Compensation Act
it over until next session and let us all study it. Then we will help him put it through. I realize that the underlying principle of this bill is to protect the treasury, and that is very commendable; but in attempting to do so the government have walked into one of the most intricate and -involved legal problems it is possible to conceive. The only thing I know that is more -intricate than this measure of expropriation is the law of real property.
I shudder every time I think of the rule in Shelley's case, and similar matters. Let the minister have this bill stand over, and then next session bring in a bill under which just such matters as those referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver South can be given study. This bill does not cover the position that the hon. member suggested, and it is by discussions such as this that the position is clarified. The draughtsman cannot think of everything, even the splendid draughtsmen they have in England; and unless the widest possible construction be given to what is a war cause I think the courts would not be bound by it. They would apply their own construction. The law, you know, is what the judges say it is, not especially what we say here. It is the interpretation the judges place upon what we do here, and if we do not express ourselves properly; if we do not express ourselves after due consideration and clarification and discussion and cross-examination, the judges are going to apply their own construction. I have met with that situation a thousand times in thirty-five or forty years at the bar.
I do suggest that the minister would be well advised to let this bill stand over and bring it back next year. It has great merit, but in the meantime the public treasury can be protected under existing legislation, and if necessary by order in council. Let these gentlemen wait if you cannot agree with them. Of necessity there must be cases of dispute. Personally I should be willing to let the matter go to the courts and permit the existing legislation and rules of common law to prevail. Evidently the departmental officials do not consider that sufficient. All right; then let them come before this high court of parliament and present their case when we can give real consideration to it. I do urge that upon the minister at this time, and I think he would be well advised to accept the suggestion. We will help him put through the bill next session; I give that solemn promise on my part, and I will help him improve the bill. He may not agree that I can do that, but I think I can.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Of course there is always room for improvement.


Mr. ISNOR:: I appreciate the very fine legal point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South, but I think by striking out the words "due to the war" that objection could be met. Certainly changes made to these vessels add to their value.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They add to their cost but not necessarily to their value.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Yes, they add to the value as well as to the cost.


Mr. MacNICOL:: The value to the government, not to the owner.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: It all depends on the nature of the improvements. The installation of new boilers certainly would add to the value as well as to the cost. In any case I offer that suggestion to the minister.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think that would meet the case.


Mr. JAQUES:: Would it not be better, in paragraph (d), to have "a sum equal to the value of the vessel immediately before the requisition of the vessel" instead of "immediately -before the occurrence of the damage"?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not think that would improve the wording. I prefer the section as it is.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the minister is on safer ground. At the risk of delaying the bill I want to ask the minister if there is any real war necessity for this measure at this session. If he says there is then I will be dumb and let the bill go through, because I do not want to impede any legitimate -war effort. If it is desired merely to assist the departmental officials by giving them a club to hold over these people, which they think they need, then we 'had better hold over the matter until next session. Perhaps the minister would be good enough to consult with his officials before three o'clock.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am told that there are cases pending already.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course there are; I know of two or three cases myself. Surely a man ought to have a chance for his life before the courts, and the ground should not be cut out from under his feet. You know it is reprehensible to come into parliament while a case is pending, not exactly in court but while the parties are at arm's length, and pass an act that takes the ground from under a claimant. In peace-time we would not consider doing that for a moment
Compensation Act

I remember a case in New Brunswick which has been an object lesson to me all my life. While the case was in court, actually under appeal, the attorney general of the province, who was counsel in the case, went to the legislature and put through an amendment, though the case was almost sub judice. That was a great lesson to me in what shocking things can be done.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Of course the situation is very different in peace-time. My hon. friend says this takes the ground from under the feet of the owner. I venture to suggest that if the owner wants to take advantage of the war situation to increase the price that is ground he should not be permitted to have.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But you took his ship. You could have left him alone.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, and we are paying him a reasonable price for it, but we are not going to compensate him for any advantage or special privilege due to the war.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.
Sections 4 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1940-41
[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1941, was presented by Hon. J. L. Usley (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.

Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I have here a newspaper headline which has been sent to me by one of the members and I think the statement it contains should be contradicted at once. I will read the clipping from the newspaper, a recent issue, and the comment made under it:
Fraser Valley Member Died on Fishing Trip.
A clipping from a recent newspaper. Please raise a question in the chamber if this statement is untrue.
Alarmed colleague
The dead shall rise.
This is a gross exaggeration.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Order. Let us have a little dignity.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, August 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacKinnon (Edmonton West) for the second reading of Bill No. 11S, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to delay the house longer than is absolutely necessary, but I do feel some observations ought to be made before the bill is read the second time.
I should like to say at once that the importance of this measure ought to ha%re warranted its having been brought down several weeks ago. Apparently the reason for not having brought it down is that the government has not yet agreed upon any policy which could be presented to the house. That has been most evident in the last two days.
The Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) a couple of days ago characterized as "moonshine" the suggestion of the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) with respect to an advance on grain held on the farm. And yet only yesterday the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) indicated that an amendment along those lines was being considered, and that perhaps a suggestion might be laid before the house for the payment of some advance. At least that is the interpretation I place upon the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce as they are reported at page 2252 of Hansard. They are as follows:
... in addition to these amendments-
Which he had been outlining to the house.
-the matter of financing the portions of the grain which necessarily will be retained in the farmers' own granaries has been receiving our serious consideration.
And I hope-


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: In addition to the amendments.


Major James William Coldwell: -since it has been receiving the serious consideration of the government, that we may expect some action in that regard.
Last night the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner), who is also Minister of Agriculture, said that two things might be done. In Hansard he is reported to have said this:

Canadian Wheat Board
There are two ways in which we can deal with the problem. One is to encourage the farmers and the other is to have someone put up additional storage.
I did not understand it quite in that way, because the note I have before me, and which I made last night, reads, "-have someone to guarantee the cost of storage." However, I may have misunderstood what the minister said. In any event that indicates again that there is no clear-cut policy. Farther down on the page the Minister of Agriculture admitted that when he said:
-somewhere along the way during the next five or six months we shall know exactly what we can do.
Obviously he was speaking in relation to a wheat policy.
The question which everyone in western Canada has been asking-and in the last two or three days members of the house from all parts of western Canada have been asking the same question-is this:	What is going
to be done? It seems to me that the grain policy, like the passport branch of the Department of External Affairs, is nothing but confusion and bewilderment. Having regard to conditions in the west I should like to see the position thoroughly cleared up before the session concludes, because we have so much grain on hand and are about to reap so much more that we are puzzled to know what to do with it, and in this respect Canada is facing a very difficult situation.
A few years ago we thought poverty was the result of failure of the harvest and the lack of other necessities. Now we know we are going to be faced with a different kind of poverty on the farm, that of having too much of certain agricultural commodities. Last night the Minister of Agriculture went to considerable length in criticizing the critics of the government, and in endeavouring to vindicate and to excuse its policy since 1935. But if in the past few years there has been dissatisfaction with the government's policy, it is in no small measure attributable to the statements of the Minister of Agriculture himself and those who supported him in western Canada. I recall very distinctly the provincial election campaign in 1934 when Saskatchewan was plastered with Liberal leaflets promising dollar wheat. "Dollar wheat will pay your store bill; dollar wheat will provide you with a telephone; dollar wheat will send your son or daughter to the university; dollar wheat will buy your wife a new dress-vote Liberal." When our farmers find that they must pay higher prices than prevailed in 1934 and 95826-148
receive a Fort William price which returns them only 50 cents a bushel at the farm, only half a dollar, is it any wonder that they express dissatisfaction?
Last evening the minister did not discuss the events following the accession to power of the present regime in 1935. He carefully avoided them, but he tried to prove that Mr. McFarland was inimical to the best interests of Canada and it was necessary to make a change in the board. If that is true, how much truer is the fact that the gentleman who followed him did not operate in the best interests of the Dominion of Canada? We have not forgotten what happened on the night of December 12-13, 1935, when some millions of bushels of wheat were sold at a price two and three-quarter cents 'below the opening price the next morning. We have not forgotten that in the days and months that followed the selling price of Canadian wheat on the Winnipeg exchange was below the Argentine level for an inferior quality of grain. If there is dissatisfaction, much of it is due to the statements made by the Liberal party in western Canada prior to the 1935 election.
I am not going over the whole story because I do not want to take up the time; besides, it has been told a number of times in this house. We have heard how the west was disappointed over the wheat board not operating for the 1936 crop. We have heard how in the month of July, 1937, in the face of drought and disaster, the largest amount of wheat ever sold in a single month was sold by the wheat board, and incidentally a great deal of it never left the places where ft had been before. The price last year was disappointing. It has been said that the large mechanized farmer could do pretty well on the price set last year and the price set this year. I would refer again to the figure given by Professor Hope, who pointed out that the farmers who could raise wheat at the low cost indicated by the minister in this house a year ago last April were not more than one per cent and were to be found only on the superior land, with units of two or more sections, equipped with tractor, combine, truck and every other modern facility and without an accumulated debt. There will be dissatisfaction just as long as low prices prevail and the farmer has to pay higher prices for his machinery and everything else that enters into his cost of production.
Sooner or later we shall have to face the facts in connection with our whole wheat situation. It is of no use to indulge in wishful thinking. We hope that the day may come speedily, during the war or immediately

Canadian Wheat Board

afterwards, when the wheat which we have accumulated will be needed by the people of the world. But we have no guarantee that that will happen. Even if there is a year or two when we can dispose of our great surpluses, I doubt very much if we can look forward to a continuation of the markets which we once had in the world. It seems to me that this is a challenging situation and one to which we should be giving attention. I was disappointed that the suggestion of the Prime Minister, made soon after the house assembled, that a committee made up of representatives of all parts of this house should be appointed to consider after-war problems and devise ways and means of meeting those problems, was not put into effect. When the war ends we shall be faced with tremendous problems which ought to be receiving attention now. Undoubtedly one of those problems will be what will happen to agriculture after the war is over. I do not contemplate that Hitler will win the war, but whether he wins or loses we should keep in mind the fact that Europe either will be highly organized as a self-sufficient unit or it will be impoverished. In any event, the effect upon western agriculture will be such as to cause considerable difficulty to this country.
Last night, the Minister of Agriculture pointed out, and quite properly, that in 1937 the dominion had assisted Saskatchewan to the extent of some 128,000,000 by way of relief. For that assistance the people of the west are truly grateful; there is no question about that. However, I would remind hon. members from eastern Canada that the late minister of national defence, Hon. Norman Rogers, published certain figures in connection with the tariff when he was professor of economics at Queen's university. He was acting as adviser to a royal commission sitting in the maritime provinces, and he stated that because of the tariff protection given to the industries of eastern Canada, the people of Saskatchewan had to pay in excess of $26,000,000 per year. I have just forgotten the exact figure, but it was about that. When we think of the contribution made by the dominion in 1937 to the distressed areas of that province, let us keep in mind that in that one year those people were only receiving back the contribution which they had made annually because of tariff tolls. The same figure was placed on record in the Saskatchewan brief presented to the Sirois commission by no less a personage than the former attorney general, Mr. Justice Davis, who is now deputy minister of the Department of National War Services.
I was sorry to hear the minister introduce last night the question of ingratitude for some of the supplies which were sent to the west. I notice the newspapers have rather played that up to-day. Hon. members from western Canada know that the real codfish which was sent to western Canada was used and appreciated. As the minister once admitted in this house, a large amount of the fish sent at that time was unsaleable fish, notably pollock.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have never admitted that a large proportion of the fish was unsaleable fish of any kind.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Of course I accept the minister's statement, but I would point out to him that I can show him the page in Hansard.


James Garfield Gardiner: I said that it was a lower-priced fish. I did not say that it was unsaleable.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister said "unsaleable".


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say it was unsaleable.


Major James William Coldwell: Perhaps the minister did not admit it was unsaleable, but he admitted it was pollock. It is a low grade fish.


James Garfield Gardiner: A lower-priced fish.


Major James William Coldwell: A scavenger fish, as a matter of fact, and the dried pollock shipped to western Canada was responsible for all the criticism of the shipment at that time. That is the fish, I take it, which the minister saw on sign posts and elsewhere in the province of Saskatchewan.
I wish to support those members who have suggested that either through cooperative societies, if they can be formed quickly enough, or through the use of some government agency, a system of exchange might be worked out so that users of low grade grain and feeds in eastern or far western Canada, on the Pacific coast, could avail themselves of those grades for feed purposes.
We have often discussed in this house freight rates and their effect upon the poultry raisers and the cattle feeders of the Pacific coast and of Ontario and the maritime provinces. It seems to me that at this time when we are trying to solve this agricultural problem we might as well take into consideration the granting of special low rates for feed grains so that the people of British Columbia and of the maritime provinces in the east might avail themselves of some of the surpluses of these products which we have in western

Canadian Wheat Board
Canada at this moment. These are some matters which I think should have been considered earlier in the session.
The Minister of Mines and Resources yesterday gave an interesting outline of the rise of the various organized farmer movements in western Canada some years ago. I look back now upon some twenty-three years and I remember that my introduction to federal politics was in connection with the policies of the council of agriculture supporting the movement which was then led by the gentleman who is now Minister of Mines and Resources.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The gentle shepherd.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, I did not follow
him where he led. One of the proposals of that group at that time was in another form, the proposal which has been made in this house in the last several years-the marketing of wheat through a wheat board.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, that was not in the
original programme of the council of agriculture.


Major James William Coldwell: If it was not in the
original programme of 1917 or 1919 it was certainly in the programme of the progressive group in 1921 when it was sent to this house. I have on my desk the Hansard of 1922 and I find the minister's own speech when he was dealing with the resolution to set up a wheat board. At page 2923 of Hansard of June 14, 1922, the present Minister of Mines and Resources said this:
After all, what is the central idea back of a wheat marketing scheme such as proposed-
That was a wheat board.


Mr. PERLEY:: Vote for Motherwell and
the wheat board.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister went on:
-such as has been asked for by the council of agriculture. It is this: To regulate the flow of wheat to the market so that 75 per cent of our crop is not dumped on the market in three months of the year. That is the purpose of this marketing agency. If such an agency is created it can store the wheat in elevator storage. If there is a surplus in Europe at any particular time, if the export demand is weak or absent, then such a board can regulate the flow of the grain to the market by holding it hack until that demand again resumes.
Those are the words of the Minister of Mines and Resources, and yesterday it was with amazement that I heard him criticizing the pools and accusing them of having held back wheat from the market, accusing John I. McFarland and the stabilization board of having done that very thing. Yet in 1922 when he came down here as leader of the
Progressive group he made that proposal himself on the floor of this house in the words I have just read out of Hansard of June 14, 1922.
I noticed too that the minister said yesterday that the pool first suggested participation certificates. One of the proposals in the resolution of 1922 was that the farmers should be paid an initial price for their grain and that thereafter participation certificates should be issued. I remembered that when the minister was speaking yesterday, and I thought I would look it up in Hansard to verify my memory of it, which I did this morning.
The minister said yesterday that one of the reasons for the farmers' movement in western Canada years ago was the desire to get away from what he called the exactions of the line elevator companies. That is true, and it is precisely what they are trying to do to-day, to get away from the exactions of the line elevator companies, and that is the secret probably of their continued organization. The grain interests exact tolls from the farmers not only through the elevators but in other ways through the grain exchange.
Perhaps many members of the house do not know, because I take it they have not followed the record closely, that in June, 1922, a wheat board act was actually passed by this parliament, but it never became operative. There you have the beginning of the pools. The farmers had taken their plunge into politics. They had attained the passage of a bill through parliament, and then all of a sudden they found themselves left high and dry with an act on the statute book that was inoperative; and they found their leader moving steadily over into another political party. Because of that they said: Let us desert polities and turn to something else. Then came the rise of the pools.
May I just say this to the minister. He spoke unkindly yesterday of Aaron Sapiro. I know very little of Aaron Sapiro, but the pools were being organized before Aaron Sapiro came to western Canada. He was invited when the Alberta pool was in effect organized, after Mr. Brownlee and Mr. McGillivray, I believe, had drafted the pool contract.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is not correct.


Major James William Coldwell: It may not be correct, but it is my recollection. I would say this to the hon. gentleman. I do know that Aaron Sapiro was not responsible for' the rise of pool sentiment in western Canada. All he did-he was a fine platform man-was to come into Saskatchewan and crystallize the latent idea of the people in support of
Canadian Wheat Board

cooperation. I was surprised that the minister yesterday would characterize Aaron Sapiro as an Italian with a fascist complex. I do not know what led the minister to speak of him as an Italian with a fascist complex, except that the name sounds Italian. But as a matter of fact Aaron Sapiro is a Jew, and I have yet to find a Jew who is very fond of the fascist complex either within himself or anywhere else.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: He was an Italian.


Thomas Miller Bell: Well, he is a Jew. I remember that he sued Henry Ford for libel in connection with some anti-Semitic propaganda that was put out some years ago.


Mr. HANSELL:: Everybody knows Who Aaron was.


Major James William Coldwell: Of course that would not make him a Jew, but he was a Jew for all that.
Other speakers have dealt at some length with the farmers' attempts to stabilize their wheat prices. All the farmers of western Canada tried to do was to feed their product to the market to stabilize the price, in order that they might receive a reasonable return for their product. That is substantially the case for the western pools and the case against the grain exchange. What function does the exchange perform to-day? We have been told, and it has never been denied, that within the last four or five weeks we have sold more than 50,000,000 bushels of wheat to the British government, and at a price some cents above the pegged price on the Winnipeg exchange. I assume that since it has not been denied it is true, because as a rule a statement which is not accurate gets speedy denial in this house. That being the case, who can argue to-day that the grain exchange is of any value to the western farmer as a price barometer? One buyer negotiated a purchase, presumably with the Canada wheat board, and set a price over the pegged price, because probably the British buyer regarded the price which was agreed upon as fairer than the pegged price. That adds strength to our argument that 70 cents per bushel can by no means be considered fair and reasonable.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) stated yesterday that wheat was not under his department. That is true; but may I say that although I have often criticized the Minister of Agriculture I should like to see the marketing of wheat under his department.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not
"under."


Major James William Coldwell: I will put it this way:
I should like to see the marketing of wheat supervised by the Minister of Agriculture- and for quite obvious reasons. Some of our ministers of trade and commerce have not taken kindly to the idea that one of their functions was the marketing of wheat. I remember that Mr. Malcolm, who was Minister of Trade and Commerce in a former Liberal administration, stated on one occasion that the business of the Department of Trade and Commerce was to endeavour to find outlets for manufactured goods, but commodities like wheat could find their own markets-or words to that effect.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What he did say was that the department was never a travelling salesman, for the sale of goods; they would find avenues, but they would not sell.


Major James William Coldwell: I said, "find outlets." The minister spoke of one of his greatest responsibilities as being the mobilization of wheat under the mobilization act. Well, how has he mobilized it? At 50 cents a bushel on the farm. That does not meet the costs of production of the average western farmer.
As I said at the outset, we have got to face facts, and we know that a market is going to be difficult to find. We may have to hold this wheat for some time. But, if all that the minister and others have said regarding the value of wheat in post-war years is true, we should not ask one section of our population, those who produce this wheat, to carry that load for an indefinite time. That, it seems to me, is a responsibility for the entire dominion. A price of 70 cents at Fort William for No. 1 northern, means around 50 cents, according to the location, on the western farm, and for grades below No. 1 northern, the price, of course, is less. I suggest that during this year a reasonable quota of deliveries should be adopted by the government. It cannot be said that five or even ten bushels an acre on a quarter section farm is sufficient; it will give too small a cash return to the producer. Some other system will have to be worked out. We may have to set a maximum of deliveries by the larger farmers and grade the quota on the basis of giving, if possible, every man enough cash to enable him to operate this year and next spring. That of course involves the idea which has been presented to the government a number of times from this side of the house, the idea of either outright purchases by the government, or an advance- the amount suggested by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) is 40 cents per bushel .-and then participation certificates and compensation for storage. Even if this course

Canadian Wheat Board
is taken, it will be necessary for the provincial governments to do something in the way of a moratorium on debt. Debt charges cannot be met on this price of wheat.
These are matters which have been brought to my attention. They are matters upon which, I believe, with slight modifications, hon. members from western Canada, irrespective of their political groupings, substantially agree. These are the things we want. We do not wish to hold up the house a moment longer than is necessary.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On the point of a moratorium on debts of the farmers of western Canada: if he asks for that, would he not include the farmers of eastern Canada? Just think where that will lead him.


Major James William Coldwell: I would include the farmers of eastern Canada. But I was not dealing with the condition of eastern Canada; I was speaking on the bill before us, which has to do with wheat, and which, because of the agricultural conditions, deals almost exclusively with wheat in western Canada. Undoubtedly some wheat is produced in eastern Canada, but the amount is relatively small.


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: Eventually all classes in Canada would ask for a moratorium.


Major James William Coldwell: That may be necessary if economic conditions become bad because one or more of our great industries are in a depressed condition. But at the moment I am not arguing about that. When the situation arises, we or the provincial governments will have to deal with it. May I point out to the hon. member that we are not asking all classes in the community to store their products and to accept a deferred payment for those products or for their labour. The conditions are not on all fours.


William Ross Macdonald: When they are not able to sell their products they will have to store them.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, then, they can be considered and they should be considered.
Just before I sit down may I say this to the Minister of Agriculture. I hold no brief for the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen), but I did think that the minister's criticisms last night were undeserved. The hon. member for North Battleford comes from a constituency which has suffered from poverty and want in many of its parts, as I have reason to know, having visited the constituency and seen the condition.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They had Mr. McIntosh here.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, that didn't seem to help very much. In bringing that condition before this house the hon. member was exercising not only her privilege and her right but was doing her duty as well, and I think that the reference to "people who have come from other countries " was in very bad taste. I came to this country rather more than thirty years ago, and I came from England. I have lived in Canada for over thirty years and I have raised my family here. I consider myself and others who came with me or subsequently just as loyal to this country as any people who were born in Canada; and as a British subject, I have just as much right to discuss public questions here as someone who was born in Ontario and who lived for a number of years in the United States-


James Garfield Gardiner: That is exactly what
I said.


Major James William Coldwell: -as the Minister of Agriculture himself did.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is exactly what
I said. I said that no one coming here had a right to unload all the troubles of Europe upon us and say that we were responsible.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member for
North Battleford was unloading the troubles of her constituency, and that is very far removed from Europe. I submit that criticism of that kind ought not to have been made in this house.
We have the bill before us and I am hoping that before it gets its final reading amendments will be brought in to provide that the farmers themselves-not the elevator companies, who I understand hope that some assistance may be obtained from the government to enable them to build additional annexes and bins-will find it possible, as has been done in some European countries, to store their grain and receive some remuneration for the services they are thus rendering the country at this time. I trust that a substantial advance will be given so that, at least, western Canada may not be reduced to a virtual state of bankruptcy.


Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: Speaking on
the second reading of the bill, I would repeat what I said on the first reading, namely, that I regret very much that the bill has been brought in at this late stage. It should have been introduced in time to be thoroughly discussed by the committee on agriculture, but that is utterly impossible at this late date.
Canadian Wheat Board

There are only one or two points which I wish to touch upon at the moment. One is in connection with the one cent service charge which was paid by arrangement last year. I understand that this arrangement did not have anything whatever to do with the board of grain commissioners but was a distinct understanding between the wheat board and the trade. I emphasize that because some six hundred municipal delegates representing the province of Manitoba assembled last fall in Winnipeg and passed a resolution strenuously opposing the one cent service charge, which was levied simply for a transfer of documents and was over and above other regular elevator and service charges. It is too free a hand-out to the grain trade and I protest against it. In the second place, I trust that when we are in the committee stage the minister will have before him the agreement which was entered into last year between the wheat board and the grain trade. According to my interpretation of section 19 of the agreement they have paid the grain trade storage from the time of delivery of the wheat. Under the grain act, wheat delivered is allowed fifteen days' free storage, free storage in transit, and so on, almost a month's storage, and as I interpret that section of the agreement the grain trade has been allowed storage for the extra month-that is, from the time of delivery or the time they make the daily reports in connection therewith.
We have been informed by the Canadian Wheat Board that from the first of August last year until June of this year, a matter of ten months, the sum of .over $14,000,000 was paid for storage. On the basis of my interpretation, they paid one-tenth of that sum, or $1,400,000, to the trade, which is unnecessary. I hope therefore that the agreement will be before the committee when we come to consider the different sections of the bill.
In connection with this question of storage I would emphasize further what the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) said, as reported at page 1960 of Hansard of this session. He pointed out that storage and handling charges in the grain trade amounted to $50,000,000, which is one-quarter of the amount the producers received for the grain marketed. Approximately $200,000,000 was received by the producers, and the grain trade, in handling expenses, received $50,000000. That statement has not been refuted and that is something that should be remedied. I believe that members of the grain trade are present in this city. They have certain ideas of their own, that this government

should finance them and build the addition to their elevator systems at this time. There may be merit in that but I hope the government will not take their appeal too seriously. There is a good deal of merit in putting grain in storage on the farms and financing same. At this time the farmers are entitled to such consideration. I know they will receive it at the hands of the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) and I hope his colleagues will back him up.
There is one other suggestion I wish to make in reference to the system of appointments from the standpoint of producer representation on the advisory board. It is all very well to say that on a committee of eleven, six members may be producers; but the minister or the government may select these men and they may be selected on a political basis or on some other basis not truly representative of the producers. I suggest to the minister that he ask certain agricultural organizations of western Canada to make some of the appointments. For instance, he might ask each of the municipal unions of the three prairie provinces to appoint one man, and he might ask the agricultural federation or some other outstanding recognized agricultural organization to make an appointment to the advisory board so as to ensure that the producers of the prairie provinces should have adequate representation of their own choice rather than of the government's. That is fair and I hope the minister will keep that suggestion in mind.
I do not want to take up any more of the time of the house but I simply wish to emphasize these points. We shall be considering the matter further in committee and therefore I will not discuss it at any greater length just now.


Charles Edward Johnston: I know it is getting late to discuss this bill, but after I heard the wrangling last night, political wrangling at this late time, I cannot see that we are so very much rushed, and in view of that fact I suggest that there is important legislation before us which should not be unduly expedited. The bill that was before the house a short while ago, sponsored by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) should not have been rushed through its various stages, nor should this bill be pushed through in great haste.
It is difficult to discuss this bill because it is not yet in its final form, and we as members have no idea what proposals the government has in mind. Let us look for a few minutes at the storage question. That is something that is quite indefinite as it stands in the bill. We do not know what amount

Canadian Wheat Board
the farmer will get for the storage of his wheat on the farm, and that is a vital point. In view of the fact that the elevator companies have received something like $14,000,000 for storage, and we should know definitely what price they will get, I think it only fair that concrete information should be given the house. We are promised it will be less than one cent, but we should know more definitely. If the farmer is to be asked to store this wheat, for whom is he being asked to store it? For the Dominion of Canada in war-time. If that is true, as unquestionably it is, these farmers should be given every assistance, and instead of paying the elevator companies a cent a bushel for storage that money should be given the farmers, who also should be assisted to build granaries on their farms. That is a capital investment. The government has taken every precaution to see that the war industries do not lose a cent. They are given cost plus contracts and all the rest of it, and it is only fair that the government should see that the same things are done for the great industry of agriculture. The farmer has never received the cost of production; why should he be asked not only to raise the wheat at a loss but also to store it at a loss until it is required?
The farmers are not to be given an opportunity to sell their wheat; they are to be asked to store it on their farms, and they have no idea, as hon. members of this house have no idea, how much they are going to receive by way of an advance. That is a most unsatisfactory way of doing business. Would this government consider for a moment asking the aeroplane industry, for instance, to start manufacturing aeroplanes without telling them what they were going to be paid? Why, even in connection with the smallest unit going into the manufacture of aeroplanes the cost is estimated, and the companies are given a bonus if they can bring down the cost below the agreed figure. But here we have the farmers struggling to make expenses, and they are not given the same consideration. Last night the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) admitted that the average farmer could not produce grain at seventy cents, yet that is all we are offering him in this house, and so far the government have not agreed to give these people a decent advance on the grain they will have to store on their farms. I believe the government could make an advance of forty cents, as has been suggested, in perfect safety.
In support of that statement I should like to quote what was said in this house by the
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) on April 5, 1939, appearing at page 2627 of
Hansard:
-I should say that in only two years out of the last forty-nine, for which we have the records, has wheat been below sixty cents on an average throughout the year, and in one of those years it was only one-fifth of a cent below. I read in the debates of 1935 in the speech of the then leader of the government, that up to that time in only one year out of four hundred had that been the case.
If that is true-and I do not doubt the accuracy of the minister's statement-certainly we would be safe in making an advance payment of at least forty cents a bushel. Then the minister went on to make it more definite:
But I checked for myself the last forty-nine years, and I find there were only two years during that period in which the average price was below sixty cents. In one it was 59-8 cents, and in the other it was 54 cents and a fraction. Those years were 1932 and 1933.
I should like the committee to note particularly the next sentence:
We therefore think that the government is taking little if any risk in a scheme of this kind as far as the sixty cent advance is concerned.
So that the Minister of Agriculture admitted quite frankly that it would be possible to give these farmers an advance of at least forty cents a bushel, and I am sure every hon. member would rejoice if that were done. The Minister of Mines and Resources said this was mere moonshine, but as the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) pointed out, the minister receives a good substantial amount for his expenses, so that he should not begrudge other people getting a little bit for themselves.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the people of eastern Canada, and possibly some hon. members of this house, are not really conversant with farm conditions in western Canada. I have heard it stated in this house that farmers could make money at forty to fifty cents a bushel. Anyone who makes a statement like that certainly does not know conditions in the west. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) is a westerner, and I hope he realizes that agricultural conditions out there are bad and that the farmers are not even receiving the cost of production. I hope he intends so to amend this legislation as to permit them to be given a good substantial advance.
In order that hon. members may be informed as to conditions in the west I should like to read a short extract from a report of the Searle Grain company, dated February 7, 1940:


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: That is at the highest freight rate.


Charles Edward Johnston: No, that is not the highest. It is still higher up in the Peace River district.


John Gordon Ross: It is very nearly the highest.


Charles Edward Johnston: That would be a fair average of the amount the farmers would have to pay.


John Gordon Ross: No.


Charles Edward Johnston: What is it, then?


John Gordon Ross: About three
cents.


Charles Edward Johnston: My hon. friend says "about". He does not know any more about it than I do, yet he is trying to correct me. Unless he knows definitely he should not contradict me. I am willing to be corrected, but I want to get the exact information. I say 5-4, and up in the far comer of the Peace River district it will be still higher. I believe I know why wheat is being

sent through Port Arthur; it is because of the dangers of shipping through Vancouver. But then that is not the responsibility of the people of Alberta. They are not responsible particularly for bringing on the war and creating that condition. It is an emergency which must be met by all the people of Canada. If there is going to be a loss, it will be a loss brought about by war conditions, and therefore it should be absorbed by the entire population of Canada.
It was my intention to introduce an amendment in this form:
That paragraph (e) of section 3 be amended by inserting in line 4 after the word "Arthur" the following words, "or Vancouver".
I do not think it necessary, however, so to move, because I am sure the Minister of Trade and Commerce intends to bring down the amendment and make the proper adjustment.
All hon. members realize that the 70 cents to be paid throughout Canada, including western Canada, is most unfair. Hon. members in this comer of the house have continually advocated a price higher than that. Last year we asked for 95 cents a bushel at the local elevator for No. 1 northern.


John Ritchie MacNicol: How does the hon.
member arrive at the figure of 95 cents a bushel?


Charles Edward Johnston: Those are the figures of the grain commission in Manitoba held two years ago, and headed by Professor Hope.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is that the rate Professor Hope set?


Charles Edward Johnston: He said that to take care of proper living conditions it should be at least 95 cents.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It was Professor Hope who stipulated 95 cents?


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, in his report-and that is not a bit too much, when we consider that since the beginning of the war the articles the farmer has to buy have increased in price. Certainly when the prices of articles the farmer has to buy have increased to such a great extent, it is only reasonable to suppose that the farmer should get at least a dollar a bushel. It was with that in mind that notice was given of the resolution standing in my name, which appears as the second resolution on page 6 of the order paper for to-day. This resolution asks that the price of No. 1 northern wheat be fixed at not less than one dollar a bushel at the local elevator.
The other day the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) said that he had

Canadian Wheat Board
always advocated the equalization and the pooling of freight rates. I did not notice that he supported the bill introduced a year ago which had that for its purpose. Indeed he voted against it, despite the fact that that was the very thing we were advocating. When we stipulate a price at the local elevator it means that the freight rate must be pooled, and in my opinion that is the only proper procedure. Because of exorbitant freight rates in western Canada it is almost impossible for the people to buy the goods they desire. When we in western Canada endeavour to start an industry we arouse the concern of the Minister of Finance, because he fears we may create an industry out there which might compete with an industry in eastern Canada. Yet the people in eastern Canada will not consent to lower freight rates so that we may get what we need at decent prices. Unless eastern Canada recognizes the fact that it must treat western Canada as it should be treated, then of course western Canada must look to some means of taking care of itself. It is quite obvious that the prosperity of eastern Canada depends entirely upon the prosperity of western Canada. A year ago the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) placed on Hansard figures which showed definitely an increase in the business for eastern Canada, due entirely to a good crop in western Canada. That was especially true, so far as machinery companies, cereal companies and all other manufacturing companies in eastern Canada were concerned. There is no better way of increasing the purchasing power of the people in Canada than by giving the farmer a decent price for the goods he has to sell.
As has been stated before, I was sorry indeed to hear the Minister of Agriculture make a political speech, as he did last night. All hon. members know about conditions in western Canada. We know, too, that we are at war. It is surprising to me to hear the Minister of Agriculture in one breath plead for unity across Canada and in the next breath set up barriers and do everything within his power to bring about discord. I venture to say the speech he made last night will cause a great deal of hard feelings in Canada, and a great deal of indignation-and I think it should, too. Certainly his remarks in reference to the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen) were not warranted. When he speaks about relief conditions in Saskatchewan let me tell him that I happen to have been there, and I saw some of that fish he was talking about. I do not know what the condition of the fish was when the Minister of Agriculture saw it, or when it left eastern Canada, but I know definitely what its condition was when it reached the farmers of Saskatchewan. I
was in a house, and I know that you could smell that stuff as far as from here to the Chateau Laurier. It was not fit for a dog to eat.


James Garfield Gardiner: A pretty big house.


Charles Edward Johnston: Then, when I was coming along the road I looked round, and here was one of those things nailed to a red sign. I knew by the smell of it that it was political and it read, "Vote Liberal, and get hooked like we did."


Mr. GRANT:: That is gratitude for free
fish.


Charles Edward Johnston: That may not have been the condition of all the fish, but certainly that was the condition of some of it. I am quite sure, as the minister said, that the people of western Canada were grateful to receive the fish. But surely "grateful" is the wrong word. The people in western Canada do not want charity, and they do not get charity; don't make any mistake about that. We pay plenty for anything we get. Every year western Canada pays more than $50,000,-000-and what for? It pays it because of the tariff protection afforded eastern Canada.
We are talking about subsidizing the farmer in connection with the price he obtains for his wheat. Do not think that that is charity. And I do think, as the Minister of Agriculture put it the other day, that the people in eastern Canada are willing to assist the farmers of western Canada in these difficult times. But charity is not what the people in western Canada are asking for, and don't make any mistake about that. The people in western Canada are not going round begging from anyone, because let me tell you this, that if they were allowed to trade with the United States they would get along a whole lot better than they do when trading with eastern Canada. But it is because the people out there are patriotic and because they want to keep the dominion together that they trade with the east. Of course we are willing to trade with the east, but it must be willing to trade with us. Our trade must be on a reciprocal basis.
Last night the Minister of Agriculture went to great lengths in castigating the hon. member for North Battleford because of the statements she made in regard to the amounts allowed for relief. She mentioned the sum of $8 or $9 a month to keep a family of five.


James Garfield Gardiner: Nine.


Charles Edward Johnston: Well, it
does not matter much. After it gets past five it does not make much difference. I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture ever
Canadian Wheat Board

tried to feed a family of nine on $8 or $9 a month? Then, he suggested the figure was wrong, and that it should have been placed at $20. Well, if he is right in that let him try to keep a family of nine on $20 a month, and see how far he will get. Many of them are not receiving that much. When one compares $20 a month for nine persons with $20 a day for one man-well, it just does not sound good, does it? Or if one were to compare it with $35 a day for another man, it still does not sound good, does it? And when people in Canada are forced to live on such meagre monthly expenditures, and are asked to support nine children on such a small amount, they begin to wonder what the government is doing toward unifying the people throughout the dominion. This government has paid the living allowances-I am speaking only of the bare living allowances-of these gentlemen at the rate of $20 and $35 per day. It must have cost them that much per day to live because surely they would not pad their expense account. They must have lived pretty high. When the farmer was drinking slough water they must have been drinking champagne. Such conditions are not healthy, they do not constitute good business.


Mr. MAYHEW:: The hon. member means that slough water is not healthy.


Charles Edward Johnston: Perhaps too much champagne is not.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Don't look at me; I didn't get any.


Charles Edward Johnston: I was not intimating that my hon. friend had.' I say that the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture were both unfair and uncalled for. I shall not take up any more of the.time of the house, because I intend to discuss this a little more fully when we are in committee.


An hon, MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Charles Edward Johnston: There
should be a greater degree of understanding between the different sections of the country. If hon. members who say "hear, hear" would only study these conditions a little more fully, it might assist in the successful prosecution of this war. What would hon. members do if the farmers of western Canada had adopted the same attitude as the manufacturers in the east and said, "We will not raise a bushel of wheat until we get the price we ask"? Many people would have had to tighten their belts a little. The farmers could very well have done that; for you cannot starve the majority of farmers off their land. But that is not what we want. We want to prosecute this war to the best advantage of all concerned, and that cannot be done with a divided country. We must have a united people; therefore let us give the farmer a decent break. That is all he is asking for.


John Gordon Ross: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up much of the time of the house, but I should like to reply to one or two statements which have been made. A moment ago the hon. member referred1 to freight rates on Alberta wheat, and he said that a differential of 5-4 cents was about the average they had to pay.


Charles Edward Johnston: I think it is really higher than that by way of the Peace river.


John Gordon Ross: I should like to give the rates to Fort William and to Vancouver from different points in the Peace river district so that hon. members may see the differential. They are as follows:
To Fort William
per	To Vaneouver	Difference	hundred	per hundred	per hundred	Differencepounds	pounds	pounds	per bushelCents	Cents	Cents	CentsFairview 	26	9	5-4Huallen	28	9	5-4Woking	26	9	5-4Clairmont	27	8i	5-1Sexsmith	27	84	5-1Beaverlodge	29	8	4-8Wembley	28	8	4-8Dawson Creek	30	8	4-8Pouce Coupe	30	8	4-8Grande Prairie	28	74	4-5Hines Creek	27	8	4-8
(Mr. C. E. Johnston.]

Canadian Wheat Board
The following are the rates from different points in Alberta:
	To Fort William	To Vancouver	
per hundred	per hundred	Difference perpounds	pounds	bushelCents	Cents	CentsEdmonton 	20-6	3-6Calgary	
26	20-6	3-6Empress	
24	23-1	[DOT]6Lacombe 	
27	22-5	3-0Medicine Hat	
24	23-1	[DOT]6Wetaskiwin 	
26	22-4	2*4Athabaska 	
29	22-7	4-2Lethbridge 	
25	22-3	1-8Grande Prairie	
35*	28-7J	4*5
Those are the differentials between the rates to Vancouver and to Fort William. When I said to my hon. friend that the average was about three cents, I was a good deal closer to being right than he was when he said it was 5-4 cents, which is the highest rate from any point in Alberta.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The general average is about three cents.


John Gordon Ross: That is the
statement I made.


Howard Charles Green: Where is the dividing line? From what point are the rates to Fort William and Vancouver the same?


John Gordon Ross: It is between
Medicine Hat and Swift Current; it is near Swift Current, Saskatchewan. I did not make the statement that they should be penalized. I am in full agreement with Vancouver being in the bill, and I have been all the time. I want to tell my hon. friend from Alberta that the members from Saskatchewan were in full agreement with that principle and helped to get it in the bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it not true that the freight rates on wheat are lower than the rates on any other commodity for export?


John Gordon Ross: Yes, possibly
they are. I am not going to argue with my hon. friend about it, but the one year in which the raiLways of Canada show a profit is the year when a large wheat crop is moved.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is a
mass movement.


John Gordon Ross: That is what the rate is for.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let us be fair to the railways.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Did the hon. member say that the Saskatchewan members had persuaded the Minister of Trade and Commerce to change the bill and put in Vancouver?


John Gordon Ross: No, I did not say that.
When the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) was speaking the other evening, I interrupted him once or twice, especially when he was referring to the stabilization operations, and also when he questioned whether the department or the minister should not give information with regard to the holdings of the wheat board and the amounts of money owed by that board. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle referred to the record, and I thought it would be well if I looked up the record also. I find that it has never been considered by any government as being in the best interests of the country to disclose publicly from week to week or from month to month the position of the board so far as wheat is concerned. This position has been taken by the Bennett government and by this government. I might say that Mr. John I. McFarland did not believe it wise to disclose the current' position of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited when he was acting as its general manager. If hon. members will refer to the evidence of the standing committee on banking and commerce of March 22, 1934, they will find what Mr. McFarland said when questioned by Mr. Bothwell about the exact position of the operations in connection with the 1930 crop. He said:
Personally I don't mind giving you everything ... to the minutest detail. I have nothing to hold back whatsoever. It is simply a matter as to whether it is the best thing for the country as a whole or not.
Again when Mr. McFarland was asked if it would be advisable, from his point of view as an expert, that the operations of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited should be disclosed, he replied:
I do not like to take the responsibility of giving it out. You cannot tell what harm it might do.
Immediately afterwards he added, "It would do no good that is sure." Furthermore, on that same evening of March 22, 1934, a formal motion was put that the witness, Mr. Canadian Wheat Board

McFarland, disclose the quantity of wheat which he had taken over in 1930 as general sales manager of Wheat Producers Limited, the amount of the present holdings and what percentage of the wheat holdings was made up of physical wheat and what percentage was other than physical. That motion was lost, and the Iron, member for Qu'Appelle voted against it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So did several Liberal members from Saskatchewan.


John Gordon Ross: Certainly, but I am talking about the hon. member for Qu'Appelle who was asking for something which he himself had voted against in a committee of this house. The same evening another formal motion was moved by which Mr. McFarland was asked to disclose to what extent in money the government was involved in the wheat business at that time. Another vote was taken and again the hon. member for Qu'Appelle voted against the motion.
In 1935, when members raised questions in the house regarding Mr. McFarland's operations, the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett gave as his reason for not disclosing Mr. McFarland's position the vote taken in the. 1934 banking and commerce committee, including the vote of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, who had voted against such disclosure. Hon. members will find that statement in the 1935 Hansard at page 3577. When the hon. gentleman who now leads the opposition was . pressed to disclose the same information, he also referred to the same vote taken in the banking and commerce committee as having settled the point that such information should not be disclosed. This will be found in the 1935 Hansard, page 2073.


Ernest Edward Perley: Did that deter at all the western members in the house from demanding day after day that they be given the information?


John Gordon Ross: You are demanding it now.


Ernest Edward Perley: Yes, and we demanded it day after day in the house at that time.


John Gordon Ross: I just want to show the hon. member's position. At the time when these matters were being discussed, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was speaking of the stabilization operations of Mr. McFarland and saying at that time that Mr. McFarland's operations had saved the western farmer a considerable sum of money.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So they did.


John Gordon Ross: How did Mr. McFarland's operations save the western farmer a considerable amount of money? In what years? I asked the question at that time and my hon. friend's reply will be found at page 2306 of Hansard of yesterday:
Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw): What years were
those ?
Mr. Perley: That was 1935.
Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw): But what four years is the hon. gentleman speaking of?
Mr. Perley: The four years prior to 1935.
Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw):	1931, 1932, 1933
and 1934?
Mr. Perley: Yes.
He went on to show that 10 cents a bushel had been saved or gained for the farmer of this country by those stabilization operations. I interjected that wheat then must have reached 15 cents a bushel in the fall of 1932. Hansard asked me if this figure was correct. I said yes, and evidently Hansard couldn't credit it, because it appeared as 50 cents.
Like the hon. member for Qu'Appelle I was farming in western Saskatchewan and growing wheat in 1932 when Mr. McFarland was carrying on his stabilization operations, and on December 14, 1932, I sold 3,000 bushels of No. 1 hard wheat for 24J cents a bushel at my point of shipment. If the stabilization operations were saving the farmer 10 cents a bushel, that would have meant a price of about 14 cents a bushel without the stabilization operations. Surely that is ridiculous. The market went down to the lowest point it ever reached when Mr. McFarland was conducting his stabilization operations on the grain exchange.


Ernest Edward Perley: No fault of his. It was
going down before he went there.


John Gordon Ross: But the stabilization operations were no good; they did not save the market from going down. The price went down to the very bottom, so I say that those stabilization operations were of no use to the farmer of western Canada. When the hon. member for Qu'Appelle made his statement as to the saving that Mr. Mclvor made, he did not read the whole record to the house. If he had done so, it would have been clear that he was merely asking a hypothetical question and getting a hypothetical answer from Mr. Mclvor at that time. If the whole record were read, everybody could see that. But to pick out just a small piece of the evidence to try to prove that many millions were saved to the farmers of this country at that time is not the correct way to try to portray the actual conditions to the house.

Canadian Wheat Board


Ernest Edward Perley: That is what the Minister
of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) did last night when he was quoting.


James Garfield Gardiner: You would not agree
that that makes it right.


John Gordon Ross: The leader of
the opposition (Mr. Hanson) last night made the statement that the fact that we were at war had nothing to do with the drop in prices. It does not take a very long memory to recall the price of wheat at the time when the German forces started to invade the low countries. When they invaded Belgium and Holland, the price of wheat was 90 to 91 cents a bushel. The invading forces went rapidly through those countries, and in two or three days wheat had dropped to about 70 cents a bushel at Winnipeg and had to be pegged. There was every reason to believe that had France not been invaded, if she were still standing with Great Britain, anywhere from 90,000,000 bushels to 100,000,000 bushels of Canadian wheat would have been quickly taken by France this fall and wheat might easily have reached $1 a bushel at Fort William. But the facts are that these countries were invaded and fell one after another; now we have no place to sell our wheat except to Great Britain; the price has dropped to the pegged price, and if it were not pegged it would go much lower.


Richard Burpee Hanson: To nothing.


John Gordon Ross: 
Ernest Edward Perley: How does the hon. member know that?


John Gordon Ross: How do I know that? The 70 cent price is set as an advance. My hon. friend knows as well as I do that there is a great probability of 400 million bushels of wheat being harvested in western Canada.


Ernest Edward Perley: We are not carrying that yet.


John Gordon Ross: The government will carry it, and they will carry it before they can sell the wheat they have on hand if the only market they have is Great Britain.
Last year there was a loud demand all over western Canada that the advance price of wheat be raised to 80 cents a bushel. Recommendations were brought here from the Bracken committee, from the wheat pools and from practically every organization in western Canada. All of us would have liked to see that done. The government, however. saw fit to pay 70 cents a bushel as the advance price of wheat. What has happened this year? I believe that the farmers of western Canada realize the position of wheat better, perhaps, than do some members of this house.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: Let us hope 60.
Canadian Wheat Board


John Gordon Ross: I think they
realize the position we are in. They have not gone out this year and signed petitions by the thousand.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They have not had much time.


John Gordon Ross: Oh, yes, they have. They can get them here very quickly. They can telegraph, as they did before. They can write letters by the hundred. But they have not done so.


Ernest Edward Perley: Did they sign a petition last year?


John Gordon Ross: Yes, they did.


Ernest Edward Perley: Why?


John Gordon Ross: Because they were asked to.


Ernest Edward Perley: It was a protest against the 60 cents.


John Gordon Ross: No; it was for 80 cents.


Ernest Edward Perley: No, 60 cents.


John Gordon Ross: Representatives of the grain-growing organizations of western Canada have been to this government. Have they made any representations as to a higher price? They have not.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How does the hon. member know? Can he speak with authority in that matter?


John Gordon Ross: I think I can. I have talked to the men who made the representations which they did make.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I say that within the past hour I have had a telegram from Grande Prairie demanding that the price be raised above 70 cents. It is signed by the president of the board of trade.


John Gordon Ross: That may be. But he is one out of 300,000 farmers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No doubt. But scores of letters have come to me.


John Gordon Ross: Then they must know that my hon. friend has great influence, because many of us have not received any. Representations were made here by the rural municipal unions of western Canada, one of whose representatives is a member of this house, but I do not believe that they made any requests for a higher price for wheat. I am not suggesting that the people out west 
could not do very well with a higher price; they could, and I should like to see them get it. But at the present time we are in a bad jam as regards wheat, as with everything else in this country. I think all of us must do our part at the present time. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle has talked about little other than matters of this kind since he came to the house. He endeavoured to take credit for the first wheat board, although he knows as well as I do that ever since there was a wheat board, back in 1919, there has been an agitation all over western Canada for the reestablishment of the board. I do not think he started that movement.


Ernest Edward Perley: Mr. Motherwell promised that one.


John Gordon Ross: Well, they got it.


Ernest Edward Perley: They did not.


John Gordon Ross: However, my hon. friend tried to take credit for the whole thing. His attitude in this house all the time since the start of the session has been one of criticism of the government and its policies.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that not legitimate?


Ernest Edward Perley: Who wouldn't be critical?


John Gordon Ross: His criticism has not been constructive. My hon. friends in the far corner have taken much the same line. I think we have gone too far in that direction. I want to see the wheat grower in western Canada get just as good a deal as he can, and I advocated that in this house long before my hon. friends came here.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But not with much success.


John Gordon Ross: With a great deal of success. Let me add that I have been growing wheat all these years; I am growing it now, and a good many of my hon. friends opposite are not. As a matter of fact, if I am correctly informed, only one hon. member associated with the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation is a farmer.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We are not selling out the people who are growing wheat, though.


John Gordon Ross: You may not
think so, but certainly you have done them no good.

Canadian Wheat Board
I do not want to take up any more time. I merely wanted to refer to a few points which have been raised in this debate. I am going to support the bill as it stands. My hon. friends say the amount should be more. Will they tell me what will happen to this country if the war continues two or three years and we go on growing wheat as we are doing this year, with only one market, Great Britain? Our hope as western farmers is that by putting our shoulders to the wheel we shall win this war, and then get back our markets.


Mr. W. F. RICKARD (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to follow up the matters discussed by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross). I believe that the last time I spoke in this house I had the privilege of following him in a discussion of the marketing of apples. Today we are on a different matter, but those of us who are farmers from Ontario may be permitted to say a word or two on this very important bill.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the discussion, and I have often wondered how many honest-to-goodness farmers have spoken on the wheat question? How many honest-to-goodness farmers ever speak in this house? I believe we have about twenty-five or thirty farmer members of parliament.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All honest!


Wilbert Franklin (Frank) Rickard: I am not going to take
up much time, because I am interested in only one or two phases of this bill. But I think that we who represent the people of Ontario should have some little voice in the governing of this country. We have listened to talk about wheat. We have listened to the views of the western members. I have been in the house five years, and I must congratulate them upon their initiative, upo* their organization, and upon the way they go after things to get them. There is no doubt in the world that in that respect they have done a real job. But, after all, there are other farmers in Canada. Personally speaking, I have farmed all my life; I know about little else. I have done everything that anybody could do on a farm, and I believe I am still capable of doing it.
We in Ontario and other parts of Canada are helping the west by the money we pay to assist it. I am not opposing that. I believe that we have been fully cooperative as far as the west is concerned. We are perfectly willing to help the fellow who is down and out.
What I object to in this bill is that the man who grows twenty, thirty or forty thousand bushels of wheat can place it at the door of the government at the price of 70 cents basis Fort William, and say, "Take this crop and pay me for it." It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we are in for something pretty deep when we assent to that kind of thing.
I visited the west two or three years ago, and in doing so went through several districts of Saskatchewan and continued on right to the coast. I must admit that there are a great many people on the prairies who are thoroughly deserving of assistance. There can be no question about that. Thousands and thousands of acres of prairie have not yielded any crops over a period of years. We are willing to help the people out there, and we have been helping them. At the same time it should be recognized that many farmers who have had good crops during all these years are getting from the government's legislation the same assistance and benefit as the poor fellow is getting.
My point is that the 5,000 bushel limitation which was contained in the act should be retained in this bill, so that only the man who grows 5,000 bushels or less may sell all his wheat to the government and be paid by them for it. I do not think the man who grows a large amount of wheat on a commercial scale, using mechanized farming, should be able to grow all the wheat he likes and then dump it at the door of the government saying, "Here, take my wheat and pay me for it". We have seen that illustrated in many other matters as well as with regard to wheat. Take the chain stores and the agricultural implement companies. They are all monopolizing business and putting the small fellow out of commission, and it seems to me that there are many things that governments could do to stop that. If we do not take action in that regard, it will not be very long before the small fellow will be completely out of business and we shall go into mechanized farming with the big fellow controlling everything.
We have sent millions of dollars in relief to the west and we are willing to do so again, but they want a fixed price for their wheat- some say 90 cents, some say $1.25, some say 70 cents. We agree that 70 cents is not a high price. But we in Ontario were never able to sell our wheat to the government until last year. Last year was the first time we had legislation to benefit the farmers in that province, and that was only in regard to wheat. We grow only 20,000,000 bushels.
Canadian Wheat Board


Richard Burpee Hanson: What about apples?


Wilbert Franklin (Frank) Rickard: We had some legislation in connection with apples, but so far as Ontario is concerned it did not cost the government one cent. I am not saying anything about Nova Scotia or British Columbia; that is something different. So far as Ontario is concerned, however, I repeat, it did not cost the government a cent.
As I said before, we appreciate what the government has done for the apple industry, and we should appreciate what it has done for agriculture generally. There are a great many things that have been of assistance to the farmers, but my point is that we in Ontario should have some consideration. We are not wheat farmers. We raise cattle and hogs; we produce cheese, butter and other commodities, and everything that we produce is marketed at the market price. We have no set price for cattle, although we have an agreement with Great Britain with regard to hogs. We have no set price for cheese or butter. We have to take what the market offers, and the time will come when we shall have to do away with fixed prices. We have pretty nearly gone the limit. I realize that the condition to-day is abnormal, and the only bright spot is that after the war we may require all the wheat that we have grown. But we have over one billion bushels of surplus wheat and I do not know what we shall do with it.
I am not going to take up any more time. I am not particularly interested in any part of the bill other than that relating to storage. I do not know why the western farmer should be paid for storing his grain any more than we should be paid for storing our grain in Ontario, but we are willing to help the western farmer and we are prepared to do anything we can for him. But let us have cooperation. Give the Ontario farmer a break as well.


Mr. W. G. WEIR (Macdonald):: I wish to say a word or two at this stage of the wheat board legislation. I hope I am not going to be accused of threshing old straw, but there are one or two observations I should like to make in reply to certain comments that have been made by hon. gentlemen across the floor of the house. So far as the whole wheat problem is concerned, undoubtedly it is one of Canada's major war casualties at the present time. What it may turn out to be in the days to come, we cannot foretell. I do not think there is anyone in Canada who would say for a moment that we should curtail our production at this stage or Should attempt to (Mr. Rickard.]
destroy any of this wheat. It may be needed, and if it is it will be a blessing to mankind that we have it in this country. That makes the wheat situation an immediate problem and one with regard to which, in my judgment at least, it is impossible at present to devise a long-range policy. If conditions could be looked upon as reasonably normal and these additional stocks of wheat continued to accumulate, then one might advocate certain steps that one thought could be taken to meet the situation. I commend the remarks made by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Fulford) last night, when he interjected into the debate the suggestion that we should be looking towards industrial uses for agricultural products. I have held that view for a long time, that western Canada particularly would have to pay more attention to that type of development in order to utilize the great natural resources of those provinces. But this is not the time or the place to enter into a discussion of such questions.
May I come back to one or two statements that have been made on the other side of the house. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) and others have complained bitterly about the late date at which this legislation has been presented. Probably to some extent their criticism is justified, but I would say to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle that in spite of its efforts to establish a wheat board in 1935, the government of that day failed to take action with regard to the price of wheat until the sixth of September. They fixed the price of No. 1 northern on September 6, and of other grades on September 23. Therefore the whole wheat situation was left hanging in the air at that time, at a date later than the beginning of the crop season. However, we will leave that as it is.
I do not know whether my hon. friend did it intentionally or not, but it did seem to me that he went out of his way in an attempt to criticize the present wheat board. He quoted statements made by other people, particularly Mr. Sanford Evans of Winnipeg, expressing opinions with respect to the marketing policy that had been pursued. I do not know whose evidence one will take. I am not in a position to judge whether the wheat board has been doing a good job or not; but since we are justified in calling upon other people to give evidence, I wish to quote from the wheat studies of the Food Research Institute, which has this to say with reference to the Canadian wheat board and the sales policy of selling wheat in Canada:
Beyond this, no explicit information on selling policy or operations has yet been disclosed.

Canadian Wheat Board
Pending official reports of daily sales, rumours and opinions expressed in trade circles cannot be accepted as reliable. It is generally agreed that the task-
That is, the task of selling Canadian wheat. -was discharged shrewdly, smoothly, and consistently.
I think that is all I need quote from that report, which was made by one of the most reliable institutions studying the wheat problem. Now I come a little closer home. In a magazine published by the Alberta wheat pool under date of March 23, they say:
Broomhall comments that the huge Canadian crop of 1939 (489 million bushels) is being wisely marketed at a fair price, and although there is certain to be a big carryover on August 1 next this will act as a safeguard against a possible crop failure such as occurred in 1936 and 1937 when the yields per acre were only 8-6 bushels and 7 bushels respectively.
In its editorial comment the same magazine has this to say:
The sensible marketing of Canadian wheat this crop year, it might be mentioned, is due to the operation of the federal wheat board. Unquestionably the board was a tower of strength when unprecedented large marketings occurred in the autumn months. Heavy hedging sales were not necessary, because the bulk of the wheat was delivered to the board.
I bring forward these quotations merely to indicate the views of others with respect to the efficiency or otherwise of the wheat board.
I should like now to refer briefly to the proposed price of 70 cents a bushel. Last year we were successful in securing that price for No. 1 northern, basis in store Fort William, together with participation certificates. This year we have succeeded in maintaining that price, although conditions are more difficult this year so far as the prospects of selling wheat are concerned. It never has been argued by anyone from western Canada that the economy of the west can be maintained on a price of 70 cents, but I want to mention the other side of the picture, and I think the farmers of Canada will recognize it when it is drawn to their attention. The wheat problem is not only their problem; it is the problem of the Canadian people as a whole. In our present difficulty with respect to marketing this wheat I believe the farmers are patriotic enough to do what they can to meet the situation. I will go so far as to say that if the price of 70 cents last year, with the participation certificates-which of course have not been realized upon-was inadequate, then it is still more inadequate this year to meet the general requirements of the farmers of the west. I admit that immediately, because of the increased costs that go into
their operations. Farm machinery is, up in price; so are repairs, fuel oil, binder twine and wages. Just in connection with the matter of farm wages I crave the indulgence of the house to place on record a resolution that came to my hand this morning from a farm organization in Manitoba, containing these words:
Whereas our government has again set the price of wheat at the same level as last year, and whereas so many of our better men have enlisted in the army to defend the empire and are receiving $1.35 per day; therefore be it resolved that our representatives in the dominion and provincial governments be urged to take immediate action toward effecting legislation to limit harvest wages to a reasonable level, such as a suggested $2 a day for stooking and $2.50 for threshing.
That is one item of cost upon which little emphasis has been laid. Information I have received from my constituency leads me to believe that there has been a substantial increase in the cost of farm labour. That is going to be one of the larger items of expense, and I am bound to say that I do not think this kind of exploitation should be permitted any more than any other kind.
Let me now take up the matter which was discussed by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), although I suppose my action in referring to it may be misconstrued by some people. Reference has been made to elevator costs. Let me say immediately that I do not know whether or not elevator companies have made a reasonable return. I do not know whether or not they are making money. It may be that the industry has been or is over expanded. At one time I thought we had too many elevators in western Canada. Probably that is the situation in normal times; but this is one occasion when every unit of storage facilities in the west is going to be required. It is all very well to rise in one's place in the house and say that, because we have a big wheat crop to handle, all charges should be reduced. Probably they should; I do not know, but if that is logical we should follow it through. The railways are in exactly the same position. They have made huge earnings out of the movement of this wheat, yet so far no one has come along and suggested that their earnings should be reduced because of that increased volume. I merely advance this suggestion because of the emphasis which has been placed upon this one matter.
I should now like to deal a little more directly with certain matters which have been mentioned by our Ontario friends. Reference has been made to the elimination from the
Canadian Wheat Board

act of the 5,000 bushel limit. Our eastern friends think that provision should have remained in the bill. I am not going to argue with them as to the general method; I simply want to say to them that that provision simply could not operate at the present time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why?


William Gilbert Weir: Because there would be no place for the farmer to sell the rest of his wheat. Until the beginning of this crop year the position was that a man would deliver a carload of grain at the country elevator, which would send it forward. That grain cannot go to the board. As a result, the grain company has to hold it until there is a chance to sell it to somebody who may bid on it. That is the position. I have been told of elevator companies with fifty, sixty or perhaps eighty cars of wheat in their possession, waiting for an offer to come forward. So I say that provision could not operate at this time.


Mr. McNEVIN:: Does the hon. member
think the board could take it at a slightly lower price?


William Gilbert Weir: I doubt if they would get a price for it at all.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: I mean, would it not be possible for the board itself to pay a slightly lower price for the excess?


William Gilbert Weir: That would be possible, I
suppose.
I should now like to deal with the question of storage, although I do not wish to detain the house too long. Frankly I am concerned about the situation in western Canada, and its effect on Canada's whole economy. As I view the wheat situation from the point of view of storage facilities, I am afraid, if something is not done beyond that which is provided in the legislation now before us, western Canada is going to have one of the worst slumps, in a business way, that has ever been experienced.


James Lester Douglas: It is inevitable.


William Gilbert Weir: The position is this, that with the storage facilities almost filled before this crop begins to move, the prospects are-


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I interrupt to ask
a question? All through eastern Ontario I see thousands upon thosuands of first class, A-l freight cam. Those cars are lying along

railway tracks, on sidings. I have been wondering lately if it would not be possible to take thousands of those freight cars to the west, place them adjacent to elevators and fill them with wheat. My question may sound foolish to men closely connected with the wheat business; but if that were possible, there is no doubt that those cars would provide a large space in which wheat could be stored. Otherwise they will rust and rot away.


William Gilbert Weir: May I reply immediately to
the hon. member that that is done. Railways are keeping cars loaded, even on their tracks. Moreover, may I point out, in passing, that on the highway on which I travel when going fiom Winnipeg to my home, all last fall one would pass these big boxcars, loaded on trucks, to be taken to farmers on their farms. Those cars will be utilized by the farmers to the fullest possible extent. That, however, cannot be done with all the cars.
Returning to what I had in mind, may I point out that we may be in a. position to market $50,000,000 or $60,000,000 worth of grain this fall, out of a crop which should yield
350,000,000 to 400,000,000 bushels. It will be realized that $50,000,000 is a comparatively small amount of money to be scattered around in those western plains. Moreover, I am afraid the individual-and in this I believe I am right-will have to be restricted in his deliveries. By that I mean that I do not think it would be fair for a moment, with the limited storage facilities available, for a man who might be fortunately situated or who might thresh earlier, to plug the storage facilities available, thereby preventing the man who may be less fortunate from getting an opportunity to deliver. I believe that point will have to be considered, and I hope it will be.
The situation is all right so far as the grain which can be delivered is concerned. In the bill we are making provision to pay for farm storage, and with that provision I agree. But I am bound to say that I believe something more than farm storage will have to be provided. I recognize the difficulties, immediately. In my own case I would suppose that possibly I would be allowed to deliver 1,500 bushels of grain this fall. At 50 cents a bushel I would receive $750 for that grain. No one can say that $750 will go very far in connection with the operation of a farm.
As I have pointed out, the situation is all right so far as the grain which may be delivered is concerned; the farmers can get their

Canadian Wheat Board
money on that grain. But if some provision is not made for some form of advance on the grain that is not delivered, then I am afraid we are going to have an absolute collapse of business in western Canada. Not only will it affect the farmer-as a matter of fact I think he will live through it-but I doubt what the attitude of the general business community will be with respect to it.
I recognize immediately the difficulties in the way. I do not for one moment suppose that the banks alone would consider making loans to farmers on grain stored on farms. There would be a big risk in that. Nor do I suggest that the government should go out and do it. On the other hand, I feel that some measure of assistance will have to be provided. That is what I appeal to the government to do on this occasion.
I have been wondering-and I offer this only as a suggestion-whether or not there could be applied to wheat some scheme similar to that carried on in connection with the home improvement plan. Under those circumstances the banks could be given a certain amount of authority to take security on grain stored. I am referring only to wheat. The government at the same time would place a certain amount with the banks, by way of a guarantee, as well as having in mind the interest rate that might be charged. I offer that only as a suggestion, but I feel seriously that this matter must be attended to.
There is only one other point to which I wish to refer.


James Lester Douglas: Before the hon. member leaves that point, may I ask a question? He said that he believed he would be selling about 1,500 bushels of wheat. On
what does he base that assumption?


William Gilbert Weir: It would be five or ten bushels to the acre, for the crop. In connection with storage facilities I make an appeal to the minister. I say to him now that I believe there is a good deal of vacant storage capacity in western Canada, in different forms. All may not have adequate granaries. But it must be remembered that this is a national emergency, and if appealed to, I believe the farmers will respond. Travelling through parts of my constituency I have noticed that there are vacant barns and machine sheds. In my opinion all those buildings could be utilized, and I suggest to the minister that he take the earliest opportunity to make an appeal by radio to those who have facilities which might be utilized, and that he ask that those facilities be used to the best possible advantage.
Reverting to the financial aspect of the matter, I have one further suggestion. In the past our elevator companies have built annexes, or additional temporary storage space, and added that space to the elevators. If they can do that this year, and if thereby a man is permitted to deliver his grain, he in turn will receive his money.	But I am
informed that, although willing to build annexes, the elevator companies are reluctant to go ahead because of the income tax provision respecting their profits. If the annexes were built, they would be only temporary buildings. They may be used for one or two years, but it is scarcely likely that they would be used longer than that.
My suggestion, therefore, is that the Minister of Trade and Commerce should approach the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gibson) to see if some means could not be worked out whereby some concession could be arranged which would allow the costs of these annexes to be written off in a number of years less than the period of twenty years which applies in respect of the ordinary elevator.
I have only one other point in mind, and that is with regard to coarse grains. Someone may ask why I am discussing coarse grains when the bill deals only with wheat. My reason would be that coarse grains are of great importance to Manitoba. Then, too, the situation with respect to coarse grains is closely related to the wheat situation as it exists to-day. If we permit wheat to move freely into our ordinary channels of trade, they will be blocked, coarse grains would not be allowed to move, because of a lack of space. Looking across the floor of the house, I venture to say that many of our eastern friends want to get those coarse grains. I would go so far as to say that the importation of corn will be greatly curtailed because of the foreign exchange control and the adverse exchange rate. For that reason there is going to be a considerable opening for the sale of coarse grains. Particularly because of the effect that sale would have on Manitoba, I would urge that steps be taken whereby storage facilities would not be permitted to be clogged with wheat to the point where coarse grains would be unable to move. We must sell our coarse grains; people in other parts of Canada require them. While our freight rates offer a vexing problem, and while it may not be just in keeping with the tenor of times to urge anything in that regard, yet I submit that sooner or later serious consideration should be given to the matter of making
Canadian Wheat Board

adjustments in connection with the domestic rate on grain, and particularly feed grains, moving from one part of Canada to another.
This is all I desire to say except to make one closing remark. Many people have expressed fears about the increasing price of bread on account of the imposition of the processing tax. From deductions made forme, not by me, I understand that the processing tax will affect the ordinary pound loaf to the extent of about a quarter of a cent. Many changes will occur before this war is over and we are going to be affected all along the line. I do not think we shall be able to continue to maintain the same standard of living that we are enjoying to-day. When I heard the discussion with respect to this processing tax and its effect upon the cost of bread to the consumer, I could not help picturing what I have seen many times on the streets of this city. We see three or four rigs on the same street delivering wrapped bread to apartment houses. Surely that is a luxury service, and it is questionable whether it should be maintained in war time. This type of delivery of bread and other commodities must affect the cost to the householder.
When the bill gets into committee I shall probably have a word or two to say with respect to other matters. We have been fortunate in having been able to maintain the bill with the added improvements and concessions which have been made, and I trust that in its administration due regard will be had for the suggestions I have made in my few rambling remarks.


James Arthur Ross: I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Weir) referred to a statement which I had made in connection with storage charges, and he then went on to point out that no one had ever advocated a reduction in freight rates. I would refer him to page 1951 of Hansard of July 25, where he will find that I suggested that there should be a reduction in freight rates. I know his remark was unintentional and I just wanted to make that correction.


Mr. H. A. MacKENZIE (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, until the last day or two, I had not intended speaking on this bill, but certain statements have been made and I feel compelled to make a few observations. Let me say at the start that I am disappointed at the progress we have made during this session. When parliament was called I was of opinion that it would be a war session and that we would devote most of our time and attention to the war effort, to those matters

which would contribute toward the winning of this great struggle which is taking place in Europe. But we have talked too much. We have bickered over political matters; we have argued about what was said during the last election and what probably will be said during the next. If this is the great forum of the people; if freedom of speech is one of the bulwarks of democracy, then we have talked it to death in this house. If democracy is going to succeed, we shall have to change our tactics. Should I come to the house next session I intend to move that the franking privileges of members be discontinued. I believe that such a move would greatly curtail the length of the session, probably by as much as a month or six weeks. Most of the material sent out is political propaganda. There are plenty of pressmen in the gallery who hear what we say, and who are ready to tell it to the people if it is of any importance.


James Arthur Ross: Perhaps it is a controlled press.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: Not
necessarily a controlled press. If a member wants to send out a message to the people, he can do so. It should not cost very much. If it is important enough to send out, it is important enough to warrant postage being paid on it.
Agriculture presents the greatest economic problem facing us to-day, although our economic problems are at present in a secondary place compared with the great problem of winning the war. The wheat board act has come in for a great deal of discussion. If I recollect correctly, it was passed around July 4, 1935, just prior to a general election. Hon. members can draw their own conclusions as to why that was done. That act provided for an initial price for wheat throughout the three prairie provinces. I ask hon. members to compare prices which prevailed in 1914, the year just prior to the last war, with those which prevailed in 1939, the year just prior to this war. Average commodity prices were higher in 1914 than they were in 1939, but the cost of labour and of manufactured articles which enter into the cost of production has increased by a quarter, a half, and in some instances it has doubled. We have an economic unbalance which must be rectified. Are we going to do that by lowering the standard of living or by attempting to bring commodity prices into line with the increased cost of production? This is something we shall have to work out.
The price of 70 cents a bushel which has been set is not satisfactory. Some hon.

Canadian Wheat Board
members have advocated that it should be SI, or even $1.25, and I am quite in accord with that. I know that wheat cannot be produced profitably at 70 cents a bushel. I know Ontario better than I do the west, and I am quite sure wheat cannot be produced in that province as cheaply as it can be in the west. We have fertilizer costs to consider; our taxes are higher, and our cost of labour is greater. If we are going to achieve an economic balance; if we are going to be sound economically, we must restore the purchasing power of the agriculturists. I think it is realized by most people that the purchasing power of agriculture offers great possibilities, but this purchasing power has been reduced in recent years. Conditions in Ontario do not differ greatly from those in other provinces, and there are many farms that need home conveniences, new machinery, fencing and many other things. If the purchasing power of the farmer can be increased our economic problem will be solved.
If we cannot procure profitable markets for our primary products, then we shall have to work out a planned economy of some kind to take care of our cost of living. Since 1935 hon. members to my extreme left have been clamouring for more and more, particularly in connection with wheat. I think they take themselves too seriously. Farmers all over Canada are having a hard time. I know something about farming conditions in Ontario. I will not say whether I am a farmer or not, but I notice, according to the list of members of this parliament that only thirty-seven are listed as farmers. Some of them are dirt farmers; some may be hobby or gentlemen farmers, but there are only thirty-seven out of the 245.
In Ontario over fifty per cent of the farms are mortgaged for more than fifty per cent of their value. These mortgages total $200,000,000, and their chattel mortgages amount to over $20,000,000. Conditions on the farm are gradually getting worse and our farmers are finding it more difficult to carry on. When a man has taken care of his interest charges and his operating expenses, he finds he can barely get by. It is estimated that in Canada there are approximately 760,000 farmers, and an hon. member has told us that there are 290,000 in the west. That leaves approximately
470.000	in the rest of the country. These
470.000	farmers are living under the same tariff conditions from one end of Canada to the other. I have no brief for the manufacturers. They are well organized and can look after themselves, but when hon. gentlemen
talk about the west paying so much to eastern industrialists, I say that that affects farming conditions very little.
Let us look at this problem from a Canadian point of view if we can, and not simply from a provincial point of view. The world's markets for wheat have been slipping for some years. They were slipping prior to the war. Everybody knows that in 1938 we had great difficulty in selling our wheat because the markets were not there. France used to be a great importer of wheat, but she had come to be an exporter, and Italy's position was the same. One might have thought that these countries would have been buying wheat to store it, but they did not do that. They started out to grow their own foodstuffs, because years ago they could see this great struggle in Europe looming up, and so they tried to put themselves on a self-supporting basis. The result was that our market for wheat had gone before the war came. When the war is over and we get back to normal conditions, on a basis of barter and trade, perhaps we can get our markets back again. I do not know, but I think it is time that we should use every possible means to curtail and control the production of wheat.
In 1938 we produced 336,000,000 bushels of wheat and the price was set at 80 cents, Fort William. The agents of the government endeavoured to sell our wheat to the best advantage and sought markets all over the world. But they could not sell all that wheat. The consequence was that from $50,000,000 to $60,000,000 had to be taken out of the consolidated revenue fund to subsidize that 80 cent wheat, and, by the way, all of that wheat is not sold yet.
Along with that, in 1938 there was paid out to western Canada relief amounting to $22,000,000. Wheat at 70 cents a bushel nets the farmer 50 cents. Ontario grows wheat too, from 20,000,000 to 22,000,000 bushels a year. It is a cash crop. They sold their wheat in 1938 at the market price, and this means that we are taking part of that Ontario wheat sold at the market price to subsidize the sale of western Canada wheat.
As to relief, anybody who needs relief should receive it, I do not care where they are; if they are trying to get along and cannot make a living, they should get relief. I am sorry to have to draw attention to this matter, but the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) said that the people of the west did not want charity; that they did not want that kind of fish sent out to them. I can remember that back in 1936 I was organizing the countryside to get carloads of vegetables and foodstuffs of all kinds to send to western Canada. I thought they needed it, and I
Canadian Wheat Board

think in many instances they appreciated it, but evidently, to judge from what has been said in the house, they did not.
In 1939 western Canada grew a crop of
465,000,000 bushels of wheat. A price of 70 cents a bushel, Fort William, was set, which nets the farmer 50 cents. We paid out under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, $10,000,000; for rehabilitation, $3,500,000; and for material aid and assistance, $8,500,000, or a total of $22,000,000.
The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) the other night asked, What are the western members to do; they cannot go home and explain the conditions to their people? But I think, if they went home and told the people of the west what the world situation was in regard to wheat and the problem which Canada has in disposing of this wheat, and if they tried to get a little more unity in Canada, we should be able to make much further progress, with our war effort.
I oppose the removal of the 5,000 bushel limit. I think it should be 2,000 bushels. If there are 290,000 farmers growing wheat in western Canada, and each one grows 2,000 bushels, this will mean a crop of 580,000,000 bushels. Probably some of them are small farmers who are not growing wheat. There will be truck farmers, for instance, around Winnipeg and other cities who are listed as farmers but who will not be growing wheat. Nevertheless the bulk of those 290,000 farmers are growing wheat. Yet in spite of all the wheat we grew last year, and in spite of the present surplus, we have seeded to wheat in Canada this year an extra acreage of approximately 1,500,000 acres.
From my point of view the government of Canada has been very fair, even liberal, to our western friends both in the handling of their wheat and in coming to their assistance, and I cannot for the life of me see how the west has much to complain about. Some of them are asking that we bonus them to grow wheat. The government policy apparently is to bonus them to grow wheat and also bonus them not to grow it. If western Canada can grow 460,000,000 bushels of wheat in a year, surely it can grow something else. Surely it can grow vegetables and raise cattle. Surely it is not necessary for western members to come back here year after year and say: If we cannot get support for our wheat, our people will have to go on relief. It is hard for me to understand how they can so insistently, consistently, and persistently, day after day, ask the government for more and more assistance when they cannot help knowing that farming conditions elsewhere are fully as bad. I know the wheat problem is hard to
[Mr. H. A. MacKenzie.l
handle, but the government cannot be expected to guarantee everything with respect to the growing of wheat. The western farmers want their crops guaranteed against frost, hail, rust and drought. One hon. member wanted all those things guaranteed.
But what is the picture to-day?
On July 17, according to the report of the board, we had a carryover of wheat amounting to around 282,000,000 bushels. We have a crop estimated-I know that estimates may vary-to produce another 400,000,000 bushels. That is, we have a prospective holding of
682,000,000 bushels of wheat. If we subtract from that 100,000,000 bushels for domestic use, we have 582,000,000 bushels for export. Where are we going to market it? Great Britain for all purposes does not import more than about 200,000,000 bushels a year. This is a Canadian problem and we should look at it as Canadians. I say: Grow wheat, yes, but curtail and control the production of wheat until we have more evidence as to prospective markets than we have to-day.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) said that after war there is famine; after famine, pestilence, and after that what? I do not know. But I know that before the war, Europe, with the exception of Great Britain, was almost on a self-supporting basis as far as wheat is concerned. Europe may become self-supporting again after the war, with regard to wheat; I do not know. But I do say that the western farmers cannot go on continuing to pile up surpluses of wheat at the expense of the dominion.
In conclusion, I assure the house that I want to be fair, and I think we should look at this question as Canadians who are concerned with a Canadian problem. I should like some of my hon. friends who consistently ask for more and more because their people are not prosperous, to take a trip to Halifax and see some of our farmers in the maritime provinces. Or I could take them to farmers in Ontario who are eking out a bare existence, but nevertheless are paying their taxes and keeping off relief. Are you going to ask such men as these, who compose many of our eastern farmers, to contribute to a wheat bonusing proposition in the west? I do not think it is fair.
I believe that the western farmer has been treated fairly in respect of the wheat situation I hope he will be able to get more for his product. But I contend that agriculture must be helped as a whole; you cannot isolate one part of the country from another. Our hon.

Canadian Wheat Board
friends to the extreme left are not doing justice to their great province by continually talking about the numbers of their people who are starving on relief.


James Angus MacKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks before we go into committee. I shall detain the bouse for only a very few minutes. I think it is fitting at this time that I should say something to the house about the representations which have been made to me as Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with this wheat problem, and something also about the reception which my statement on the resolution preceding the introduction of the bill has had in western Canada.
About two weeks ago there was held, in the city of Edmonton, a convention of the Western Union of Municipalities. This is an organization covering the three western provinces. Delegates from all over those provinces met there and naturally discussed this, to them, most important matter of wheat. On July 16 they telegraphed me as follows:
Western Union of Municipalities representing municipalities of three prairie provinces meeting in Edmonton to-day are greatly concerned with urgent problems relating to handling 1940 crop feeling that unless adequate measures taken immediately great hardships will result to farmers and stability of western economy will be undermined. We recommend that Canadian Wheat Board Act be maintained for handling entire 1940 crop with initial payment not less than seventy cents per bushel Fort William. That to encourage farm storage wheat board should arrange to pay farmer for farm storage on reasonable basis comparable to storage paid by board to elevator companies. That we favour principle of quota system of delivery to ensure equality of treatment to all growers.
Those three matters have been pretty well covered in the bill which is at present before the house. They go on to say:
That where necessary advances be made to farmer on security of grain stored on farm preferably through grain trade financed by Canadian wheat board.
They there touch what in my opinion is one of the most important problems facing us in connection with the wheat industry of western Canada. I did not intimate that this matter was being dealt with in amendments to the wheat board act, but I did state that it was prominently before the government. There are men in the city who came from western Canada to meet the government in an endeavour to reach finality in devising a proper method of dealing with this matter. The question of advancing money to the farmer on the security of grain in his own granary is a difficult one. It has been tried
before, but there are human and other aspects of the matter which make the handling of it difficult.
Following the telegram which I have read from the Western Union of Municipalities, the officers of that organization-Mr. Paul Farnalls, representing Alberta; Mr. James G. Knox, representing Saskatchewan, and the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), representing Manitoba-submitted to me resolutions along the same line as I have just read.
In addition to that, representatives of the three western pools, Alberta being represented by Mr. Hutchinson; Manitoba, by Mr. Bredt, and Saskatchewan, by Mr. Sproule, the vice-president, in place of Mr. Wesson, who was unable to attend, and also Mr. W. A. MacLeod, the public relations officer of the wheat pools, met me and asked, referring to this one point, that a price of at least 70 cents be paid. The three pools have been referred to frequently in this debate. According to my understanding, they represent a large body of farmers in the three prairie provinces. These men did not state that they were satisfied with the price of 70 cents. They did ask, though, that a minimum of 70 cents be paid, intimating to me that although they would have liked to see a much larger price, they were satisfied at this time, being actuated by a sense of fairness and feelings of patriotism, that probably 70 cents a bushel was all that this parliament could and should provide.
A word as to the reception of the announcement of the policy. I have before me a clipping from the Winnipeg Free Press of July 26. I will quote briefly from a long editorial laudatory of the government in its handling of the wheat question:
The three prairie cabinet ministers, Mr. Crerar, Mr. Gardiner and Mr. MacKinnon, all of them engrossed in the direct problems of the war, deserve congratulation for the part they have played in the cabinet's decision.
The 70 cent price is to be retained. This means the rejection of the demand made in some quarters for a much higher price. The farmers would of course welcome a higher price. They do not consider 70 cents the ideal price for their product, nor indeed does anyone else. But the sensible farmers-and these are in the great majority-have a sense of realism which is lacking among their more irresponsible leaders. The majority believe that, having regard to all the present circumstances and the vast strain of war upon the federal treasury, the maintenance of the 70-cent price is about all that could have been expected; and their common sense belief in this connection is reinforced by their knowledge that the government is going to pay that price on millions and millions of bushels of wheat which are not going to be sold.
Canadian Wheat Board

To go further west, in Saskatchewan, the Regina Leader-Post, under the heading, "The Wheat Price at 70 Cents," states in part:
Considering all the factors that enter into the wheat situation at the present time, one could hardly expect that the government would set, this year, a higher price than it did last year-namely 70 cents a bushel, Fort William basis.
At Saskatoon, in the north central part of
Saskatchewan, the daily newspaper, in its issue of July 26, states, under the heading, "Government's Wheat Policy":
Taking everything into consideration, the Canadian people generally will probably agree that the government's wheat policy as announced by Hon. J. A. MacKinnon, Minister of Trade and Commerce, is fair and reasonable.
The guaranteed base price for wheat for No. 1 northern at the head of the lakes is to remain at 70 cents.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Which paper is that?


James Angus MacKinnon: That is the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of July 26.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: All those papers are owned by the Sifton interests.


James Angus MacKinnon: I
do not know about that, but they do represent a very large body of public opinion in western Canada and I am quite satisfied that I am right in making the statement that they do their own thinking for themselves.


Mr. QUELCH:: Could the minister quote statements issued by the executive of the United Farmers of Canada or the United Farmers of Alberta.


James Angus MacKinnon: Frankly, I have not with me at the moment the material to which the hon. gentleman refers.
I have not at the moment a clipping from the Winnipeg Tribune, but I have read elsewhere the same sort of commendatory editorial as in the other Winnipeg newspaper from which I quoted.
The Calgary Herald, under the heading, "Aid to Wheat Farmers", has an article of commendation from which I quote:
On the whole, western Canada should be reasonably satisfied with the federal government's wheat plan.
The Calgary Albertan, under the heading, "Good News for the West", says:
Hon. J. A. MacKinnon, Minister of Trade and Commerce, had real good news for all in the west when he spoke in the House of Commons, Wednesday. Mr. MacKinnon made three important announcements.

1. The initial payment of 70 cents a bushel for No. 1 northern wheat basis Fort William, will be continued for the crop year commencing August 1.
And so on.
The Edmonton Journal states:
Edmonton grain dealers and district farmers Thursday generally expressed approval of the dominion government's decision to continue the guaranteed basic 70 cent wheat price, the Winnipeg grain exchange operation and present pegged prices.
I have had a large number of letters also. This afternoon I picked some out and I could read communications from individual farmers, but I am not trying to build up a case to prove that the people of western Canada accept the 70 cents as enough. Seventy cents is not a large payment, but I do say that under present conditions, and to the great and everlasting credit of the people of western Canada, as an evidence of their fairness and patriotism, the amendments to the grain act have been and are being favourably received as far as I can ascertain.
Some weeks ago the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) questioned the attitude of the cereals import committee of the British government towards the question of closing or leaving open the Winnipeg grain exchange. I wish to quote from a telegram from London addressed to the chairman of the wheat board, Mr. George Mclvor. It reads:
Please transmit to government following message dated twenty-third July from cereal imports branch ministry food: "This branch of the ministry food is desirous that the Winnipeg futures market be kept open to enable the free movement of grain through normal trades channels. It feels it is only by this method this country can secure shipment of the maximum quantity of Canadian grain and under present conditions hesitates to experiment with the delicate trade mechanism. Signed on behalf of the committee. A. Hooker, deputy director cereal imports."


Ernest Edward Perley: I have here a paper
announcing the sale of 100 million bushels of wheat.


James Angus MacKinnon: Let me finish my speech, please.


Ernest Edward Perley: But the minister is
criticizing the statement I made.


James Angus MacKinnon: That telegram speaks for itself. On my way into the chamber before three o'clock I was handed an announcement which I should like to have given to the house earlier, but I could not have made it before now or I should have closed the debate. It appears in part in the evening press, but in part it is not reported. I wish to announce that the Canadian wheat

Canadian Wheat Board
board have sold a further 100 million bushels of wheat to the cereals import committee of the United Kingdom Ministry of Food at a price considerably above the present market. This sale is the result of negotiations which have been conducted between the Canadian wheat board and the cereals import committee over the last few weeks. This is the largest individual sale in the history of wheat marketing, as far as I am aware.


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister in a position to give the price and delivery dates?


James Angus MacKinnon: It is not in the public interest to give the price.


Major James William Coldwell: That was a direct sale, not through the grain exchange.


James Angus MacKinnon: Direct, certainly.
May I point out that one of the matters we had prominently in our minds in deciding to levy a processing tax on wheat manufactured into flour in Canada was the fact that we are charging the mother country more for wheat than we are charging our own people here, and we thought that by the imposition of a processing tax on grain converted into flour in Canada the price would be enhanced to the purchaser in Canada commensurately with the price paid us by Great Britain.
Something has been said about a gift of wheat to Great Britain. There has been some suggestion that Canada should give a large quantity of wheat to Great Britain. I would point out that since this wheat must be actually purchased by the government, it makes little difference whether we give wheat, munitions, planes or anything else. Great Britain is not actually in need of foodstuffs. There is still from 60 to 70 millions of bushels of British wheat still in Canada and reserve supplies in England. Such a gift would, to my mind, be just a gesture, and it must not be forgotten that Great Britain is our one big market for wheat that is left to us. There is no question that whatever Great Britain needs, Canada will be prepared to provide. We are in this fight together, and there has been and will be of course the most liberal attitude in our dealings with Great Britain.
One other matter and I am through. Some time ago the hon. member for Qu'Appelle stated in this house that the wheat board during the time of my predecessor had requested the closing of the Winnipeg grain exchange. That statement was denied at the time and I was going to pass it over; but since then the hon. gentleman and others have referred to this matter on several occasions, so
I think it only fair to place on Hansard a letter that I received from my predecessor under date of July 11, marked " personal but not confidential."


John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the difference?


James Angus MacKinnon: I made sure of the difference; the difference is that I can use it. It is as follows:
Dear Mr. MacKinnon,-
My attention has just been drawn to several statements by Mr. Perley in the House of Commons on June 27, as reported in Hansard on pave 1275. Mr. Perley said:-
"I understand a definite proposal was made, when Mr. Rank was appointed sole purchaser of wheat and other food cereals for the United Kingdom and France, that if the government would close the Winnipeg grain exchange the allies would consent to a fair price. I make that statement on good authority. . . . My authority is that a note was sent, to me in this chamber by the then Minister of Trade and Commerce, Mr. Euler, inviting me to go to his office; I was with him there an hour, and he told me the story, and informed me that his colleagues in the cabinet would not allow him to do what he was asked to do."
That interview was given as a matter of courtesy on Mr. Perley's request. He received no confidential information from me, and his suggestion that I disagreed with my colleagues in the cabinet is quite incorrect. He said further:-
"I asked him about the price. I suggested what it might be. He said he could not tell me that. I offered a guess. He, naturally, would not tell me. But he did tell me it was practically agreed that the grain exchange would remain open until the price of wheat reached about a dollar and a quarter."
This statement discloses a defective memory, or is the product of a vivid imagination. It has not even the remotest relationship to fact. I need not comment on the propriety of retailing on the floor of the commons the alleged purport of the private conversation, and in a place where I could not reply.
W. D. Euler.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 1-"Wheat" defined.
Mr. SENN:: Under this section Ontario
winter wheat is brought within this act. I think it would shorten the discussion if the minister would give the committee some details as to how Ontario winter wheat is to be handled. After the close of last session an announcement was made by the government that Ontario winter wheat was to be brought under this act and that the price was to be pegged at 70 cents, f.o.b. Montreal.
There are a number of questions arising out of the government's action at that time, as well as their action this year along the same line. First, would the minister state

Canadian Wheat Board

clearly and briefly-I am not asking for any lengthy discussion-whether the proceeds from the sale of Ontario winter wheat by the board are to be kept separate and apart from the proceeds from the sale of western wheat? I should like to know also whether any surplus that might arise through the sale of this wheat will be paid back to the Ontario farmer on the basis of the proceeds from the sale of Ontario wheat alone, or whether it will be pooled with the proceeds from the sale of the western wheat. While I am on my feet I should like to know whether the proceeds of the processing tax collected on Ontario wheat will be kept separate from the proceeds of the processing tax on western wheat, so that Ontario farmers will reap the advantage, or whether it will be all pooled. If the minister would give us this information, I think it would clarify the whole matter as far as Ontario wheat is concerned.


James Angus MacKinnon: Obviously I cannot answer this question now.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 76, for the relief of Peter Logush-Mr. Factor-Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Major James William Coldwell: I take it, Mr. Chairman, that these are all divorce bills. It seems to me that this procedure is nothing more than a farce.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That has been said a dozen times.


Major James William Coldwell: In my opinion, the sooner proper judicial procedure can be set up to deal with this matter, the better. It is placing upon members of parliament responsibility which I do not think we should be called upon to take. We know nothing about these bills; we have not even read them. I want to make a protest, and I suggest that the time has come when there ought to be courts in all our provinces to deal with these matters.


Thomas Vien: The question whether or not the rules of parliament should be amended is another matter, and one which,
[Mr. Senn.J
I suggest, cannot be considered at this time. In due course a measure might properly be presented to change the procedure which has been followed. But so long as the rules governing private bills are what they are, I am bound to follow the procedure we are now following.


Major James William Coldwell: May we have the sections read, so that we may understand what we are doing?


Thomas Vien: That will be done, if the hon. member desires it. I would point out, however, that all these bills are just as unpalatable to me as to any hon. member in the committee. I am absolutely opposed to divorce bills.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are all the same.


Thomas Vien: In this instance I am only doing my duty and enforcing the rules. All these bills are going to be passed on division. These bills have been unopposed in committee. Each of them contains two sections, the first under the heading, "marriage dissolved"; the second, "right to marry again". Then in each bill is the usual preamble, and the title.
I suggest, therefore, that if we did not follow the usual procedure we would simply be wasting our time, until such time as, in its wisdom, the house deems it advisable to change the rules. I am not carrying out these duties as a farce; it is not a farce, so long as our rules are what they are. The only practical procedure is to deal with these bills in the regular fashion, avoiding the loss of time of the committee.


Major James William Coldwell: At the next session of parliament I propose to discuss every bill. I do not intend to do that to-night, because I do not wish to delay proceedings. But some protest must be made against this method of granting divorces. I am not opposed to all divorce, as is the chairman; but I feel that this procedure is a farce, and is a blot on our whole institution of parliament.


Thomas Vien: I would point out to the hon. member that there is a committee on miscellaneous private bills, the duty of which is to go into all these particulars. When a bill is reported from that committee, it is considered in committee of the whole. All these bills have already been properly dealt with by the committee on miscellaneous private bills.


William Ross Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, it should be pointed out to the committee that not only has each bill been considered by the private bills committee of

Divorce Bills
the House of Commons, but each bill originated in the senate, where the applicant made his or her petition for divorce. The bill, while there, was referred to a committee of the senate. Evidence was heard by that committee. I have attended divorce committees, and it is my opinion that it is a competent one. The hearing of evidence is conducted in a judicial manner. Each applicant has to prove his or her case, just as much as he or she would have to prove it in a court of law. The respondent is duly notified, and may appear before that committee either in person alone, or in person with counsel. Further, the respondent may give evidence.
I believe these facts should be pointed out, because the impression might go abroad that these bills, when placed before the committee of the House of Commons, are just rushed through, without consideration.


James Lester Douglas: That is exactly what happens.


William Ross Macdonald: That is not so. These bills have received very, very careful consideration.


Major James William Coldwell: No, no.


Mr. MARTIN:: Not by this house.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But they have by the other house.


William Ross Macdonald: An hon. member has said that they have not been considered by this house. I would say to him that they have been considered by this house, through the private bills committee which was set up by the house. Also I would remind hon. members that the evidence presented before the senate committee has been printed and has been given to each member. Each member has had an opportunity of considering that evidence.


Major James William Coldwell: Nobody reads it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They go right to the waste-paper basket.


William Ross Macdonald: If my hon. friend throws them into the waste-paper basket, that is his responsibility, and it shows that he is not particularly interested in these bills.
My point is that these divorce bills have received careful consideration. The procedure is not just a matter of form, and they do not come before the committee of the whole without previous consideration.


Thomas Vien: I have given wide latitude in the discussion of that point. I must
85826-149}
point out, however, that we have nothing before the chair, except these individual bills. I would remind hon. members that we are in committee of the whole, and that subsection 2 of standing order 58, to which I have referred on several occasions this session, governs.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed on division.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 77, for the relief of Goldie Wolfe Goldberg-Mr. Factor-Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Thomas Vien: Shall section 1 carry?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Right to marry again.
Shall section 2 carry?
Major James William Coldwell: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed, on division.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 78, for the relief of Ethel Witkov Myers-Mr. Ber-covitch-Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. CHAMBERS:: May I point out briefly that the private bills committee appointed three of its members to sit with the senate divorce committee which considered the divorce bills. Of the three members so named I had the pleasure-doubtful as it may have been-to be one. May I assure the committee that on every possible occasion I attended before the senate committee. The senators-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Alan Chambers: -were most courteous in their reception of us, and we had an opportunity of cross-examining witnesses, if we so desired. As a result, I would say that these bills have been carefully watched, not only in the committee of the senate, but in the private bills committee of this house.


James Lester Douglas: May I point out-
Divorce Bills


Mr. LACROIX (Quebec-Montmorency) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to register a strong protest against the words just uttered by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) . . .


Thomas Vien: Order. I must remind hon. members that this discussion is out of order.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Absolutely.


James Lester Douglas: Two members have been allowed to speak.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They presented the one side of the case, but when anyone attempts to give the cither side, he is called to order.


Thomas Vien: Four members have
spoken already, but they were out of order. Considerable latitude has been given, but I think we should get back to the regular discussion.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed on division.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Tilly Fishman Constantine.-Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 80, for the relief of Rachel Ruth Levenstein Schwartz.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 81, for the relief of Eleanor Mabel Campbell Townsend.-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 82, for the relief of Isabel Margaret Gill Bacon.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 83, for the relief of Michele Fiorilli. -Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 84, for the relief of Gertie Schwartz Sirnak.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Geneva Clementine Hurley Picard.-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City).
Bill No. 86, for the relief of Rene Gaudry.- Mr. Hazen.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Fanny Costom Copelovitch.-Mr. Hazen.
Bill No. 88, for the relief of William Gerald Dickie.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Agnes Dorothy Smith Bruneau.-Mr. Hazen.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of John Eric Pitt. -Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Dennis Calvert Kerby.-Mr. Mcllraith.
fMr. T. C. Douglas.]
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Camille Perks.- Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 95, for the relief of Maria Cecilia Patricia Gatien Rowell.-Mr. Tomlinson. .
Bill No. 96, for the relief of Lemuel Athelton Lewis.-Mr. Homuth.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Joseph Philias Hector Sauvageau.-Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 105, for the relief of John Bernard Hughes.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Annie Block Smilovitch.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 107, for the relief of Charles-Auguste Armand Lionel Beaupre.-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 108, for the relief of Albert Lennox Brown.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 109, for the relief of Talitha Emily Findlay.-Mr. Graydon.
Bill No. 110, for the relief of Joseph Armand Odilon Boucher.-Mr. Factor.
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Doris Bertha Schwartz.-Mr. Cleaver.
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Lilias Augusta Shepherd Harris.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 116, for the relief of Forest Wentworth Hughes.-Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 117, for the relief of Margaret Florence Stewart Corley.-Mr. Casselman (Grenville-Dundas).
Bill No. 119, for the relief of Moora Lipsin Sagermacher, otherwise known as Mary Lipsin Sager.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 121, for the relief of Robert Tester Gordon.-Mr. Hazen.
Third readings agreed to on division.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 118, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935-Mr. MacKinnon (Edmonton West)-Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 1-"Wheat" defined.
Ernest Edward Perley: Mr. Chairman, at this stage perhaps I might be permitted to reply to a statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) this afternoon. He referred to the fact that conferences had been held with certain western men and that there had been meetings with the pool and with representatives of rural municipalities in the three prairie provinces, and then he read a number of press clippings to which I shall not refer because it was more or less political propaganda. He concluded by saying-

Canadian Wheat Board


Thomas Vien: Order. We have had something like fifteen hours of discussion on the bill. Standing order 58, section 2, directs that the committee must confine itself strictly to each clause of the bill as it comes under consideration and that each section of the bill shall be considered separately. The hon. member could make his general statement on the third reading, but I do not think it would be in order for him to make it in committee when we are considering the bill clause by clause.


Ernest Edward Perley: My only object, Mr. Chairman, in making the statement now was so that it would follow the statement of the minister. His statement was more or less of an attack on me which, I think, was quite uncalled for, particularly when he read from a letter which he has carried round with him since the 11th of July.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member's
statement might be the substance of a question of privilege, but a question of privilege cannot be raised in committee. Furthermore, we are considering the bill clause by clause, and I repeat, the hon. gentleman will have an opportunity to make his statement on the third reading. If we depart from the rule, where shall we land?
Mr. MacIvINNON (Edmonton West): Just before six o'clock the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Serm) asked a question regarding the processing levy on Ontario wheat. The processing levy that is collected on Ontario wheat will be placed in a special account, and in the event of the wheat being sold at such a price as to permit payment of participation certificates, I am of opinion that these amounts will be added to such payments.


Mark Cecil Senn: I also asked the minister what disposition would be made of the proceeds from the sale of Ontario winter wheat by the board. Will the proceeds be kept in a separate fund or go into the general fund for western wheat and Ontario wheat alike; or will the farmers of Ontario enjoy the benefit of whatever surplus comes from the sale of Ontario wheat?


James Angus MacKinnon: The same procedure will be followed as was followed last year. An entirely separate account will be kept for Ontario wheat.


Mr. MacGARRY:: There has been a good deal of discussion yesterday and to-day regarding the marketing of wheat. What is the intention of the government and the wheat board regarding final payment on the 1939 crop?


James Angus MacKinnon: The accounts in connection with handling Ontario wheat are now being audited and a small payment will be made in a very short time.


Mark Cecil Senn: Will that be the final payment?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


Mr. FAIR:: When will the growers of spring wheat have a payment made to them?


Thomas Vien: Order. I must again call the attention of the committee to the fact that these questions do not arise on clause 1. I am entirely in the hands of the committee. If the committee desires to suspend the rules by unanimous consent-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Thomas Vien: If not, I am bound to apply the rule. We are on clause 1 defining wheat.


Ernest George Hansell: I would ask the minister a question concerning the addition of the word "Ontario". I have nothing against including Ontario in this clause. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that while there has been much discussion of the general principle of the bill, it must be recognized that the only opportunity we have to ask questions is when the bill is in committee. I should like to know definitely from the minister whether there will be any difference between the price paid for wheat to the Ontario farmer and the price paid to the western farmer. The Ontario farmer naturally desires all he can get, just as the western farmer desires all he can get, and they should be treated alike; there should be no discrimination. I might point out, however, that the eastern farmer produces a considerable amount of soft wheat, while most of the hard wheat comes from the west. Would the minister state definitely whether the price which the Ontario farmer will receive at his local elevator will be the same as that which the western farmer will receive?


Thomas Vien: In my opinion that question might arise under clause 3, which deals with payments to producers, but it does not arise under the definition of the word "wheat".


Ernest George Hansell: I was asking a question, Mr. Chairman, about the word "Ontario" because Ontario is being included in this clause.


Thomas Vien: If it were a question of what the word "Ontario" means, it would be in order, but a question as to how much is going to be paid is out of order on a clause defining "wheat".
Canadian Wheat Board


Ernest George Hansell: I will accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and ask my question under clause 3. I think we all know what "Ontario" means.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Advisory committee.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Might we have a statement from the minister on this section explaining, first of all, why the word "advise" is being changed to "assist". I think the word "assist" is much weaker. Second, why is the phrase deleted which compelled the committee to meet once a month? Is it now the purpose to call a meeting of the board only once in a long while? Again, the committee which previously had to meet with the board is now to report to the board. Does that mean that the committee will not meet with the board? Perhaps the minister would explain why these changes are being made in a section that was quite satisfactory as it stood.


James Angus MacKinnon: Under the conditions that exist to-day in regard to wheat, the advisory committee to be appointed will really have to assist. The word "assist" is used purposely.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does the minister mean "assist in administration"?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.
Mr .MacNICOL: Will the members of the advisory committee be paid?


James Angus MacKinnon: No; they will receive a per diem and travelling allowance.


John Ritchie MacNicol: How much is that going to be?


James Angus MacKinnon: I do not know. I imagine it is a matter of regulation. I am informed it is covered in the bill.
I want to finish answering the questions asked by the hon. member for Weyburn. With regard to meetings of the committee, we enlarged the scope of the section by using this phraseology to permit of the calling together of the advisory board frequently, more frequently than was anticipated in the other legislation, and as required.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How often have they been meeting?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The other question was as to their reporting to the board.


James Angus MacKinnon: They will meet with the board and will report to
(The Chairman.]
the board. The purpose is to guarantee that the board shall have before them at all times the report of the advisory committee.


Ernest Edward Perley: Will they replace the wheat advisory committee of the cabinet?


James Angus MacKinnon: No.


Ernest Edward Perley: The advisory committee of the cabinet will still continue?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


Ernest Edward Perley: How often has the wheat board met with the wheat committee of the cabinet?


James Angus MacKinnon: I have been in the department for only a comparatively short time. They have met frequently in the last month or two.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is an irregular term. How often have they met? What is the usual practice? The minister should tell us that.


James Angus MacKinnon: I want to be fair.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And I do, too.


James Angus MacKinnon: I am not so sure, Mr. Chairman. I say "frequently", and "frequently" means just exactly what the word signifies; that is, I would say, a dozen times.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is good. In three months?


James Angus MacKinnon: In less than three months.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I suggest that, in order to carry out the suggestion of the hon. member for Weyburn, the minister amend this section 2, which amends second 6 of the act, to read:
The governor in council may appoint during pleasure an advisory committee to assist and advise the board.
Let us get a little strength into it. Otherwise it is purely permissive.


James Angus MacKinnon: It seems to me that the advisory committee's duty as indicated is clearly to advise and assist. As a matter of fact, I think the word "assist" makes it very much stronger than would the word "advise" alone.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The words have entirely different meanings. "To assist" the board is to help the board carry out its functions. "To advise" the board is an entirely different function. Last year it was "to advise" the board. This year it has been

Canadian Wheat Board
lowered a stage; it is "to assist" the board. The committee are not to have any advisory functions. If language means anything, they cannot be an advisory committee unless they have the power to do something; otherwise it is only a name.


Robert Fair: I wonder if the minister could tell us why the original board was abolished, and, at the same time, why the number of members of the committee is increased to eleven from the original seven.


James Angus MacKinnon: Owing to the peculiar circumstances in connection with the marketing of grain, and with a practically closed exchange, it was the opinion of the wheat committee of the cabinet that this year there should be an advisory committee consisting not only of producers but of representatives from various organizations, shipping companies, and exporters, in connection with the grain trade. It was thought advisable that they should be represented on this committee.


Robert Fair: May we be informed, then, in what way or from what source it is intended to select these six producers' representatives?


James Angus MacKinnon: Possibly the hon. member for Battle River should not expect an answer to that question at this time, but I am quite ready to say that organizations handling wheat for the farmers of western Canada as agents for the producers will be represented. If the hon. member is referring purely to the producers, I think that is as far as I can go.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will organizations such as the United Farmers of Alberta and the United Farmers of Canada be represented?


James Angus MacKinnon: I think they will.


Robert Fair: I raised this question because it is of great importance to the producer whether the persons selected are to be representatives of organized agriculture, or are some farmers, perhaps supporters of the government, who have not been able to run their own business but who can be told what they are to do. We do not want that kind of representative on the board. I should like to see representatives of organized agriculture on this board, and have the different organizations nominate or select their representatives.


James Angus MacKinnon: The greatest care will be taken to select in the fairest way possible the members of this advisory committee.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would it be possible to ask some of the organizations that are really representative of large bodies of farmers or wheat producers to select the producers' representatives? The minister says that they will be selected with the greatest fairness possible. I am sure that is the minister's intention, but what one person might consider fair another person might not. The really fair way to have producers' representation is to allow some of the producers' bodies to select one or two persons to sit on that committee. I have in mind, for instance, the wheat pool. The three wheat pool organizations represent between 160,000 and 170,000 wheat growers in western Canada. The Saskatchewan pool represents 105,000. The wheat pool organizations should be requested to select somebody; there should not be somebody selected by the government from among their number. Just as labour is to be invited, according to the Prime Minister's announcement the other day, to suggest someone to sit on the advisory committee which is being set up in another connection, organized agriculture should be free to nominate representatives upon this advisory committee.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And the producers from Ontario or eastern Canada?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Surely. I am talking now about the west because primarily we are interested in that section of the country.


James Angus MacKinnon: What the hon. gentleman has suggested, I have already done. I have already asked various farmers' organizations; I have spoken to a number of Ontario producers, and I have suggested that they present names from whom members can be appointed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And from
farmers in the west?


James Angus MacKinnon: From western farmers' organizations.


Mr. ADAMSON:: May I ask what the minister meant by the words "a practically closed exchange"?


James Angus MacKinnon: With the condition of the market and with the government wheat policy, all wheat is handled by the government and there is none for the Winnipeg grain exchange to deal with. It has not handled any for weeks. I see no reason why we should close the Winnipeg grain exchange. I think it should take care of itself.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister be good enough to give me the reason to which he referred the other day, the
Canadian Wheat Board

reason which actuated the British cereals import committee to ask that the exchange be kept open? That is what the government was hanging its hat on as the reason for its decision, and I should like to know more about it.


James Angus MacKinnon: I read into Hansard this afternoon the actual telegram.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I beg
pardon; I may have been out. H it has already been given, I shall not ask that the information be repeated.


Mr. PE RLE  Y@: This clause reads:
The governor in council may appoint during pleasure . . .
Would the minister interpret the word "may"? Does the government intend to appoint the committee right away, so that they will be available to advise upon the handling of the 1940 crop? Also, with reference to the closing of the exchange, the minister will recall that at a meeting of grain exchange members a little while ago they asked the government to provide hedging facilities. Has the minister considered that? What did they mean by that, and what does the government propose to do about the matter?


James Angus MacKinnon: What is the last part of the question?


Ernest Edward Perley: At a meeting of the grain exchange council some time ago, a resolution was passed requesting that the government provide hedging facilities for grain. Is the government considering that question? If so, what does the government propose to do about it?


James Angus MacKinnon: It is the intention to appoint the advisory committee right away. I am sorry I did not quite catch the last part of the question.


Ernest Edward Perley: Some time ago the grain exchange officials met and passed a resolution which was forwarded to Ottawa asking that the government provide facilities for hedging grain.


James Angus MacKinnon: 1 have not heard of it.


Robert Fair: Is the grain exchange operating in England at the present time?


James Angus MacKinnon: No.


Robert Fair: I believe it was closed in England by government order. If it was necessary to close it there, why not here?


James Angus MacKinnon: I do not know whether I should be called upon to answer a question in that form. However, I have no objection. So far as wheat is concerned, the grain exchange is now entirely inoperative. I do not believe there has been a transaction through the grain exchange for some time. Under our legislation the government takes all the *wheat, and I think it is up to the grain exchange to do what it likes, either to continue to pay salaries and overhead or to close up.


Robert Fair: Is any transaction going forward through the grain exchange in coarse grains or anything else at the present time?


James Angus MacKinnon: There are some transactions in coarse grain and a few in wheat.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Is it not a fact that the grain exchange in Winnipeg is allowing anyone who has hedges to transfer them to other months? Is it not allowing hedges to be transferred from month to month at the present time?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As I read
section 2, what we are going to do is, instead of having an advisory board, to have a committee which will assist. The committee, however, has no power to call meetings of its own accord. It is called by the board. The board does not have to call it unless it wishes to; and when the committee meets, its power is not to advise but to assist, as the minister says, in an administrative way. The members of the advisory committee will not receive a salary, and so it is a matter of calling them from time to time. It seems to me that the change has weakened the section.


William Ross Macdonald: The change from "advise" to "assist" makes the section stronger. Previously it read:
The governor in council may appoint during pleasure an advisory committee to advise the board.
That is not well worded. I do not know what an advisory committee could do except advise the board. The proper wording would have been:
The governor in council may appoint during pleasure an advisory committee to the board.
The words "to advise" were not necessary. That is the function of an advisory committee, to advise the board. That has been made stronger by the use of the word "assist," so that the present committee will not only be an advisory committee which, by virtue of its creation, will advise, but also have the additional function of assisting the board.

Canadian Wheat Board


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But there is no requirement that the committee should meet at any particular time or that it has to be called. It is called at the behest of the board. The board may call it or not as it chooses. I asked the minister three times whether the pools would be represented, and he said that the farmers' organizations would be represented.


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes; the pools will certainly be represented.


Ernest Edward Perley: The minister referred this afternoon to a cablegram, dated July 23, from the British cereal imports committee to Mr. Mclvor. Were there any other cablegrams prior to that? If so, will he table them? I am referring to communications with respect to the closing of the exchange. Was there any correspondence or were there cablegrams last September with reference to that question just after Mr. Rank was appointed as purchaser for the British government in France?


James Angus MacKinnon: I know of no cablegrams received last September or at any other time which would give a different direction from that referred to in the cablegram read this afternoon. There are no communications I know of except the one I read this afternoon.


James J. Donnelly: The minister has said that the organized farmers will be represented on the advisory board. He has asked certain organized farmers to make representations as to persons whom they want. At the present time the board has two gentlemen, two ex-pool men, and one from the grain trade; and the great body of western farmers, the majority of them, do not belong to any organization.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


James J. Donnelly: I belonged to the
wheat pool years ago; but there are hundreds who, like myself, do not belong to the wheat pool to-day. Will the unorganized farmers of western Canada be represented? They should be represented on the board just as well as the organized farmers.


James Angus MacKinnon: They will be.


James J. Donnelly: I do not know what
other organization can be meant than the wheat pool. Is that the only organized body that will be represented, or are there others?


James Angus MacKinnon: I
know of at least two sorts of organized farmers who will be represented, and I know that producers belonging to neither of these will be on the board.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Why not put them all
on and they will all be satisfied.


Robert Fair: The argument of the hon.
member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) is rather weak, like several others that he has advanced along the same line. He refers to two men who worked for the wheat board some years ago and suggests that the organized producers are represented. That is foolish, because while these men worked for the organized wheat growers and took their orders from them, at the present time they are working for another organization from whom they take their orders. There are in this house other men who worked for organized agriculture at one time, and to-day they have a knife in the back of the organization. The hon. member's argument does not hold water and he should consider his statements before taking up the time of the committee.


Ernest Edward Perley: The minister made a statement to the effect that the grain exchange was practically closed, that it was not doing business. I have here a return tabled July 4, showing that the board had done business to the extent of 29,623,000 bushels of futures sold. Will the minister tell the committee whether the board have disposed of those trades and how they were cleared, and would he give the committee a statement with respect to the board's position in futures? Are they short or long on the exchange at the present time?


Thomas Vien: I do not believe that
question arises under this section, which is concerned exclusively with the constitution of the board, not with its future policy. I believe the question is out of order.


Ernest Edward Perley: I asked it only because
the minister made reference to the exchange.


Thomas Vien: I am trying to apply
the rules, but I have some difficulty in drawing the line as between what is and what is not directly or indirectly related to the section under examination. However, the policy of the board certainly is not at present under consideration by the committee. I should think the question would be in order under section 3.


James Angus MacKinnon: If the question is going to be asked again, I may as well answer it now. I am particularly anxious to give as much information as possible, but in connection with the transactions of the wheat board there is a great deal of information which in the public interest should not be made public. The trades, however, to

Canadian Wheat Board

which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has referred were made prior to the placing of the peg in the market.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Powers of board respecting the buying of wheat.
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In my considered
opinion the price proposed is quite inadequate. I should like to direct the attention of the committee to the statement of the minister to the effect that we are going to be able to market approximately 160 million bushels of wheat this fall. We are going to thresh approximately 400 million bushels, in connection with which the bill for threshing and delivering alone, at, say eight cents a bushel, will amount to about $32,000,000. According to the Sirois report, municipal taxes in the three prairie provinces in 1937 amounted to $51,166,000. In my province at least, before the farmers can realize a single dollar for themselves they have to receive from the secretary of the municipality a statement to the effect that current taxes have been paid. Therefore we must realize from the current crop $51,166,000 for taxes and $32,000,000 for threshing, cutting and delivering, or a total of about $83,000,000. With the present price, which is approximately fifty cents a bushel on the farm, the 160 million bushels which will be marketed will give the farmers $80,000,000. In other words, out of their wheat crop the farmers will not get enough to pay their taxes and the cost of threshing and delivering.


John Gordon Ross: My hon. friend
mentioned municipal taxes. Are those only the rural taxes?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Those were the municipal taxes in the prairie provinces.


John Gordon Ross: Then that takes in all the cities.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Quite so, but the
farmers indirectly supply the money with which the city people pay their taxes. In Saskatchewan the bulk of the wealth is produced on the farms.


Mr. GOLDING:: Is wheat their only source of income?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Hon. gentlemen in the far corner opposite will have plenty of time to make their own speeches when I am through. I submit that we are not proceeding in a businesslike manner. We are now discussing a commodity that is just as important in this war as any other commodity. I have before me a record of the contracts awarded during
FMr. J. A. MacKinnon.]
the month of April, 1940, covering 340 pages in all. I need not take time to read this list but I open it at random and on page 128 I find listed a contract with Lyman's Limited of Montreal for medical supplies. I have no doubt that in obtaining that contract the company concerned were able to include wages to their employees, interest on their investment, salaries for their officials, and all the other charges; yet no one in this house questions that contract. I feel satisfied that every contract listed in this volume gives to the contractor every possible item of cost, and in many instances a handsome profit.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Do not be too sure of
that.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am not too sure of
it, but the records of many of these corporations would indicate that this is a fair conclusion. In connection with the cost of producing wheat I have Hansard for April 5, 1939, when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) set out what in his opinion were those costs. I quote from page 2623:
It has been proven over and over again that twenty bushels to the acre of wheat can be produced at a cost of from thirty to forty cents a bushel. We have had a great deal of discussion about the cost of producing wheat. It costs a certain amount to work an acre of land whether you get any wheat off it or not; it costs a certain amount to harvest it if you do get any wheat off it. It has been proven over and over again, I say, that twenty bushels to the acre of wheat can be produced at a cost of from thirty to forty cents a bushel. For every bushel a man gets over twenty his costs per bushel decrease. When he has a crop of twenty bushels or more per acre his other crops are usually good in proportion.
A lengthy discussion followed, during which the name of Professor Hope was mentioned.
I have before me the report of the proceedings of a conference on markets for western farm products, containing statements by Professor Hope, who is recognized by all hon. members from western Canada as an extremely [DOT] dependable authority on the question of farm management. He states that on the basis of average yields of wheat, twenty bushels to the acre, for the period 1918 to 1930, for the Regina plain and the Rosetown area-represented here by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar

costs of production are approximately fifty-five cents a bushel for a half-section farm, forty-four cents for a section farm, and thirty-four cents for a two-section farm with a tractor combine truck. Of course, as Professor Hope pointed out, these costs were based on the assumption that the farmer had his land free of debt. Hon. members from western Canada know that a very small percentage of western farmers are in the fortunate

Canadian Wheat Board
position of having large farms, with up-to-date equipment, diesel caterpillars, combines and so on, all free of any encumbrance. At page 234, Professor Hope was questioned by Mr. Brockington, in these words:
This morning, in quoting figures as to the minimum price of wheat necessary to maintain certain amenities in Saskatchewan, you were, I think, referring to the price on the farm and not the price at Fort William. The following essential fact, however distasteful it may be to some people in eastern Canada, should be stated directly. Am I correct in drawing from your remarks this morning this conclusion, that in so far as Saskatchewan is concerned the price of eighty cents a bushel for wheat at Fort William is quite inadequate to enable the Saskatchewan farmer to pay anything but a small portion of his existing debt, and certainly to allow him to maintain decent standards of living. Would you say that was a correct conclusion?
Professor Hope:	The present price at Fort
William is not enabling the farmer to pay any debt in Saskatchewan except in a few cases in the north.
I believe the evidence Professor Hope has submitted on different occasions indicates quite conclusively that the price of 70 cents proposed is inadequate. To hon. members from other parts of Canada I want to make it quite clear-


James Garfield Gardiner: Why does the hon.
member read the first statement I am presumed to have made in trying to prove what Professor Hope says?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I pointed out in my remarks that Professor Hope supported the statement of the Minister of Agriculture that wheat could be produced at from 30 to 40 cents a bushel if a farmer were in the fortunate position of having a large farm and were in a good wheat-producing area, with up-to-date machinery, free of all encumbrances.


An hon. MEMBER:: And twenty bushels to the acre.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: But I contend that 90 per cent of the farmers in western Canada are not in that fortunate position.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Ninety-nine per cent.


James Garfield Gardiner: I wish to thank my hon. friend for taking that position. He is the first one in that group who has explained it in that way.


Major James William Coldwell: We have always maintained that one per cent of the farms in Saskatchewan-according to Professor Hope's figures-and on the superior soils, equipped as the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) has pointed out, and without debt, could produce a bushel of wheat, on an average of twenty bushels to the acre, at the cost
the minister has indicated. But we have contended before, and I contend to-night, that to take that small number of farms as the basis of an argument as to the cost of producing wheat is entirely misleading. I have said this-and I repeat it to-night-that he misled this house a year ago last April.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just to clear up the point, because it has been repeated over and over again-


Major James William Coldwell: I have repeated it, yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: The statement made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is scarcely the position which has been taken both in the house and out of it by way of criticism. As a matter of fact, the statement made by Professor Hope is correct. That is, that you can, as I said in my statement in, the house, put in an acre of wheat; you can do the cultivating of it, and you can do the harvesting of it at a cost of from $6 to $8 an acre. That figures out, at the rate of twenty bushels to the acre, at 30 to 40 cents a bushel. Of course, if there is no debt on the land, there is no debt cost to be paid, and no consideration for that need be given.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: There is interest on investment.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend talks about one per cent of the land being heavy and the greater part of it being light and of lesser value-


Major James William Coldwell: Not heavy, superior.


James Garfield Gardiner: I want to point out that the heavier land costs more to cultivate than does the lighter land, and if you have twenty bushels to the acre on the lighter land you are a little better off than if you have twenty bushels to the acre on the heavier land. But that point does not come into the calculation at all. If you have twenty bushels to the acre on land, and do not take anything into consideration but cultivation and harvesting, the statement which I made was that that would cost from $6 to $8 an acre. And I suggest that Professor Hope's statement bears that out.


Major James William Coldwell: Just let me tell the minister the conclusion at which Professor Hope arrived at page 152 of this booklet.


An hon. MEMBER:: We are tired of that.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member may be tired, but this is an important matter, and should have been discussed earlier in the session.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is right.
Canadian Wheat Board


Thomas Miller Bell: This is Professor Hope's conclusion:
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.
The conclusion is quite obvious. It is clear that it will require not a Fort William price, but an average farm price of 90 cents a bushel to maintain even the standard of living we now have.


James Garfield Gardiner: We all agree with that. Why discuss that at greater length?


Major James William Coldwell: Then, if we all agree, why do we not set the price on that basis?


Victor Quelch: It has been said that the statement of the hon. member for Mackenzie was one which had been made for the first time in the house. That is not correct. I would refer hon. members to what I said in the house on May 6, 1939. At that time I quoted this statement of Professor Hope:
Probably not more than one per cent of the farms of the west are as efficient as this.


Thomas Vien: Order. The hon. member is referring to a debate which took place this session.


Victor Quelch: No; I am referring to a debate which took place last year-on May 6, 1939.


Thomas Vien: Very well, proceed.


Victor Quelch: Then I follow up my quotation with this statement:
According to that, the Minister of Agriculture was ninety-nine per cent incorrect in liis statement, because only one per cent of the farms in western Canada are of a type to permit the production at a cost of 34 cents.
That is exactly the same statement.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Just a moment; I should like to make some observations.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I have been interrupted several times.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Probably the hon. member would permit me to change the subject. Perhaps if that were done we might make some further progress. In the bill as at present before the house the powers of the board are set out in respect of the purchase of wheat. Then there is this overriding proviso:
Provided that no wheat shall be purchased by the board except from the producers thereof.

Then, paragraph (b) of section 7 of the act reads:
(b)	to buy wheat from producers only and not in excess of 5,000 bushels from any one producer in any one crop year.
Then follows the proviso:
Provided that the board may, by way of one or more purchases, as the case may be, buy from any one person entitled as landlord, vendor, mortgagee or otherwise, by contract for operation of law-
And so on. This seems to me to limit the person who is a producer of wheat; and if a very narrow interpretation is placed upon it, of course it will substantially limit the quantity to be bought. I am wondering if there subsists in the west a system of share croppers. I believe the relationship would be that of landlord and tenant; that would be the legal relationship. Is the landlord to be entitled to sell his share?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The definition in the act includes vendors and mortgagees.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If that is so, it is a complete answer.


James J. Donnelly: In that connection I should like to ask a question. I notice the bill states:
(b) To buy wheat: Provided that no wheat shall be purchased by the board except from the producers thereof.
Is it possible, therefore, for a producer to load a car with wheat and send it to Winnipeg directly to the board, to pay no commission or no service charges, and to sell it directly to the board without the service charges which at the present time are levied by the grain handling facilities? Is it possible for us to sell directly to the board without having to pay a commission or service charges?


James Angus MacKinnon: I am informed it is not possible.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why?


James J. Donnelly: Then the board will
not take wheat direct from a farmer at all? He has to pay commission? He has to have a commission agent.


Ernest Edward Perley: If the grain exchange closes, what will he do?


James Angus MacKinnon: According to the wheat board act of 1935 he has to deliver his grain through the regular channels.


James J. Donnelly: But the producer is consigning this wheat to the wheat board, and he is selling so that it may go directly to that board. He does not want a broker or a commission agent. Why would the wheat

Canadian Wheat Board
board not be willing to take it, and why does he have to pay a service charge to a commission house?


James Angus MacKinnon: Section S, paragraph (i) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act covers the point.


Mr. LEADER:: I believe that is true. In the few remarks I made the other night I tried to make it clear that I thought the wheat board had no alternative than to purchase through the regular channels of trade, which would include commission merchants, and were compelled as purchasers to pay the one cent commission, which some hon. members call a service charge. I believe the act could be amended to take care of this situation. Now that the grain exchange is not functioning, most producers could ship directly to the board and save that one cent. It should not be difficult to amend the act, and I submit that it shoidd be done. Perhaps it cannot be done to-night, but I ask the minister to consider the matter.


William Ross Macdonald: If wheat were purchased in that way it would cost considerably more to operate the board. The board would have to increase its staff in order to be able to buy from hundreds of thousands of individual wheat producers. By carrying on in this manner the board purchases from a few commission agents and the cost of operation is much less.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The reduced cost is at
the expense of the farmer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If I understand the minister aright, he contends that the board could not buy directly from the producer; that it must use the existing channels of trade. He was asked to give his authority and he referred to section 8(i). That section has nothing to do with the purchase of wheat by the board. The section reads:
It shall be the duty of the board:-
(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.
That section limits the operation of the board to the disposal of wheat. There is nowhere a provision that the board shall buy through the existing channels, so the information of the minister would appear to be misinformation, if I may use that term. If I recollect aright, this section was put in the act at the request of the grain trade. They wanted to handle the outlet for the wheat, but there was no provision at all with respect
to purchases. I have not looked at the act for five years until this evening, and there may be some other section, but certainly the minister's information to the committee on this point is erroneous.


James Arthur Ross: I think Mr. Ramsay, chairman of the commission, stated that they had nothing to do with this service charge. He said it was distinctly an arrangement between the board and the grain trade.


John Gordon Ross: Section 7 of the act reads:
The board shall undertake the marketing of wheat in interprovincial and export trade and for such purposes shall have all the powers of a corporation and without limitation upon such powers the following: -
(a)	to receive and take delivery of wheat for marketing as offered by the producers thereof;
(b)	to buy and sell wheat: Provided that no wheat shall be purchased by the board except from the producers thereof;
(c)	to store and transport wheat;
(d)	to operate elevators, either directly or by means of agents, and subject to the provisions of the Canada Grain Act or any other statute or law, to pay such agents commissions, storage and other charges, remuneration or compensation as may be agreed upon, with the approval of the board of grain commissioners.
I believe the hon. member for Wood Mountain has raised an important point. I am not a lawyer, but from what I read there, I am of the opinion that the board must take delivery from the farmer. If the board takes delivery from the producer or the farmer through an agent, that agent is the agent of the board and not of the farmer or the producer. Once the grain is handed to the agent, any further service charge or any other charge, apart from the elevation charge and the freight, would have to be borne by the board and not by the producer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is pretty sound reasoning.


Ernest Edward Perley: The farmer has a right to load a car of grain, ship it to his own order at Fort William and get all the papers including the warehouse receipts. Does the minister mean to say that if he delivers those warehouse receipts to the board, the board will not accept them and deal directly with him without any agent? If that is the situation, then the act should be amended, because it is taking away from the individual rights which should not be taken away. It has been understood for years that a farmer had a right to ship grain to Fort William to his own order and dispose of it as he saw fit. I do not think there is anything in the act to prevent the board from accepting warehouse receipts when they are presented.
Canadian Wheat Board


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is a
matter of construing the statute. I think the hon. member for Moose Jaw has given a fair interpretation of section 7 (d). Of course that paragraph follows the one having to do with the operation of elevators, and it must be read with the context. But on the bald point of charging a commission on a sale by a producer to the wheat board, there is no authority for that in the statute so far as I can observe. There is provision with respect to the sale of wheat, and section 8 (i) provides :
(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.
Naturally a commission on the sale would follow, but it would not touch the producer.


John Gordon Ross: There are two
separate sections.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the
wheat board has been operating on another theory, they had better revise their methods immediately. I do not want to give a lecture to the wheat board because they know a good deal more than I about the operation of this thing, but all my life I have been trying to construe statutes and it is a fundamental principle that you cannot read into a statute a charge or tax unless it is expressed by words or by implication so clear that he who runs may read. I suggest to the minister that he ask the board to give revised information on this matter. After all, if it is not in the statute, I do not think it ought to be charged. Perhaps we can save the farmers a cent a bushel, but I suppose it will be passed on to the government.


John Gordon Ross: Not at all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I hope it
will not have that effect. In other words, the board will simply do it with their own administrative facilities.


John Gordon Ross: The one cent service charge comes out of the 70 cents Fort William price, so it is taken off the price which the farmer receives at the elevator. If that one cent service charge is not charged to the farmer, it will be charged to the board, but the farmer or producer will get one cent more per bushel for his wheat at the country elevator. Last year that meant $3,180,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
quite an item. Why should it be deducted at all under the statute?


John Gordon Ross: It should not be.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It seems
to me that there is an erroneous impression on the part of the board as to the powers it has to deduct this one cent, and if this discussion has served no other purpose it has served a useful purpose in saving that one cent a bushel to the farmer. The power is certainly not in the statute. Anyone who has read anything at all on the construction of taxing statutes knows that the most fundamental principle is that a subject cannot be taxed by the crown

and the board is, of course, a crown agent-without express language in the statute or by implication so clear that he who runs may read. That is a correct statement of the principle.


James Angus MacKinnon: I am informed that the service charge was established by the first board in 1935.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That does not make it right.


James Angus MacKinnon: I am not trying to justify it, but that is how it started and it has continued in that way.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In the
light of the discussion will the whole position be reviewed?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


Ernest Edward Perley: This clause states that "no wheat shall be purchased by the board except from the producers thereof". It does not say that the farmer must deliver his wheat in any particular place. I suggest that the section be amended to make it clear beyond doubt that the farmer can deliver his wheat to the board at Fort William without any charges whatsoever.


James Angus MacKinnon: I have an amendment to section 3 which I shall ask my colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to move.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That clause 3 be amended by adding after the words "Fort William-Port Arthur" in lines 3 and 4 of the new proposed paragraph (e) the words "or Vancouver".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Howard Charles Green: 
Thomas Vien: Order. I see no practical point in discussing now why Vancouver was left out. I think it would be wasting the time of the committee.


Howard Charles Green: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, if I may say this, I should like to make it absolutely clear to the government that we in Vancouver are very much concerned over what has happened and we do not want to have a similar thing happen again. I could have spoken when the amendment was put forward, but to facilitate matters I waited until the chairman of the committee had put the motion, which he then declared carried. I suggest that I be allowed to complete my statement.


Thomas Vien: Order, please. I have ruled as being out of order any discussion which has no practical purpose. There is no practical purpose in discussing why Vancouver was omitted now that, by the amendment, Vancouver is included.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the amendment been carried, Mr. Chairman?


Thomas Vien: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) rose to speak before the amendment was put, and I suggest that he should have been allowed to speak before the chair declared the amendment carried.


Thomas Vien: I asked, shall the
amendment carry?


Richard Burpee Hanson: But you declared it carried before he could rise again.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the minister made mention earlier in the evening of dangers to shipping on the Pacific coast.


James Angus MacKinnon: I made no such statement.


Howard Charles Green: That point should be cleared up. I would ask the minister to state if there are any reasons at all why Vancouver should not be included as a basic grain delivery point.


James Angus MacKinnon: I know the hon. member for Vancouver South would never be unfair, but he has referred to a statement that I am supposed to have made earlier this evening with respect to dangers to shipping at Vancouver. I made no such statement and no such reference.


Howard Charles Green: Were there any reasons why Vancouver should have been left out? If so, we should like to know.


James Angus MacKinnon: The main thing is that Vancouver is in now, and we are very glad.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let us say it was a lapse on the part of somebody.
With reference to the question the hon. member for Qu'Appelle asked, is it the law of this country under the wheat board act that a farmer at any station on any railway in either of the three prairie provinces is able to ship, on a through bill of lading, payable to his own order at any point, say Port William, and to deal with a carload of grain in any way he may see fit? Can he endorse the bill of lading over to me, for instance, if I want to buy it from him without going to the wheat board?


John Gordon Ross: No, he cannot.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He can
under the law.


James Angus MacKinnon: I am informed that a farmer has never attempted to deliver a warehouse receipt to the board.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The board has not encouraged that line of activity. Its whole idea has been to have shipments made through the then existing channels of trade, but what we are trying to find out here is the farmer's right under the statute. Is it not his right to ship to the board or to another individual without going through a commission house?


James Angus MacKinnon: I am informed that it would be within his rights but that it would be expensive. He would have to go down himself or arrange for somebody else to go down to look after the matter.
Canadian Wheat Board


Ernest Edward Perley: You mean a farmer would have to go to Fort William to get his warehouse receipt? I have shipped thousands and thousands of bushels in that way. Furthermore, I should like to know what commission is charged-the service charge, as they call it, is a cent commission-and I should like the minister to inform the committee what charge the board pays to the commission men or elevator people who get the wheat in that way. I think we should have an understanding here and now that that cent service charge will be materially reduced.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It should not be paid at all.


Ernest Edward Perley: I have shipped thousands and thousands of bushels, and I got it done for years at a time at a quarter of a cent. The present charge is altogether out of proportion to the service rendered. I think the minister should say what the board pays in commission, and also state whether he is prepared to have that charge cut in half, at least.


Mr. NEILL:: On a point of order, I should just like to mention, for future protection, that we are treading on dangerous ground if we accept the ruling of the chairman that he can rule something out of order on the ground that it has no practical value. Half the time we are listening to arguments which perhaps some of us think have no practical value, but there is no rule whatever-


Thomas Vien: Well, the ruling has been given, and it is not debatable; it is subject to an appeal of the house. If the hon. member desired to appeal from my ruling he should have appealed immediately after it was given. That was his privilege. The ruling is not debatable and the hon. member is now too late to appeal.


Alan Webster Neill: I might say that the absurdity did not sink into me for a while.


Thomas Vien: Order. I am afraid that I shall have to ask the hon. member to withdraw what he has just said.


Alan Webster Neill: I withdraw, but I still think it.


Major James William Coldwell: I rise to a point of order. I have heard this ruling given a number of times. When I turn to the standing order-


Thomas Vien: What is the hon. gentleman discussing?


Major James William Coldwell: I am questioning the point of order raised[DOT]' a few moments ago.


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman is out of order. There is no point of order at present before the chair. We are discussing section 3 as amended.
I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to this point. When any hon. member is dissatisfied with a ruling, he can appeal to the house; immediately the chairman will leave the chair and will report to the speaker, who will ask the sentiment of the house, as to whether the ruling of the chairman should be upheld or not.


William Ross Macdonald: In regard to section 3 which we are discussing, the leader of the opposition has drawn the attention of the committee to the fact that the producers might be able to sell their grain directly to the board. It is a legal question, and the law as to their rights is set forth in statutes. My suggestion to the committee would be that this section should be now carried. The producers have all the rights that the law has given them, and apparently the section is quite clear.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No one is clear about it.


William Ross Macdonald: It seems to me that it is quite clear. I refer to the producers' rights in the matter. The question has arisen whether it would be advisable for them to sell directly to the board or whether it would be less expensive for them to employ a commission agent. That is all part of the wheat business, which, I submit, we cannot settle in this committee to-night for the producer. He has his rights, and he is carrying on his business as a farmer. He must decide which method is better for him. That is the reason why I suggest that the section should be carried, leaving the producer all the rights which he now has.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No one wants to impair the rights of the producer as laid down in the statute, but we want to know what in practical operation the wheat board decides are his rights, and I suggest that this is a pertinent question. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle raised the question about this one cent commission on sales by the farmers to the wheat board. It has been stated here that the practice has been that the wheat board will not accept any sales to the board except through the channels of trade. I suggest that there is in the act no justification for the board taking that attitude, and that therefore, the charge of a cent for selling through a commission house is illegal; I will go that far. But in respect of sales of wheat, under section 8 the act gives specific directions, and of course the usual charge must be paid, but this does not come on the farmer.

Canadian Wheat Board
The other question raised by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle relates to the right of the farmer to ship wheat to his own order.
I do not see that anywhere this right is taken away from him. The minister said that it would not be convenient for the farmer to ship wheat to his own order; that he would have to go to Fort William and take delivery. Why, delivery passes by endorsement of documents of title. It is a commercial transaction familiar to every man who has been in business, and he gives further directions if he wants to. That right is fully preserved in this statute; and if the board will not allow an individual producer or shipper to operate under his common law rights, or in the cases of provinces, under their sale of goods acts, the board are, in my judgment, taking quite a lot on themselves, and would not be sustained by the courts.
I believe that this discussion will have a clarifying effect. It seems to me that the rights of the producer, under the practical operation of the statute, have been very much restricted. I hope the discussion will have some good effect, and I have no desire to prolong the debate, but the authority does not exist for the one cent commission, or to deprive a man of his right to ship directly, if he so wishes, on a bill of lading payable to his order.


James Arthur Ross: I think we have discovered that the service charge is not provided for under the act. Would the minister mind reciting clause 19 of the agreement with the grain trade? Probably that contains the powers for which the act does not provide.
Mr. MacIvINNON (Edmonton West): Am I asked to read this clause?


James Arthur Ross: Yes; of the agreement with the grain trade, for last year, if the minister does not mind.


James Angus MacKinnon: It is as follows:
The board will pay to the company a carrying charge covering storage and interest on class B wheat in store at country elevators of -03900 of one cent per bushel per day, said carrying charge to commence on the date of mailing or delivery to the board of the regular daily report form reporting this wheat to have been received into the company's elevator, and will continue to pay this carrying charge until three days after the date the wheat is unloaded at the terminal point or such other destination as directed by the board, provided that the maximum carrying charge shall not exceed thirteen days from the date of bill of lading. The carrying charges accruing and due to the company will be paid to the company as at the fifteenth and last days of each month within five days of the receipt of a correct statement from the
company. The board will pay for such wheat on date of invoice at board fixed price, subject to provisions contained in paragraph 22 of this agreement.


James Arthur Ross: Does that mean that
they pay storage while a car is loaded and in transit?


James Angus MacKinnon: No.


Ernest Edward Perley: Would the minister just
explain what that means-"thirteen days from the date of the bill of lading?"


Thomas Alexander Crerar: On the point raised by
the leader of the opposition a moment ago, it is, I think, quite correct to say that it might be possible for a farmer to load his wheat over a loading platform, send it forward in a car and send the documents direct to the wheat board. But if that happens, then the wheat board has to perform certain services in respect of the shipment, and it should properly make a charge to the farmer who sent the wheat.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
a question of argument. I was looking at the matter only from the legal point of view.


Mr CRERAR:: I am looking at it from
the practical point of view.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is another matter.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: We will assume that the
farmer loads the car, closes the doors and goes to the railway station agent. The farmer fills out a bill of lading with the necessary particulars, has it receipted by the railway agent, and the agent seals the doors of the car and it is ready for transportation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the way in which we sell our potatoes.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In due time the car
reaches Winnipeg or some inspectional point. It is sampled for inspection. The sample is taken to the inspection office and a grade is given covering the contents of the car. It has been the practice, and it is a very necessary practice, that each commission agent or each elevator company handling grain has a man in the inspection office to check the inspection and, if necessary, to argue the point with the inspector as to whether it should be, say graded No. 2 northern or graded No. 3 northern. Many of these cars are what are called line grades. That is a service rendered by the commission company or by the elevator company for the service charge. Furthermore, the car passes on to
Canadian Wheat Board

the terminal point. It is unloaded. Someone must then take the bill of lading and exchange it for a warehouse receipt, and then the freight has to be paid on the car. According to my hon. friend's contention, the wheat board would have to set up a freight account and issue a cheque to the railway company for the freight on that particular car. They would have to exchange the documents. Not only that, but they would then have to write out a cheque and prepare a sales statement and send it to the farmer covering his particular car. I think the committee is under a misapprehension-


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is no misapprehension. We are looking at the man's legal rights.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I may be wrong, but the impression exists, certainly in the minds of some members of the committee, that this service should be performed free by the wheat board for the farmer. That cannot be done without discrimination, and the wheat board would have to make a service charge for handling that car if equity were to govern.


Ernest Edward Perley: About l/32nd of a cent would be enough.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No. My right hon. friend- Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Chairman, my apologies are due to the committee.


Ernest Edward Perley: That is all right; I did not ask for it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend, to give him his proper title, has posed in this house for many years as an expert on the handling of grain.


Ernest Edward Perley: Oh, no.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, he has; and I wish to tell the committee-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Who are the experts?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: -that what my hon. friend does not know about marketing grain would fill a very large book.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
a gratuitous statement which the hon. gentleman should! not make.


Ernest Edward Perley: That is a statement not coming to me at all. If the hon. member wants to compare me with experts, I can produce certain statements read on the other side a year ago with regard to the hon. gentleman's record as an expert on grain, and I think the comparison would be favourable to me.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There is nothing new-


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is unnecessary to introduce that sort of thing.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There is nothing new about the statement the hon. gentleman has made, because, to my memory, he has made it at least a dozen times in the house until it has worn threadbare.


Ernest Edward Perley: Statement about what?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: About the gentleman who was a former representative of Melville. In deference to the leader of the opposition I withdraw the statement I made a moment ago, that what the hon. member did not know about wheat would fill a large book. I do not wish to say that what he does know about wheat would fill a large book.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a left-handed way of taking it back.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am willing to withdraw the whole thing and have peace in the family. Perhaps I should not have said it. I think, however, I am within the bounds of fair criticism when I say that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has not always been fair in his criticism.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That may be true. Sometimes we are not.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The effort to-night to
create the impression in the mind of the committee and in the mind of the country, that the wheat board charged under the act with the administration of this business has been derelict in its duty to the producers, is not in my opinion a fair one.


Ernest Edward Perley: Who charged that tonight?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend says that
l/32nd of a cent a bushel would cover it.


Ernest Edward Perley: May I ask a question?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Just a moment. My hon. friend said that l/32nd of a cent could cover the service charge.


Ernest Edward Perley: Will the minister tell me
how much his company has charged on many occasions for a similar service in doing commission business, dealing with other members of the grain exchange?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not quite comprehend my hon. friend's question.


Ernest Edward Perley: Has the company with
which the minister is associated ever charged about l/32nd or l/16th of a cent as service charge in connection with inspection, warehouse receipt and so on?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Certainly not.

Canadian Wheat Board


Ernest Edward Perley: I have had it done for
that many times.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Certainly not. The regular
commission charge of one cent a bushel- and that commission rule was established many years ago; in fact, there was a famous controversy over the commission rule nearly forty years ago-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Its antiquity does not help it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: -was to cover all the
services that I have mentioned. The farmer who shipped his grain and had all these details looked after, paid a cent a bushel charge. In more recent years competition in the handling of grain by the country elevators has become keen. The old days when the elevator companies had margins of six, seven and eight cents a bushel on street grain they purchased have gone forever, in my judgment; and competition has resulted in this condition, that the elevator company in handling grain and grading it in the elevator which had to carry the risk-the grade risk and the risk of the weight-narrowed its margin to such a point as the wheat board last year was able to make in its arrangements with the elevator companies. As the minister said, it is all a matter of convenience. If the wheat board went into the grain commission business itself-and that is what it would be doing if effect were given to the argument which has been advanced to-night -it would have to set up a separate department for that business and would have to make a charge against the farmer for handling his grain. It may be a question whether that charge should be a cent, a half cent or a quarter of a cent, but certainly the principle of a charge would have to be recognized or there would be discrimination.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Just for my information, what would be the discrimination?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Because many farmers
would not handle their grain in that way.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And they would have to pay while the other fellow would not?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes; that is where the discrimination would come in.


Richard Burpee Hanson: After all,
that is their own lookout.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: But on the whole I think the present arrangement is fair. I believe there may be some force in the argument that in view of the situation which seems likely to exist during the next twelve months at any
rate, storage charges might be reduced, and as a matter of fact I think they have been reduced already.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, from one-thirtieth to one-forty-fifth of a cent per bushel per day.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is from one cent to three-quarters of a cent per month. That charge may be criticized here; it is quite open to any hon. member to criticize it. But I would point out that many years ago, under the grain legislation, a board of grain commissioners was appointed with certain definite legal powers. That board is in the nature of a court; it has to administer the law. No elevator company, no grain commission merchant or any other person is permitted to deal in grain without a licence from that board. If hon. members will go back to the early history of that regulation, they will find that it was imposed not so much to regulate storage charges as to ensure the financial set-up and standing of any person or company dealing in grain. It is not so many years ago-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Fly-bynights.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, as protection against fly-by-night merchants who might set up business. They might speculate on the grain exchange; they might use the collateral secured from farmers in order to bolster up their accounts, and then when they went down-


Richard Burpee Hanson: The farmers suffered.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: -the farmers got nothing. It was to protect the farmer shipping grain against that sort of thing that the licensing system was introduced. Now every person doing business must satisfy the board of grain commissioners as to his financial standing.


John Ritchie MacNicol: So he should.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: And properly so. Therefore the board is in the nature of a court, and I have every confidence in it. The chief grain commissioner, Mr. Ramsay, was one of the leading officials of the Saskatchewan pool for more than five years before his appointment to this position. He is a gentleman of ability and probity.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I agree.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: And those remarks apply also to the other commissioners. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle, the leader of the opposition, any farmer or any other person can appear before the board and make representations as to what the handling or storage
Canadian Wheat Board

charges should be; in the light of the evidence submitted by both sides the board fixes the rate, and that rate governs. That does not mean they may not make mistakes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is for storage under the grain act?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, and the same thing applies to the grain handling charge.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Do they fix the service charge?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, that is not fixed in that way; that is a rule of the trade. I am speaking of the charges for handling grain through elevators, which must be approved by the grain commission. They have nothing whatever to do with the service charge, which arises under the contracts made between the wheat board and the elevator companies for the handling of grain. We may criticize the judgment of the w'heat board; we may say they have been too generous with the grain companies in this connection. That is a legitimate criticism to offer. My judgment, based on my personal experience, is that the whole basis of remuneration fixed by the wheat board has been fair.
I wish to leave just this thought with the committee. If the suggestions made here to-night were adopted and the wheat board went into the business of handling the grain of individual farmers, then it would have to set up the necessary machinery and it would have to make some sort of charge to cover the cost; otherwise there would be discrimination.


James Arthur Ross: I asked a question that had been hardly answered before the minister rose to make his statement. The question was whether the storage was paid while the grain was in transit from the elevator to Port William.


James Angus MacKinnon: I am informed that the carrying charges are paid until the wheat is delivered to the board. The limitation of thirteen days is imposed in order that carrying charges will not be paid in the event of any congestion. Thirteen days is considered the average time in transit.


Ernest Edward Perley: That means the charge is paid while the grain is in the boxcar in transit?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


John Gordon Ross: Is that in regard to both types of wheat under the board, or only the one type?


James Angus MacKinnon: Just one type.


John Gordon Ross: That is type B wheat, under the board?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


John Gordon Ross: That is only the street wheat, not the carload lots.


James J. Donnelly: This service charge is important, because it means a cent a bushel on all the wheat handled in western Canada. Last year it meant 34.000,000 to the farmers of the west. It means in the neighbourhood of SI 5 on every carload that goes to Fort William. I have taken up the matter with the board of grain commissioners and I have looked through their regulations. They have no regulations with regard to this charge. I have asked the wheat board. They have nothing to do with the setting of the charge; they say it has been the custom, and that is all they know about it.
As this act reads now, it is misleading, because it states that the wheat board shall buy from producers only. If a farmer must have a commission agent, let us say so; let us clarify the act. If that is the case, let us say in the act that a farmer must deal through a commission agent, and state what the charge may be. Do not leave it as it is at present; do not say that the board must buy only from producers and then tell the producers that the board cannot buy from them. I say we should clarify the act in that respect. At the present time the commission agent receives about $15 on each carload, because now cars are larger and we put about 1,500 bushels in each car. The result is that $15 is paid the commission agents who take in the papers, look over the grade, decide it is all right and make the settlements. That is not worth $15.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Do the commission men make the settlements?


James J. Donnelly: They send back the money.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not the
tvheat board?


James J. Donnelly: Not if it is shipped in that way. The grade is made; the agent agrees to it and sends back the money to the farmer. We should decide definitely what this charge should be and put it in the act, so that the farmer may know what he has to pay and where it goes. It goes to the grain trade, entirely. It is not the board that gets it, or anything else. It is the grain trade that gets it.


Harry Leader: May I say something about clarifying the act? Of course I am not a lawyer, but I have had some experience in

Canadian Wheat Board
shipping grain. I also remember an experience we had in this very house in 1925, when we revised the grain act. At that time there was the question whether a farmer or a producer, as we now call him, had a right to designate to what terminal his car of grain should go. We always thought we had that right, but it turned out that we did not have it. It was the general practice, I believe, for the elevator companies to ship to whatever terminal they liked. The farmers had a right to say to what terminal they should ship their wheat, and some of them took advantage of that right.
I shall not go into the whole history of the matter, because it is a long one. But we clarified the act. The Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) will remember it well. We clarified the act, and what was the result? We put an iron-clad regulation in there which took that right away from the farmer. We had the Campbell amendment afterward, which rectified it.
I would say to the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) I am afraid that if we clarify this act there will be an amendment next year which will make it definite that the farmer has not the right to consign his grain to the grain board. It will be made very plain that we must go through the commission firms. I want to say to the hon. member that that is a possibility. Let us just watch out that there is not a little bit of doubt about this measure, and that an amendment is not put in next year so that it will be made ironclad to the point where we shall lose the rights we now have. Therefore my advice would be to leave the act as we have it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: From what the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) has said, it would appear to me that the position is this: While there is no specifiic authorization in the statute to make this charge, and there is no prohibition of anything of that kind, with respect to the board buying direct from the farmer-in other words, it is the reverse of that-yet, because of a long-established custom of the trade which, by continued usage has obtained a certain amount of sanction, the farmer has to pay a service charge of one cent. The minister made it quite clear to me that it was a service which would have to be performed by somebody.
The question in my mind is this: Is the quantum of the charge sufficient? Is it too much? Should it be cut in two? If there is a movement of 400,000,000 bushels, the commission for the service charge would amount to $4,000,000. That is a huge sum of money; I do not know whether the service rendered is worth one cent a bushel, but I say that the position should be clarified.
I would say to the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) that the two points are not connected, one with the other. Each ought to stand on its own bottom. I ask the Minister of Mines and Resources and the Minister of Trade and Commerce to give consideration to the charge which is levied, especially when the farmers are being asked- or so it is represented here-to take a price which is inadequate, and below cost of production. That is the position. Undoubtedly there is a service; the minister has demonstrated that fact to my satisfaction. If it was not performed by commission men, it would have to be performed by the wheat board. It would cost them money, and they would be entitled to make a charge for it. The whole matter reduces itself to a question as to the quantum of the charge. I must say that $4,000,000 is a great deal of money for this class of service. The department ought to give consideration to this point. This is not just a sweetener for the commission men in Winnipeg, is it?


John Ritchie MacNicol: It sounds like it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, it
does. Certainly $4,000,000 is a great deal of money.


William Ross Macdonald: And there is a great deal of wheat, too.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I agree
with that. But it was pointed out to me that much of this work is simply routine. It has been stated that it cost them practically nothing to do it, and that it is done by the carload-even several carloads at a time. In fact, I am told that hundreds of carloads would go through one commission house in a single day. I would be satisfied to go into that business if I thought I could get clientele enough. It looks to me like a pretty cushy job, for that $4,000,000.
I am making this statement so that the minister may take it into consideration. I am interested in the primary producer. After all, we owe him some obligations here.


John Gordon Ross: There are two points at issue. One is the amount of that charge, and the other is whether it should be charged at the local elevator, or should be a proper charge for the board to pay.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
not clear from the statute.


John Gordon Ross: The point I brought up was that according to the act the board is supposed to take delivery from the producer. The producer delivers his grain to the elevator company.
Canadian Wheat Board


Richard Burpee Hanson: Which is the agent of whom?


John Gordon Ross: The elevator
company must then be the agent of the board. If that is so, then once delivery is taken, the elevation charge comes before delivery. Of course the freight always comes out.
But apart from that, my contention is that no further charge should be made. I admit that a service charge of that kind must be paid by the board, either to the regular people in the trade, or to somebody set up by the board to do that business. But my contention is that it is not a proper deduction from the producer of the grain at the initial point. And I say that in this last year, in view of the fact that the wheat board has handled
318,000,000 bushels of wheat, there therefore has been deducted from the farmer $3,180,000 which, I suggest, should have gone to the farmer on last year's crop. If he delivers this year, the same argument would apply.
May I point out at the same time that I have no criticism whatever to make of the board. I think it has done a good job-and I have looked fairly carefully into its operations. I repeat that I believe the wheat board has done a good job, and that there are good men on it. I do not believe we could better them in Canada at the present time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But what about this commission?


John Gordon Ross: I think this is a misinterpretation of the act. The practice has been carried on now for several years, and I suggest it should be corrected.
On the other point, mentioned by the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), namely, that the farmer should be able to deliver his wheat direct, if he wishes to ship over the platform to the board at Fort William, I say that provision could be made for him to do so, and, if necessary, the board should set up proper facilities at that point for handling the grain for the farmer when it gets there.
These are two important points in connection with the shipment of wheat in western Canada. I will say this for the board, in connection with the contract they have made with the trade concerning the handling of wheat, that perhaps on the whole the charges were not too great. But it looks to us as though that service charge, by itself, is too high for the service rendered. Taken together with the other charges, it may not be too great a charge for all that is done in regard to that grain.

I will say this, when we are speaking of the B type of wheat about which I spoke a moment ago, under that type of wheat, or street wheat, the Canadian wheat board has got a much better deal for the farmer, or for the producer, than the regular trade has got, throughout the last year. I took the trouble to check up the spreads on street wheat on the open market for every day last year, and I found that on only two or three days was the spread on the open market as low as the spread in the contract of the wheat board with the trade. All the rest of the time the open market spread on street wheat was much higher than the deal made by the board with the trade. I think the board made a good deal in regard to that matter. I think the board and the minister should listen to the representations which have been made, first, in regard to not deducting the service charge but paying it to the farmer and, second, in regard to allowing the farmer to consign his grain direct, either to his own order or to the order of the board at Fort William.


Richard Burpee Hanson: 
Thomas Alexander Crerar: Perhaps my hon. friend will allow me to give some information on the matter.


Richard Burpee Hanson: (York-Sunbury): I am glad to take it from any source.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: As I understand it-and
I think my information is correct-there are two methods of handling grain under the wheat board administration. There is the first method which deals with street grain, a term perhaps not so well understood by those not familiar with the marketing of wheat, but one which is well known to those who have had to do with that trade. Street grain is where a farmer delivers grain to the elevator, has it weighed and graded, sells it outright and gets a cash ticket for it. The elevator company assume the risk of grade, the risk of loss in weight in transportation and any other risks that may arise. In the meantime they have their money invested

Canadian Wheat Board
in the grain and of course they must keep it insured. The margin allowed is 4J cents a bushel. That is where the 4| cent charge comes in, to which my hon. friend referred a moment ago.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
a fixed profit according to the custom of the trade?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That might be broken
down in this way:	One and three-quarter
cents a bushel for receiving the grain in the elevator, weighing it and giving free storage for fifteen days.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Those are the elevator charges.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: They total 1J cents a
bushel.


John Gordon Ross: Insurance and
loading.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: 
Richard Burpee Hanson: In other
words, this charge is an insurance fund to protect the elevator.


Ernest Edward Perley: How often does that
happen?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not want to get into a controversy with my hon. friend.


Ernest Edward Perley: How long would a man
continue to be employed by my hon. friend if he did that more than once or twice?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I say quite modestly that I have had some experience in operating a line of country elevators, and I have also had experience in operating a farmer's elevator, of which I was manager for several
years. The curious thing is that there are many farmers who are more concerned with the grade of their grain than with anything else. They are touchy upon that point, if I may use that term. Time and again I have seen a farmer come in with grain which was actually No. 3 northern, and he would be honestly convinced that it was No. 2 northern.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Or else he was a good bluffer.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Very often in such a case
the elevator agent will agree to give him the price for No. 2 northern, but will ask a heavier dockage.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: How long has this
4J cent charge been made?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think ever since the
board was established.


John George Diefenbaker: What year?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In 1935. That was the
rate set by Mr. McFarland when it was in operation, as I recall.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It goes
back beyond that; it has been a custom of the trade.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In the particular case I
mention the elevator agrees to pay for No. 2 northern but charges a four per cent dockage fee. When the grain is inspected-this has happened time and again, and the records can be examined-it is graded as No. 3 northern, perhaps with one per cent dockage. The elevator company has lost in the grade, but it has gained in the weight. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle smiles.


Ernest Edward Perley: It is too funny even to
laugh at.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Those are actual facts.
I should like to say a word in defence of the board. It has been under some criticism, but it is quite able to take it. I think the basis which has been reached with the trade is quite reasonable. If you reduced the handling charge of the service charge so-called, you might have to widen out the margin somewhere else in order to get your contract with the grain handling companies.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are the
grain handling companies and the commission men one and the same?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Very often they are.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They get
the whole thing.
Canadian Wheat Board


Thomas Alexander Crerar: As I read the act, the
board is not exceeding its powers in doing this.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Where is
the justification for it?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In section 8 (i).
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury) As I pointed out, that applies entirely to sales of grain by the board. It has not a thing to do with the purchases of grain by the board.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I shall not quarrel with
my hon. friend over a legal interpretation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is just
a simple interpretation of the language, and it makes a big difference.


Victor Quelch: To come back to another
point of great importance, the question of a guaranteed price of 70 cents proposed in this section, this afternoon several statements have been made which I do not think should be allowed to go unchallenged by western members. First, I want to refer to some of the statements that were read by the minister which purported to speak on behalf of western Canada. At the time I asked the minister whether he had statements also by any prominent farm organization in western Canada. The statements that he read were from papers that speak on behalf of vested interests. By no stretch of the imagination could one say that those papers were speaking on behalf of the western farmer. I should like to quote a few statements made by prominent farm organizations in western Canada. The first is from an editorial in the Western Farm Leader. Referring to the question of price, the editorial reads in part:
Not only the now imminent storage problem but the task of ensuring to producers of primary wealth a return sufficient to enable them to meet their costs of production, must be faced by Canada's responsible authorities if breakdown is to be avoided.
An economic crisis plunging the basic industry of the dominion into disaster would inevitably disorganize plans now being accelerated to enable our country to play the major role it is called upon to play in the struggle for the survival of freedom and decency in the world.
I do not think anyone will suggest that a price of 70 cents will ensure that.
I quote next a statement by the United Farmers of Alberta, also published in that same paper:
It will further be pointed out that as living costs have increased substantially, a higher minimum price for wheat than that of last year-a price more in line with increased costs to the farmers-should be set for the new crop.

Here is a statement by the wheat pool of Alberta, issued in the form of an advertisement :
The directors of the Alberta wheat pool have drawn up the following recommendations:
1.	Continuation of the wheat board and extension of its powers to handle all wheat.
2.	Fixing of a wheat price in proportion to the cost of things the prairie farmers have to buy.
A statement by the United Grain Growers
reads:
Grave difficulties are in sight if no better price than 70 cents is available during the coming year, especially if the crop should be small, and if production costs continue to advance as they are now doing.
I think I have quoted sufficient to show quite clearly that those organizations which are in a position to know the costs of production and the problems of the farm, are by no means satisfied that a price of 70 cents is sufficient to make it possible for the farmer to carry on and pay his way.
I should like to refer to one other statement which was made in this house to-day and which has been repeated a number of times during this debate. It was mentioned by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. MacKenzie). I, as a western farmer, bitterly resent the statement that he made. The hon. member for Lambton-Kent said that there were not many farmers in this house and still fewer dirt farmers. I can claim to be both of these.
The statement has been made in this house that the farmers of western Canada, in asking for a guaranteed price sufficiently high that it may entail loss to the federal government, are in effect asking for charity. That was stressed by the Minister of Agriculture, who said that the farmers of western Canada should be grateful. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that when the farmers of western Canada ask for a guaranteed price that will return to them the cost of production they are not asking for charity; they are asking only for that which they have every right and justification to demand, because, as I stressed this afternoon, just so long as the farmers of western Canada have to continue to pay a highly protected price for everything they buy, they have every right and every justification for demanding a protected price for the products they sell, and they have been paying a protected price for the products they buy for a great number of years. As has already been shown in this house, that protection has cost them in the neighbourhood of $79,000,000 a year. What is the most we ever got back?

Canadian Wheat Board
Altogether the total amount of payments that have been made to the west do not equal the amount we have been penalized by the fiscal policy of the federal government in a single year.
The hon. member for Lambton-Kent suggested that we have no right to expect the farmers of eastern Canada to contribute towards the west. He stressed that farmers in eastern Canada are also paying protection. But I refer him to the submission of the late Minister of Labour, Mr. Rogers, before the commission in Nova Scotia. In his submission to the commission Mr. Rogers showed that if you subtract the gains to manufacturers in western Canada resulting from tariffs from the losses to the three western Canadian provinces on account of increased prices resulting from the tariff, you have a net loss to the west of over $55,000,000, and that loss is incurred every year. On the other hand, if you subtract the cost of tariff to the people of Ontario and Quebec as represented by increased prices from the total gains to manufacturers in Ontario and Quebec resulting from tariffs, you have a gain to the eastern provinces of over $83,000,000.
Ontario farmers are residing in a province which benefits by the tariff to the extent of over $51,000,000 annually. As a result of the operation of the tariff, the net gain per head of population in Ontario was $15. The net loss to the farmers of western Canada as a result of the operation of the tariff, as shown by the Manitoba brief, was $110 per head. The western farmers lost, as a result of the tariff, $110 per head per year, while the eastern population gained $15 per head per year. So what possible justification can there be for any hon. member saying that the eastern farmers were also paying towards this tariff? The fact is that the people in the east are gaining considerably by the tariff.
If the hon. member says that the farmers of eastern Canada do not benefit as a result of that gain of $51,000,000 a year through the tariff I would say to him, the farmers of eastern Canada should insist that their provincial government bring about a fairer distribution of that gain and frame their taxation in such a way that the eastern farmers will benefit from it, because the east gets it and the western farmers have to pay it. Therefore it is nonsense to suggest for one minute that the guaranteed price, even though it costs the federal treasury $30,000,000 or $40,000,000 a year, is in any way, shape or form a gift to western Canada. It is merely a repayment of something that has already been extracted, and eastern Canada, in paying these millions of dollars to western Canada is
simply repaying what the east has already extracted from the west. For years the slogan was: "Soak the west." Western Canada paid higher insurance rates, higher interest rates, higher taxation, higher freight rates, and the magazines and trade papers always quoted a certain price for goods in eastern Canada and a higher price for west of the great lakes. So again I emphasize that eastern members might just as well cease making that foolish remark about eastern Canada subsidizing western Canada. The shoe is on the other foot. There is no question of subsidizing; it is merely a repayment by the Dominion of Canada to western Canada of that which rightfully belongs to the west.


James J. Donnelly: To me this section is misleading. It reads:
Provided that no wheat shall he purchased by the board except from the producers thereof.
Yet the minister tells us, and tells us correctly, as I understand the practice is, that they cannot and do not take from the producer.? Why, therefore, is it stated in the act that they must buy wheat from the producers? The section is misleading and should be clarified.
Further, no one controls this service charge. The board of grain commissioners has nothing to do with it. The practice has grown up through a period of years of paying one cent to the grain trade; that is all; and we still are paying it. My contention is that if we must pay a service charge, and if the farmer must hire a commission merchant, let us put that provision in the act. Let us say that this gra'in must go through a commission agent, and prescribe what he shall be paid. Let us control the proceeding. W7e have been operating under this grain act for years, but there has never been proper control over it, and I do not think this should continue any longer.
The wording is misleading. It says that we shall sell direct. We cannot sell direct. It makes no mention of a commission merchant, but there is a one cent service charge on every bushel of wheat which goes from western Canada. Make no mistake, the farmer pays it, not the board of grain commissioners or the wheat board. The charge is deducted when the farmer brings in his load of wheat whether he delivers it to the elevator or sends it to Fort William, and costs about $15 a carload. I regard the charge as too much, because the business is only routine. The agent looks over the car, checks and weighs it, and sends the money back. To pay $15 for that service is too much. The matter should be clarified in the act; it should not.be left in this misleading
Canadian Wheat Board

form. For the last number of years, under both this government and the last Conservative government, the wheat board have been operating and buying in the same way; yet the act says they must buy from the producer, and now they say they cannot.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I submitted a question some time ago. Since that time I have not had an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, of catching your eye, but I do not intend to follow the line of thought I was pursuing at that time.
Since I took my seat, the copy of the Commercial Intelligence Journal dated August 3, issued by authority of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) has been brought to my desk. I find on page 163 some important information:
Prices of agricultural products in the United Kingdom
London, July 5, 1940.-The Minister of Agriculture has announced a new range of prices for farm products to meet the increased costs of production, chiefly the higher wages now in operation; . . .
The following prices came into force on July 1:-
Wheat.-The standard price for wheat under the Wheat Act, will be raised from the level of 11s. per cwt. to 14s. 6d. per cwt.
If my memory serves me correctly, an English hundredweight is 112 pounds. At any rate, the increase is over thirty per cent. Assume for the sake of argument that the 70 cents set a year ago was a fair price- which we are not for a moment prepared to admit-the conditions which apply in Great Britain apply here. If they consider it wise to increase the price to the farmer for wheat 30 per cent in Great Britain, I think it is only fair that we in Canada should increase our initial payment at least 30 per cent, which would give the farmer an additional 21 cents a bushel, or 91 cents, basis Fort William. I should like to urge the minister to give the most careful consideration to following the policy pursued in Great Britain.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suggest to the minister, upon reflection, that I believe section 7(b) will help him in connection with these commission and other charges. The interpretation of that might help substantiate these charges. . But I think the department should review the whole position as to the quantum of these charges.
While I am on my feet, one of my colleagues has requested me to ask this question: Is it legal for a member of parliament to deal with this wheat board without violating the Independence of Parliament Act? My view is that it would be, because this is a

corporation set up by statute. I do not want the minister to take my view, but I should like to know what the view of the department is. The board is a corporation set up by statute, and owned, I suppose, by the crown.


James Angus MacKinnon: I am advised that counsel for the wheat board has given an opinion that it is legal.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think
that is right.


Major James William Coldwell: Before the section is passed, in trying to arrive at what this price will mean to the people of Canada and to the western farmer I think it is important we should know what return we are getting for the wheat which is now being sold. We were told this afternoon that we recently sold
100.000.	000 bushels of wheat, and that shortly before, we sold 50,000,000 bushels or, in all,
150.000.	000 bushels. We were told that this was sold above the 70 cents pegged price; and in March the Minister of Agriculture stated that wheat could have been sold last fall at 87J cents a bushel. We as a parliament are responsible for the financing of this particular business if there is a deficit, and I think the committee is entitled to some information as to the price which was obtained for the wheat which was sold by the board up to the present time out of last year's crop. What prices were obtained for the 50 million bushels, and for the 100,000,000 bushels of which we heard to-day?


James Angus MacKinnon: When the 50,000,000 bushel sale was made some time ago, it was announced that the figure obtained was considerably above the pegged price; and when I announced to-day the 100,000,000 bushel sale I made the same statement. I am advised that the publication of the actual figures would be a breach of trust with the cereals import committee and that it would not be in the public interest to make the figures known.


Major James William Coldwell: I would not press the minister to divulge information if it is not in the public interest to do so, but it appears to me that it cannot be against the public interest to tell this parliament what wheat which belonged to the people of Canada was sold for. After all, this parliament has only one control over the government, and that is in relation to the expenditure of money. We exercise it through the estimates and in bills which appropriate moneys or commit the government to the expenditure of money.

Business oj the House


Richard Burpee Hanson: On that point, if the only buyer is the British government, and if the British government has requested that this price be kept secret, then certainly, I think, it would be a violation of that undertaking if the price were disclosed. If there were other buyers, the position might be different, but I think the government, inasmuch as this is the only foreign buyer, must keep faith, if that is the undertaking.


Ernest Edward Perley: With reference to the sale of 100,000,000 bushels, what were the channels through which it passed; how many commission agents were used, or did it go through the board direct?


James Angus MacKinnon: Direct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The government will observe the provisions of section 8 in carrying out the transaction. They are making negotiations direct, but they will have to use section 8. Somebody will get something out of this. Probably it will come out of the British government.


Ernest Edward Perley: Since we have the ruling that it is legal for a member of parliament to deal with the board, I may say that I have never yet sold a bushel of wheat to or taken a participation certificate from the board. If I shipped a carload of wheat this fall to my own order at Fort William, paying the freight and all the charges and getting a warehouse receipt, and if I sent the warehouse receipt to the board in Winnipeg, would they take it and charge me anything, or what would happen?


James Angus MacKinnon: I am advised that the charges would have to be paid through the regular channels of trade. I am informed, however, that the matter will be taken up by the solicitors for the board.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The whole matter will be reviewed?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I move that the committee rise, and report progress and ask leave to sit again this day. I am doing so in order to make a motion that the house do not adjourn at eleven o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That the house do not adjourn at eleven o'clock.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this motion debatable? I do not suppose it is, but may I make a statement? I know the government and all hon. members are anxious to get the business of the house concluded, but I think the business of this house should be concluded in an orderly manner. The spectacle of three or four hundred million dollars of public money being voted in a few hours is absolutely wrong. Two of the great prerogatives of parliament are the voting of money for the supply of his majesty and the wrays and means whereby that money shall be provided. These, I take it, are the two fundamentals of the House of Commons, fundamentals which were obtained many decades ago, perhaps as a result of bloodshed itself. They were rights that were exacted from the crown after a great struggle and they should not become mere routine They are primarily the functions of parliament. Therefore I appeal to hon. gentlemen to vote supply in an orderly manner so that we shall not be held up to ridicule by the public as rushing through without due consideration the estimates which the government submitted at an early stage of the session. It is quite evident that we cannot finish the business of the house this week. The discussion to-day and yesterday on this bill has made that impossible. Let us therefore not try to overwork ourselves. Let the estimates go over to next week. Let us do it in an orderly and dignified way. That is the plea I make to the minister. After a hard week, how can members be asked to sit until twelve o'clock or one o'clock in the morning just to save a few days or one day next week? It is not fair.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Perhaps the discussion is
out of order, but in any event, with the permission of the house I should like to make a comment on what the leader of the opposition has said. Yesterday the house approved unanimously, without objection, a motion that we sit to-morrow. We are anxious, if possible, to get this bill through the committee stage to-night. I understand that the senate is meeting to-morrow in the expectation that it will be able to give consideration to the bill, and I think it is desirable that it should have that opportunity. After all, we have had a fairly lengthy discussion, not only on the resolution leading up to the bill but on the
Business oj the House

second reading of the bill, and we hope to conclude consideration of the bill in committee to-night and have it reported.
On the other question, I agree wholly with what the leader of the opposition has said. Sometimes we are apt to forget it. But I do not think there is any matter that is more important in the business of parliament than the levying of taxes and the expenditure of public money. Let me make this clear. There was, and I believe is, a general desire among hon. members to conclude this week, if possible. I agree with my hon. friend that it looks doubtful whether we can do it, but I wish to make this clear not only to the house but to the country, that the government do not propose to rush consideration of supply at all, and if it is necessary in order to finish up in an orderly manner as the leader of the opposition has suggested, the government are ready to stay here next week and the week after. I wish to make that clear not only to the house but to the country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
advised that the succeeding sections of the bill may prove to be just as contentious. I do not know whether that is a fact, but I am telling the hon. gentleman who is leading the house what I am given to understand.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: We might try it for
another hour or an hour and a half.


Major James William Coldwell: Do I understand that
there is a time limit to-night?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No.


Major James William Coldwell: I know some of us
are very, very tired; I am, personally, and last night we sat here until half past twelve.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not
think this motion can go through without unanimous consent. If any hon. gentleman wants to stop it, he only needs to say so.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I would suggest that we
should sit until twelve or perhaps twelve-thirty o'clock.


Major James William Coldwell: Let us say twelve
o'clock. I think that is as late as we should stay. Moreover, I think the staff should be given some consideration, particularly these young page boys.


Richard Burpee Hanson: "We can
send them home.


Major James William Coldwell: They should be sent
home.


Alan Webster Neill: The government will not go beyond this bill to-night?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 118, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935-Mr. MacKinnon (Edmonton West)-Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 3-Powers of board respecting the buying of wheat.
James J. Donnelly: I want to ask just one question in regard to this service charge. This evening we were saying that this has grown up as a custom. Suppose the grain trade decided that the one cent now being charged was not sufficient, that they should have two cents or three cents; who is to control them? How is it going to be looked after? This is not under the control of the board of grain commissioners, nor is it under the control of the wheat board. What would we do in a case like that?


Mr.   MacICINNON@Edmonton West: I am informed that under those circumstances the wheat board would not give them a contract.


James J. Donnelly: We are told that we must have commission merchants, that the board will not buy direct from us. If the commission merchant says that he will not work for less than two cents a bushel, what can we do? There are in the act no regulations under which this charge may be controlled. I believe this should be dealt with in the act in order that we may have control over this charge. This is important to me. This charge should be controlled by somebody. We should provide under some act or some regulation that somebody, in some way, will have some control over this service charge.


James Angus MacKinnon: Assurance has been given that this matter will be looked into and, if necessary, action will be taken.


James J. Donnelly: Then I think this section should be allowed to stand until we see how it is to be clarified. What the minister says is not enough. I want to see some provision put in the act.


Ernest George Hansell: Might I repeat the question I asked at the beginning of this debate? Will the minister tell us definitely just what price the Ontario farmer will receive at his local elevator and what price the Alberta farmer, for instance, will receive at his local elevator?


James Angus MacKinnon: It will be 70 cents in each case. In Ontario, it

Canadian Wheat Board
will be less the freight charge to Montreal; in Alberta, it will be less the freight charge to Vancouver.


Charles Edward Johnston: What are those charges?


James Angus MacKinnon: They vary at the different points.


Charles Edward Johnston: Could the minister give an average?


James Angus MacKinnon: No, I could not. It varies.


Charles Edward Johnston: It is about 194 cents in Alberta.


James Angus MacKinnon: It would vary.


Robert Fair: I paid 271 cents.


John George Diefenbaker: This evening there has been lengthy reference to the powers of the wheat board in connection with this service charge and other matters. The Minister of Mines and Resources suggested that these powers arose under section 8, paragraph (i), but it was pointed out that this section was inapplicable. It seems to me to come under section 7, paragraph (d), which bears out the contention of the hon. member for Moose Jaw that the elevator companies would be the agents of the wheat board. That section has not been referred to this evening, and perhaps if I read it now it will assist the minister and the- committee in clarifying the situation. It reads:
7. The board shall undertake the marketing of wheat in interprovincial and export trade and for such purposes shall have all the powers of a corporation and without limitation upon such powers the following: -
(d) to operate elevators, either directly or by means of agents, and subject to the provisions of The Canada Grain Act or any other statute or law, to pay such agents commissions, storage and other charges, remuneration or compensation as may be agreed upon, with the approval of the board of grain commissioners;
That being the situation, I should like to know when and under what circumstances the former service charge of 2f cents a bushel was increased to the present rate of 44 cents a bushel. That is a large increase. The Minister of Mines and Resources suggested that the increase had been made in 1935. I should like the minister to advise the committee whether in point of fact that is a correct statement of the situation.
The hon. member for Wood Mountain has mentioned an important matter in reference to charges of this kind. As I pointed out last evening, these charges mean to the western farmer at least $7,000,000 over and above the
charges permitted under the grain act. Under this section the board only has power to pay elevator companies such charges as are permitted under the Canada Grain Act. The service charge of 2J cents a bushel, including commission, is provided by that act, and I ask the minister what justification there is for the extra levy of lj cents a bushel, which on
300,000,000 bushels would mean approximately $4,500,000 annually.
These are questions of serious import, and I think the minister should be able to answer them. It was just because of this levy, which has continued for at least four or five years and perhaps longer, that I made the suggestion last evening that the western farmer was paying altogether too much in charges of this kind; that the elevator companies were levying a toll that was unfair and inequitable and that the only way in which the government could justify itself before the people of Canada, if such charges were to be permitted, would be to take advantage of its powers under the mobilization act and take over the elevator companies and storage concerns, paying the owners a stated rate of interest for the use of their premises for the duration of the war. Therefore I ask the minister to explain why this additional levy is allowed. What is the justification? What are the increasing costs which justify the increase of one and a half cents to-day for every bushel produced in western Canada over the service charges which prevailed, whether in 1935 or prior thereto. Those charges might have been justifiable when the wheat was being produced and sold at a price which returned a reasonable return to the farmer. To-day, when it is recognized in all parts of the house that the farmer must produce and sell at a loss, all these matters which go into his costs of production, and which reduce the share he ultimately will receive, should be reduced to the minimum.
I join with the hon. member for Moose Jaw, the hon. member for Wood Mountain, and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle in their demands that these charges be reduced. Their reduction would mean about $7,000,000 a year to the western farmer.


Thomas Vien: Shall the section carry?


John George Diefenbaker: I want an answer.


James Angus MacKinnon: In one case the charge of 2f cents is on carload lots. In the other case, the 44 cents is on street wheat. The charges have been the same in both cases for the last five years.


James J. Donnelly: I would draw the attention of the committee to the fact that the
Canadian Wheat Board

charges for the handling of grain, as they appeared in the Canada Grain Act of 1925, are as follows:
The charge for storage, cleaning, handling and fire insurance of grain, including the cost of receiving and delivering, shall be subject to such regulations or reductions as the board may provide-
Meaning the board of grain commissioners. -with the approval of the governor in council.
That was the act as it was in 1925. Then, the act as it was in 1930, and as we have it now, gives these duties of the board:
In particular, fixing or approving the maximum charges to be made for the discharge of grain into and out of elevators, and for the insurance against fire, storage, cleaning, treatment and handling of grain while in any elevator-
But not subject to the governor in council, at all. Then:
-fixing the maximum shrinkage allowances which may be made on the delivery of grain to country elevators-
Again, not subject to the governor in council, at all. Then:

governing the procedure to be followed at elevators in respect to the receipt and discharge of grain and the handling, treatment and shipping thereof while in such elevator.
That is the act as it is at present. Not a word is said to the effect that the board have anything to do with this service charge. Then, regulations were passed from time to time. As the minister has pointed out, we are working under regulations passed in 1934 for country elevators. The regulations as adopted in 1934, passed by the board of grain commissioners, govern storage charges, cleaning charges, special bin charges, shrinkage charges, dockage on cash or storage grain, and so on. All this is as it was in 1934, and passed on July 30 of that year. It has not been changed at all. There is no difference now from what there was then. The other charges, for example the storage charges as we have them for the terminal elevators at Fort William, Port Arthur and Winnipeg, were changed on August 31, 1939. The same is true in respect of some other storage charges at terminal elevators at Saskatoon, Moose Jaw, Calgary and Edmonton. That was in August, 1939. However, the charge at the country elevator is just the same as it was in 1934.
I would again ask the minister that someone be placed in charge of that service charge to which we have referred, namely, that charge of one cent a bushel which is being paid. I would suggest that the board of grain commissioners or the wheat board be responsible, 
and that the matter be determined in such a way that there will be some control, so that we shall know what we are doing.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 4-Certificates to producers.


Robert Fair: This is an important section. Paragraph (f) deals with certificates to producers. This is nothing new, and I hope payments will be made on these certificates for the 1939 crop as well as those in years to come. Because of the amendment made to section 3, I suggest that a similar amendment will have to be made in line 25, adding the words, "or Vancouver" after the words "Port Arthur."
As I said a moment ago, in respect of interim payments I hope we shall soon receive something by way of interim payments on the 1939 crop, and that we may continue to receive those payments on crops we hope to grow in the future. The fact that we do not get a large payment in the fall is, I believe, sufficient to justify a payment later on. In the spring season the farmers have a hard time financing, and an interim payment, such as has been made by the pools in the past, has been found useful in the early part of the year.
There is a new provision here, so far as the wheat board is concerned. While hon. members have been told on one or two occasions that this is the idea of a certain party, I believe it is an idea used by the pools some years ago. I am glad to see that it is inserted here again.
In connection with the payment of storage on farms, I would expect the amount would be the same as that which is now being paid the grain elevator companies. With regard to storage, I would hope the government would see to it that the price control board stays on the job when the material for granaries will have to be purchased. At the time that the home improvement plan was put into operation we know the lumber manufacturers took advantage of legislation passed here, and immediately raised the price of their lumber. In my opinion, the government would be well advised to see that that does not occur on this occasion.
I believe the section is incomplete. At the present time it is our belief that there is sufficient room to store only 150,000,000 or
160,0000,000 bushels of grain in all Canada, so far as elevator facilities are concerned. I believe that at the present time there are several points where elevators are filled right to the top-and that before the period of threshing. I would think, therefore, that as soon as threshing commences, it will be absolutely necessary to have some provision for

Canadian Wheat Board
an advance on the grain which will remain on the farm. The minister has told us that this matter is under consideration. However, I do not believe the statement that it is only under consideration will be sufficient for the wheat growers of Canada. I understand that when this announcement was made it had a bad effect upon the credit of the farmers. For a number of years farmers have been getting credit at the local stores for purchases of twine, lumber, binder repairs and other articles, but as soon as this information was given out by the minister, much of this credit was withdrawn. I believe the government realizes that if some provision is not made for an advance payment on grain stored on the farm, a serious condition will result in western Canada. I should like to quote from a letter which I received yesterday morning as follows:
We as farmers realize unless an immediate substantial increase in price is ensured the western producers, Ottawa will be faced with a relief problem too late to be solved. The spirit and hope of the farmer to-day is very near the breaking point. Their burden of the past ten years has been too heavy and the youth of to-day refuse to carry on. We trust parliament will awake before it is too late.
That letter was signed by forty-one growers of wheat in a small district around Wain-wright, and I have several other letters along the same line. I hope the government will do something worth while, and do it in a hurry, in connection with the payment of advances on grain stored on the farm. In order to bring this before the committee I move:
That section 4 of the bill be amended by adding thereto as subsection (i) the following:
To advance to the producer prior to the delivery of the wheat to the board, upon such security and upon such conditions as the board may by regulation require, such sum per bushel as the board may deem advisable, but not in any case to exceed the sum of forty cents per bushel.


Thomas Vien: I am afraid that this
amendment imposes a charge against the public treasury and therefore cannot be moved by a private member. In addition, it is not covered by the resolution which was approved by His Excellency the Governor General. If any hon. member desires to speak on the point of order before I give my ruling, he should do so now. The point of order is whether this amendment is in order in view of the fact that it entails the expenditure of public money.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have only
glanced at the proposed amendment, but it seems to me that it does not entail the
expenditure of public money in excess of what would ordinarily be expended. The wheat board is to purchase all the wheat, and this merely states that some of the purchase price shall be paid in advance, the remainder being paid when it is delivered.


Thomas Vien: Under the act the board has no power to advance any money to the producer prior to the delivery of wheat to the board. This amendment purports to give the board power to disburse public funds not to exceed 40 cents a bushel which would be paid to the producer prior to the delivery of the wheat. In that respect the amendment entails the expenditure of public funds, and in my opinion it is out of order.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have an amendment to
move, similar to the one which was proposed to section 3(e). It is:
That section 4 be amended by adding in paragraph (f) after the words "Fort AVilliam-Port Arthur" in the ninth and tenth lines thereof the words "or Vancouver."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to ask the minister a question in connection with clause (g), which reads:
(g) to make an interim payment on account of any surplus aforesaid if such interim payment can be made without any possibility of loss or deficit in respect of operations of the board.
Just exactly what does that mean? As I understand it, the only way in which it could be known that there could not be a loss would be to have all the wheat sold, or such a large percentage of it sold that there could not be a loss on the small amount of wheat still to be delivered. This actually means that an interim payment can be made.


James Angus MacKinnon: If and as soon as the money is available.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Section 13,
subsections 1 and 2, provides for payment when all the wheat is sold and all the money received. I do not know whether this amendment is some more of the eye-wash referred to by the leader of the opposition. It may be just a piece of verbiage to protect some of the election promises made by the Minister of Agriculture.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not want to interject myself into this discussion except to say that, as the legislation stands at the present time, I understand that all the wheat to the last bushel must be sold before anything can be paid in addition to the initial payment. This does away with the necessity for that and provides for an interim
Canadian Wheat Board

payment when the amount that is left is reduced to such dimensions that, no matter what it brought, it would still be safe to make a payment.


James Lester Douglas: About 96 per cent.


Grote Stirling: Am I right in understanding that this amendment provides that a producer of wheat in British Columbia who sends his wheat to Fort William will only have to pay the freight rate to Vancouver?


James Angus MacKinnon: That is correct.


James J. Donnelly: I notice that these certificates are not transferable, but as a matter of fact many were transferred last year. It was necessary to do this because of certain conditions which arose. For example, a man may be renting a farm from a loan company or from the owner. He sells wheat in his own name and the owner comes round for his share of the crop. The owner asks for sufficient certificates to cover his share and the renter transfer's them to him. I know of many instances where that has been done. I know of hundreds of instances where certificates have been transferred because the loan companies have demanded it.


James Angus MacKinnon: I
am informed that these certificates can only be issued to the party delivering the wheat, that technically at any rate they are not transferable.


Victor Quelch: Paragraph (h) says that the amount paid for storage "shall not in any case exceed the amount payable for storage in a country elevator." I would ask if the amount paid will be at least equal to the amount paid for storage in a country elevator, and when the date of storage will commence. Will it be the date when the farmer threshes his grain?


James Angus MacKinnon: The rate of storage will not be more than the amount payable for storage in the country elevator. Neither the rate nor the date has yet been settled.


Victor Quelch: The minister cannot say whether the amount paid to the farmer for storage will be as much as for storage paid in a country elevator. The bill says that it will not be more.


James Angus MacKinnon: It will not be more; I hope it will be the same.


Robert Fair: Can the minister give us any idea of when we may expect payment on the 1939 crop?
[Mr. Ilsley.I


James Angus MacKinnon: I cannot give any information on that at the moment.


Ernest Edward Perley: I did not quite catch the question asked by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) with respect to the amount payable for storage on the farm. I understand there has been a change in the rate of storage in the country elevators. Is that correct.


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


Ernest Edward Perley: The bill provides that the rate paid the farmer for storage on the farm must be no more than the amount payable for storage in a country elevator. I think the minister should give us a definite statement as to when storage on the farm will start. I think the farmer is entitled to receive payment for storage dating from the first of September. I also think he should receive what the storage charge was last year, one cent a bushel.


William Gilbert Weir: A cent a bushel for what?


Ernest Edward Perley: One cent a bushel a month. I say that the rate should be more than the storage charges this year for this reason: The longer the farmer keeps that wheat on his farm, the more the board will save in interest through not paying out the fixed price of 70 cents. This means a saving to the government through storage by the farmer, and on that ground alone the farmer is entitled to consideration. Further, the storage paid the farmer should be such as to encourage him to hold more of his wheat on the farm. I am suggesting that he should be paid one cent a bushel a month, starting from the first of September.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask the minister a question with reference to freight rates which he mentioned a moment ago? If I understood him correctly, the freight rate on wheat in British Columbia shipped to Fort William will be the same as the rate from the point of shipment in British Columbia to Vancouver. Is that correct?


James Angus MacKinnon: If it is necessary for the grower of wheat in British Columbia to ship his wheat to Port Arthur or Fort William, which we hope will not be necessary, the rate would be the same as he would have to pay if he were shipping it to Vancouver.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then a shipper at the village of X, we will say, five miles east of Vancouver, if he cannot get bottoms at Vancouver to ship his wheat to the old country and has to ship to Fort William instead, would pay a freight rate from X to

Canadian Wheat Board
Fort William that would be just the same as if he shipped his grain from X, five miles east of Vancouver, to Vancouver.


James Angus MacKinnon: There is no wheat at the point X.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not want to give the village away, so I am designating it X. It is doing very well for a little village. The shipper in X would enjoy a freight rate to Fort William that would be no more than the freight rate from X to Vancouver, and that would be a very small item indeed. Our freight rate structure is becoming somewhat of a predicament. If we could only ship machinery from the east to western Canada for that freight rate from X to Vancouver, we should hear no more protests from hon. gentlemen to my left.


Ernest Edward Perley: Would the minister now give me an answer?


James Angus MacKinnon: I heard the hon. gentleman's statement, but I do not recollect that he asked a question.


Ernest Edward Perley: Will the minister give consideration to making the storage rate on the farm one cent a bushel a month, even if it is more than the rate paid at the country elevators? In support of that request I stated that storage on the farm would mean a saving to the government in interest on the amount paid as the initial price, because the longer the grain is held on the farm, the shorter the time will the government have to pay interest on the 70 cents invested in the grain. There is a saving there. Second, the storage rate should be such as to encourage the farmer to hold back his wheat.


James Angus MacKinnon: The board inform me that they will give consideration to the question, but that they are restricted as to the amount they can pay the farmer for storage by the clause which states that they must not pay more than is payable at the country elevator. The wheat board have not as yet formulated their regulations regarding the date for commencement of payment of storage, or as to the amount.


James J. Donnelly: I understood the minister to say that the board of grain commissioners had passed new regulations covering the cost of handling and elevating wheat, and so forth, for this year. The new grain year has just started and I do not know what new charges have been made. Has the minister the charges there, and would he mind letting us have the new regulations under which we are now working?


James Angus MacKinnon: I
have not that information here.


James J. Donnelly: I should like to know
what the new charges are. The charges at some of the country elevators have been changed?


James Angus MacKinnon: The board of grain commissioners have made a change in the elevator storage charge from l/30th to 1 /45th of a cent, and there are some other minor changes.


James J. Donnelly: I should like to know
the charges at the country elevators and if there has been any change in the charges at the terminal elevators.


James Angus MacKinnon: I
could give that information when the estimates for the board of grain commissioners are before the committee of supply.


James J. Donnelly: It is important that
we should know what these charges are, because under this bill the farmer is to be paid for storage of his wheat on the farm no more than is paid for storage in the country elevators.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: Is it the intention when
paying for storage on the farm to make any distinction between the farmer who stores
1.000	bushels and the farmer who stores
30.000	or 40,000 bushels?


James Angus MacKinnon: No difference.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: I should like to offer a
suggestion. To my mind there is a vast difference between the position of the ordinary farmer and that of the man who is a heavy holder of wheat on his own farm. I believe that there should be a system of rates in force on the basis of a reduction in the allowance per bushel per month as the amount of wheat increased. I can see where a large wheat grower can obtain a huge sum of money for storage of wheat on his own farm, and I believe we should protect the treasury to this extent, that one individual cannot collect a huge sum under the circumstances I have indicated.


Ernest Edward Perley: I want to refer briefly to
clause 19 of the agreement between the wheat board and line elevator companies. While it applies to class "B" wheat, if there is a shortage this fall of storage capacity in western Canada there might easily arise a condition under which farmers would be anxious to get their wheat in and would sell it on the street in order to get it into the market. This clause provides for the storage charge to start practically the day following delivery to the country elevator, or, as it says here, the daily report is forwarded to the office in Winnipeg.

Canadian Wheat Board

This charge continues for thirteen days at least while it is in transit, that is thirteen days from the date of the bill of lading. That seems to me unfair, and I should like some explanation why that agreement was made. Was it made under the advice of the wheat committee of the cabinet? To my mind it should be changed to read as it was before, whereby there would be at least fifteen days' free storage, and, certainly, no charge while the wheat is in the boxcar. I protested against this agreement having been made, even as to the charges made last year. This year there will be much more street wheat or "B" class wheat than there was last year, on account of the storage situation.


James Angus MacKinnon: It is pointed out to me that the change made last year was a decided improvement upon the former regulations, inasmuch as the charges were made until two days after the wheat was unloaded. There is now a limitation of thirteen days.


William Gilbert Weir: In connection with this feature, there is a point which I think should be kept in mind when the board is making a new agreement. With the storage situation as it is, and the possibility that there will have to be some regulation with respect to the actual delivery, many more farmers will deliver wheat on what may be called the class "B" basis, that is street wheat-farmers who ordinarily would have carload lots but who may be able to deliver only half a carload at a time. As we observe this agreement, we recognize that there has been a difference between the service charges payable for handling carload lots and street wheat. There is an important feature with respect to that very situation: Although a man may have a carload of wheat to deliver at some time during the year, yet because of the particular storage situation at the present time he may not be able to deliver it when he has an opportunity to deliver some portion of his crop.
Second, in connection with this same feature, I do not believe the minister has indicated to the committee the manner in which it is proposed to pay this farm storage. At the moment I am not concerned about the amount, because I see that provision is made; I am interested in the manner in which the storage will be provided; that is, the mechanics of it.
This agreement for handling wheat by the wheat board has been evolved over a long period of time. I do not know what the wheat board did at the time of the last war. but I recall that when the pools started to operate, it was necessary for them to enter into an agreement with the elevator companies, because

they had no facilities of their own to handle grains of any kind. The wheat board, when it came into the picture to handle grain, also was obliged to make an agreement with the elevator companies to handle grain, or else provide the facilities itself. It went ahead and made an agreement. I am not going to argue whether the agreement is a fair one or not, or as to the equity of individual charges. But I submit that at each stage there have been changes in the content of the agreements made with elevator companies to handle grain for the board. Since the first agreements were entered into, there has been a progressive and steady improvement, evidenced in the reduction of the charges as they affect the farmer. Each succeeding agreement has been made, so to speak, tighter. It may not yet be tight enough -that is not the point-but there has been an improvement all along the line.
Before resuming my seat I want to refer to the two matters I mentioned at the beginning: the spread between track and street wheat, and the method by which the storage allotment will be made.


James Angus MacKinnon: I will answer part of the question of the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Weir) who has just spoken, and will ask him to repeat the other portion of the question.
The hon. member asked how the farmer would be remunerated for storing his wheat on his own farm. He will be paid an increased price per month when he comes to deliver his wheat.


William Gilbert Weir: Perhaps a direct answer cannot be given to the other question, but I will put it this way, and, through the minister, direct it to the wheat board: that in negotiating a new agreement with the elevator companies particular attention should be given to the new conditions which will arise in respect of deliveries of street wheat as compared with carload lots. I mean that, because of the possibility of a limited delivery from individuals, a great deal more wheat will be delivered in other than carload lots, and it does not seem to me that under the circumstances the producer should be deprived of his advantage as a carload shipper.


James Angus MacKinnon: That matter is already under consideration by the board.


Ernest Edward Perley: I should like to have a definite assurance from the minister that that clause in the agreement will be changed, so that under no circumstances whatever will storage be paid on grain in a boxcar even for fifteen days.

Canadian Wheat Board


William Gilbert Weir: Does not that really come down to the question whether or not the board can make a deal with the elevator companies or anyone else to handle the grain? If they can reduce the charge, well and good. Probably they can and probably they cannot, but it is a business proposition between the elevator companies and the board and the closer the deal the board drives, the better. But that fact has to be considered, that the board is making a deal with someone else, and it takes two to make a deal.


James Angus MacKinnon: I thank the hon. member for giving a clear answer to the question.


Ernest Edward Perley: I am not satisfied.


Mr. FURNISS:: I do not think there is anything that will create a more distasteful impression among the ordinary taxpayers of Ontario than this storage payment to farmers in the province who have their own granaries.
I am appealing on behalf of the man who pays the taxes. I do not know what the impression will be in these times, when the government is trying in every way to get money to carry on the war. I do not know,
I repeat, what the impression will be among the ordinary taxpayers, the man with a family whose living costs are bound to go up, or the man on low salary, who has had so much sympathy from some of the western members this session, or the man working on the farm for a wage from which his employer will have to deduct $12 a year. I do not know what they will think when they know that the farmer is getting six cents a bushel for storing his wheat for eight months of the year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What is the difference between paying storage to the farmer and paying it to the elevator company?


Stephen Joseph Furniss: We have not been growing wheat extensively and I am calling attention to the difference between the west and the east. I know the impression was thrown out this afternoon that 'eastern farmers did not understand anything about the west, but if they do not it is not because they have not * been told often enough about it, and they have been told about it, mostly by hon. members who are not farmers. I am telling the committee the impression that will be created among the poor people who pay the taxes, when money is paid to the farmer in Ontario for storing his own grain in his own granary, something that I know he has never had before. It will not make any difference what I say, but I cannot allow this 95826-1514
opportunity to pass without recording my attitude towards this matter, and it is the attitude that will be taken by, I believe, 90 per cent of the farmers in the constituency which I represent. I cannot understand how some members can reconcile this payment, even in the west, with the payments made under the farmers assistance act. If a man has
10,000	bushels of wheat to store and he stores it for eight months at the current rate of three-quarters of a cent a month, he will get $600 storage, whereas the largest payment that can be made to the man who has absolutely nothing under the prairie farm assistance scheme is $500. You are paying the man who has a crop for keeping it on his farm, and the man who has no crop is footing the bill. I know it is a fine thing to say that you are getting it because the elevators are getting it and you might as well have it.
I have every sympathy with the farmer because I have farmed all my life. I have every sympathy with the farmer who farms to make a living, but I have no sympathy with the farmer who treats wheat growing as a commercial enterprise and grows ten or fifteen thousand bushels. When the hon. member opposite speaks about the difference between east and west, I would ask him why it was that a number of years ago scores of farmers, thousands of farmers, left Ontario, sold their farms and went to the west. I can tell him of different ones who left my own locality. One man had a farm of 150 acres, well equipped with stock, implements and everything. He went west and in twenty years had four sections of land and $20,000 to the good. People went west despite the long freight haul, despite the tariff about which the hon. gentleman complains so bitterly. They went west to make money because it was easier to make money in the west than in the east. Production in the west was cheaper. They went west because they got land given them, a quarter of a section and a preemption. In fact, they could buy all the prairie they wanted. I can tell the committee the whole story about that, but I want to register my attitude toward this payment for storage, so far as concerns the people of Ontario.


Victor Quelch: The hon. gentleman
adressed a question to me and I should like to answer it. He asks why the farmers of Ontario went to western Canada. They went for the same reason that people in England and Europe came out to Canada and went to the west. It was the result of high-pressure salesmanship on the part of the railways. They went out of their way to misrepresent the facts. It is true that many farmers made
Canadian Wheat Board

a good living in the west, but I can point to thousands of farmers who were ruined. Millions of acres of land had to be taken back by the government because it was not possible for men to make a living on them. The Minister of Agriculture referred to this matter when he stressed the fact that the federal government assumed a certain responsibility for the condition that existed there, because they opened for settlement land which the federal government knew was not fit for the purpose. Yet they encouraged settlers to go there. Why? I can quote from the proceedings that took place in this house long ago. I can quote from a speech by the Hon. Frank Oliver-


Thomas Vien: I should like to allow the hon. gentleman a certain latitude inasmuch as the hon. member who preceded him touched upon the subject, but he was out of order. The trend of the discussion is not relevant to the section.


William Gilbert Weir: May I say a word with regard to the observations of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Furniss). He has brought up a matter that may be a little misunderstood. This storage will be paid, as the minister indicated, when the wheat is sold. If the Ontario man feeds his wheat, there will be no storage paid on it. This is a new procedure, but it is brought about because of existing conditions. Storage facilities in the west and in Canada as a whole will not be adequate this year, and some inducement, may I say with all due respect, has to be provided to encourage those who have more storage facilities than required, to store additional quantities of grain. That to me is the reason and justification for this provision.


Stephen Joseph Furniss: I understand the hon. member, but if a farmer in Ontario has a thousand bushels to sell he will get storage from the time it starts until the wheat is delivered. That is the point I am making. It is something he never got before, and something the poor taxpayer knows he will have to pay unless the price advances beyond the initial payment.


James Lester Douglas: May I point
out that, in the main, the farmers of the west have never stored their wheat. There are districts where the situation is different, but in the main the farmers on the prairies have drawn their wheat directly to the elevator or to the siding. Now, because of necessity, not for their own benefit but because this wheat board cannot store the wheat, and in order to meet the convenience

of this government and assist the Canadian economy, they are going to store wheat on their farms. This will mean a large capital expenditure. The hon. member speaks of storing 10,000 bushels and receiving $600 in eight months; but think of the capital expenditure involved in building granaries to store that much wheat.


An hon. MEMBER:: Have they no granaries in the west?


James Lester Douglas: The northwestern part of the constituency I represent is one of the heaviest pieces of wheat land in western Canada; that is from Weybum to Regina. In normal years, from 1920 to 1930, we had the highest per capita production per acre of any part of the west. In that district there are no granaries at all; one can travel for miles without seeing one. Those people use combines and tractors and draw the wheat directly to the elevator. If they are to store five or eight or ten thousand bushels of wheat-although I do not think many will have that much this year -they will have to buy lumber at high prices and build elevators. It will take them two or three years to begin to get back their investment through the payment of storage charges.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: I do not want to delay
the passage of this bill, but if I remember correctly, the storage capacity of the country elevators on the prairies is a little in excess of 100,000,000 bushels. When we have a four hundred million bushel crop, where has it all been stored? If I am wrong in my understanding, I should like to be corrected. What is the total storage capacity?


John Gordon Ross: The storage
capacity of the country elevators is 189,000,000 bushels and of the terminal elevators 233,000,000 bushels.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: But we have frequently
had a heavy carryover, some years amounting to 200,000,000 bushels. There has been a great deal of wdieat stored in western Canada by the farmers every year. I know; I have been there.


Ernest Edward Perley: I should like an understanding from the minister that at least he will undertake to have this section of the agreement amended so that no storage will be payable on grain in a boxcar.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Ernest Edward Perley: I do not think any hon.
member will say that a farmer should pay storage on grain when it is in the boxcar of a carrying company, on which boxcar

Canadian Wheat Board
freight is being paid, in transit from the interior to the terminal point. If any hon. member thinks that is fair, and he has ever heard of it in the history of grain marketing, let him say so.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Is the minister contemplating any change or modification of the act to meet the situation suggested by the amendment of the hon. member for North Battleford? Is he contemplating any provision under which farmers may obtain an advance on the grain stored on their farms?


James Angus MacKinnon: Certainly it is being seriously considered, and has been for some time, although not by means of an amendment to this act.


John Horne Blackmore: I earnestly suggest
that we need something more than consideration. "Can" as far as the government is concerned is one thing. It is quite a different matter to the poor farmer on the land, with a wife and children to keep and a big bill at the grocer's, with no other way whereby he can get any advance on his crop. This is a "can't" which simply must not be ignored. The government can move, but those men cannot. I come from a constituency in which practically ninety per cent of the farmers are going to face that very situation, and I say that if something is not done, the position is going to be tragic. We have not much more than another week or two in which to consider this matter, because they are going to be facing the grim realities soon.
I wonder if something could not be given beyond the statement that the matter is under consideration. Let us remember that the minister stands here with the whole resources of the Dominion of Canada behind him. If the government sees fit to do something about the matter, the government can do something. Let us not forget that during this session of parliament we have passed regulations and laws giving the government power to conscript everything in this country, which has placed this whole country behind the government. Now to say the government cannot do something about this is to say something foolish, without point.


James Angus MacKinnon: I did not make the statement that the government could not do anything. I started to say that the government could not do what was suggested by the hon. member without giving it proper consideration. I have spoken on this point already. The hon. gentleman has not taken very much part in this debate, and I want to give him all the information I can. We realize the situation and are just as much concerned about it as the hon. gentleman may be. We are seriously concerned about
the situation and are giving it every possible consideration, as we must in order to arrive at a solution.


Ernest George Hansell: The fact of the matter is that it is not a question of coming to a decision eventually, a few months from now; it must be done now. We are getting letters every day. A harvest is on, and the elevator companies will not advance the farmers any money. The banks will not advance them any money. They require repairs for their machinery, but the machinery companies will not carry them. That is the position, and I think the question of the hon. member for Lethbridge should be answered definitely. I know this is a problem, but it is a problem that must be faced at some time, so why not face it now?


John Horne Blackmore: There is another
matter I should like to bring to the attention of the minister, and because I may appear a little over zealous, I do not want the minister to think I am not sympathetic with him. I realize his position, but I realize also the position of those thousands of men whom I represent in this parliament. I believe the minister has this in mind, but let hon. members realize it. There are scores of merchants throughout my constituency who have gone the limit in granting lines of credit to these farmers, and who have gone the limit with their wholesalers. If the farmers cannot get advances on their crops, they cannot pay anything on their bills, which means that a good many of these merchants will be on the verge of bankruptcy. There is no provision for protecting the merchants; they can be closed out by the wholesaler at any time. There is no way1 by which the farmer can be protected either; his line of credit can be cut off at any time, and as soon as that is done in this age of unemployment, his family begins to starve.
While I am on my feet I should like to make one further point, and I am sorry the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario is not in his place. It does one good to have a man like the hon. member speak so earnestly in this house. That is just the sort of discussion we must have. But men like the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario must realize that there is the greatest difference between the situation of a farmer in most parts of Ontario and the situation of a farmer in most parts of the prairie plains. For example, most farms in Ontario have wood lots, where the farmers can cut wood if they need something to burn.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Horne Blackmore: Please bear in mind, Mr. Chairman, that I have been in Ontario
for four or five years now, and I know a
Canadian Wheat Board

little about it. It is ridiculous for men to begin to argue when a person is speaking of a matter like this. I am in perfect sympathy with the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, but now there are three or four hon. members in front of me who act as though they would like to jump down my neck. Well, what foolishness! All I am endeavouring to do is to put before hon. members-


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland, Ont):: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, nobody intimated that we are going to jump down the hon. member's neck.


John Horne Blackmore: I am relieved to hear that. But I wish to go on to say this-


Thomas Vien: Order. We are considering section 4 as amended. Would hon. members please come back to a discussion of that section?


Grote Stirling: On a point of order, it is now twelve o'clock, and the arrangement was that we should adjourn at twelve o'clock.


John Horne Blackmore: I was speaking about advances made on crops, and I was pointing out that while in some places a man can go out to his wood lot and cut wood, in my constituency a man cannot get coal, he cannot get wood, he cannot get the needs of life unless he can get money. There is no wood lot for him to go to. Those people are right out on the bald, open prairie. The difference is tremendous. They cannot raise gardens as well out there; they cannot get fruit as easily. They simply must have money, and if they cannot get an advance on their crop, they are going to be in a condition of the most acute suffering. So are the merchants with whom they deal, and so are the wholesalers. Therefore I must point out that this is an extremely important matter-this of getting an advance.
Section as amended agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 12.05 am
Saturday, August 3, 1940