MOTION FOR ADJOURNMF.NT ON COMPLETION OF BUSINESS UNTIL NOVEMBER 5, 1940

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members are anxious, I am sure, to know the

intention of the government with respect to adjournment or prorogation when the business for which the present session was called is concluded. My colleagues and I have given thought to what in the public interest would be most advisable, all circumstances considered, and we have endeavoured to meet, as well as it possibly can be met, the convenience of hon. members of the house generally. With the consent of the house, I desire therefore to propose the following motion:
That this house, on completion of the business for which it was specially summoned, do adjourn till Tuesday, 5th November, 1940, at three o'clock p.m., provided always that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with His Majesty's government, that the public interest requires that the house should meet at any earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the house shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.
As hon. members will understand, this means that when the business of the session is completed, be it to-day, on Monday, or on whatever day it may be, the house will then stand adjourned until Tuesday, November 5. If in the interval for public reasons it should appear necessary to have the house reconvene, it will be possible for the government, upon consultation with His Honour the Speaker, to bring hon. members together in the shortest possible time. If it should not appear necessary to bring hon. members together until November 5, at that time the government would be in position to know whether the public interest would be best served by calling the next session of parliament almost at that very time. Whether that would be wise or unwise, I am unable to say at the moment. These matters can be decided only in the light of the circumstances that may exist at the time.
I realize that it would be a great inconvenience to hon. members to have them come from all parts of the country to Ottawa for a very short period, have them return home, and then call them back again almost immediately afterwards in order to begin a new session of parliament. At the time to which adjournment is being made, I believe the government, will know whether it would be better for the house to meet for what time may be necessary, then prorogue, and have the next session begin early in the new year or, should there not be much business to attend to in November pertaining to matters which have happened meanwhile, and the government then be in a position to bring down its programme for the next session, to prorogue forthwith and have parliament imme-

Business oj the House-Adjournment
diately summoned for its next session possibly on the Thursday of the week to which adjournment is now being arranged for.
Upon reflection hon. members will see, I am sure, that the government has considered the matter from every side, in the light of conditions in our own country as we know them, and of conditions in the world as we know them. Hon. members will have observed that when I spoke before on this matter, I always declined to say that parliament would adjourn rather than prorogue, and I declined to give any definite undertaking in respect to prorogation. I have always said that I thought these matters could properly be decided only in the light of circumstances as they might exist at the time when it was necessary to make a final decision. All circumstances considered, I believe what is proposed in this motion will meet with general approval, at least I hope so.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the
purpose of expressing concurrence in the motion which has just been placed before the house by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I had asked for something similar to this on two occasions during the session, and I had not intended returning to it again, rather leaving it entirely to the discretion of the government.
We are of course aware that parliament is the proper place to discuss the state of the defence of Canada should this country become further imperilled. I have always held the view that if the circumstances are such as to imperil the safety of the state, indeed our very existence, the high court of parliament should be functioning.
I am not unaware of the inconvenience which private members of the house may suffer by the action which is proposed, but I hope they will accept the suggestion contained in the motion as a patriotic gesture in their public service and that they will agree unanimously to the motion.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, the proposal of the Prime Minister meets of course with our approval. I believe it is the right thing to do and I feel that none of us, no matter how inconvenient it may be, can possibly complain with respect to the action that is proposed. We do not know what may happen during the next two or three months and I feel that the Prime Minister is acting in the best interests of the country.
There is just one question I should like to ask, to clear up any doubt there may be in our minds. I understand that the reassembling of parliament on November 5 is mandatory.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, yes. Parliament will have to meet on that day, if it does not meet again at an earlier date.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I am always fearful when a suggestion comes from the leader of the opposition. He suggested conscription; we have got it. He suggested an adjournment of the house instead of prorogation; we have got it. It is not the desire of a great many members to have an adjournment at this time. I am not grouching, of course. I am a good enough sport to accept my financial responsibilities as a member, although I am not a big corporation lawyer like the hon. leader of the opposition.
But the Prime Minister should remember one thing. It is that we had a special session of parliament last year, when we came here for one week. Canada is a larger country than England and what works well in England does not necessarily work well here. You can travel overnight from Plymouth to Inverness or from the northern part of Scotland to London or from any part of the British Isles to Westminster. But it takes a long time to come from British Columbia to Ottawa; it takes a long time to come here from Halifax, and it takes a long time to come to Ottawa from Riviere du Loup. But I am not afraid to do so. I can do so. I can pay for my berth; there is no objection to that. But I do not see why people who have high salaries and others who have high positions as corporation lawyers-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. POULIOT:: There is one thing, Mr. Speaker, with respect to adjourning the house to a certain date in order to have the members here then. It takes British Columbia members a week generally to get here by train, but if they come here by Trans-Canada Air Lines I wonder if the government would be ready to pay the travelling expenses of the members who want to reach Ottawa in a day. That would be all right; but otherwise it is quite different. Every member must answer the call of the chair for a sitting of the house. It is evident that it is our duty to be here, and in that sense, being true to my duty as a member of parliament, I am behind such a call.
You know, Mr. Speaker, and the members know that I am just as assiduous in my duties in this house as my correspondence will permit, and that correspondence is exclusively political. By that I mean I am working in the interest of my electors. I have expressed regret that I cannot attend the sittings of the house more often because of the trouble we have had in
2400	COMMONS
Business of the Home-Adjournment
certain departments, but I do my best, as the members will agree. We can come to Ottawa at any time. We have done so before.
But there is another thing. The members of parliament were summoned to Ottawa to sit for one day in January last. They came here expecting to be here for a whole session, and some rented apartments, and when the sitting suddenly ended they had the trouble of settling with the landlords from whom they had rented apartments. Now they are to live on the pure air that we breathe outside. I find it pretty hard.
I remember the time when Mr. Lavigueur was a member from Quebec and Mr. Irvine a member of the Progressive group, and they rose to ask for an increase in the indemnity. We all needed it, but I did not join with them. But this time we have been sitting long enough to be entitled, under the Senate and House of Commons Act, to payment of our full indemnity, and I do not see why we should not get it. Why should we be afraid to speak plainly?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: Most of our indemnity
goes back to our electors in the form of contributions of funeral wreaths, masses for the dead, wedding gifts and charity. It costs me $1,500 a year of my indemnity to meet these expenses, but now if people will wed or die I shall have to tell them: I am sorry but I have not the means to pay for masses or funeral wreaths, and I can send you only my sympathy; and if they get married I shall have to give them my blessing. I am not afraid to put it in Hansard. The people of my constituency know how I treat them. As members most of us spend at least $5 a day in contributions of one kind and another. I do not complain about it, but I want to have what is owed to me according to the statute.
I am sick of the idea of copying what is done at Westminster under entirely different circumstances. The leader of the opposition says, in a prayerful attitude:	I hope this
motion will be agreed to unanimously. It is not agreed to unanimously; I am against it, just as I was against the rotten social legislation of Bennett and against all bad things. What I ask now I do not ask for myself. I ask it on behalf of my electors. Many members who have just applauded me are in exactly similar circumstances to my own. I tell the Prime Minister once for all that he is on a much safer road when he follows the views of his supporters than when he follows the views of the leader of the opposition. Why, why, why cater to the Ottawa Journal, that Tory paper which is making lots of money by renting space to the government 
during the war. I am not the first to say that. It was said in the house by Doctor Edwards, an Orangeman, a Tory, but a good fellow with a good heart and a sense of fairness. He complained of the Ottawa Journal being so greedy to get money and then preaching immolation and sacrifice. They are just hypocrites, like those hypocrites the Lord expelled from the temple with a whip.
Let us be sensible. That is my last recommendation to the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like at once to say to my hon. friend the member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) that I myself take full responsibility for this motion. It has not been brought forward as a result of any suggestion made from any part of the house. It has been brought forward as the result of careful thought to what is most in the public interest, all circumstances considered, at this time. I believe that the motion as it has been presented will serve to meet any and every possible contingency, in the most effective way. It is not an imitation of what is being done in any other country; it is a statement of what in this country, having regard to the position of Canada, having regard to the position of the United Kingdom, and having regard to the world situation, is obviously the wisest thing to have done with respect to the proceedings of parliament.
In regard to the question of indemnity which my hon. friend has raised, the effect of the motion is that on adjournment of the house, each day on which there has been no sitting in consequence of its having adjourned over such day shall be reckoned as a day of attendance. The result is that hon. members will not get the balance of the indemnity as of prorogation, but will be paid monthly until the $4,000 is fully paid.
My hon. friend has referred to sacrifice. When men of this country are crossing the ocean to join with others in the old land, prepared to sacrifice their lives if need be for the preservation of freedom, it ill becomes, I think, any hon. member of this house to make comparisons with respect to the extent of possible sacrifice.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, on a question of
privilege. The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) has referred to me in somewhat contemptuous terms. Under ordinary circumstances I should greet those words with the silence they deserve. But I should like to make this personal explanation to the house. When I was sworn in as a member of his majesty's Canadian privy council in 1934 I

Questions
severed my connection with my legal firm. I want to say that it was not without a good deal of misgiving that I did so, because it was a firm of which I was very proud and which had grown and been built up in the esteem of a large clientele over many years. In doing so I sacrificed a very substantial professional income. Since that time I have had no connection with that firm save and except in a consulting capacity, and at the same time I returned all the retainers of any consequence and of any character which I had as being a member of that firm. I am happy to think, however, that the firm still bears my name. That is quite in accordance with the laws of the province in which I live. I have had no connection in a professional capacity with any corporation except one since the middle of November, 1934. I have retained such directorships as I have enjoyed because in certain cases I was acting in a fiduciary capacity, and in other cases I felt it my duty to do so and that it was in no way inimical to the public interest.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion? Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: On division.
Motion (Mr. Mackenzie King) agreed to, on division.



PRIVILEGE-MR. POULIOT

Jean-François Pouliot: On a question of privilege, I wonder if my chief, the Prime Minister in stating that the soldiers were making sacrifices overseas, was implying that I as a member of parliament was making no sacrifice. If such is the case, may I remind him that both of us are over forty-five years of age and that I am married, am a father, and do my duty as a member of parliament?
A second question is this:	Will the
expenses of the members, if they come at the call of the chair during the adjournment, be paid or not?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As to the first question, may I say that I am not aware of having made any reflection upon the character of my hon. friend or on the extent of his sacrifices; certainly nothing of the sort was intended. I think we are all fully aware how considerable they are. My hon. friend himself raised the question of sacrifice, and I deemed it desirable in that connection to indicate as I saw it, a true sense of proportion between any sacrifice which a member of parliament as such can make and that
which is made by a man who is prepared to give, or actually does give, his life on the scene of conflict.


Mr. MacNICOL:: There is no comparison.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As to the question of the payment of expenses of members coming back to attend the session when it is reconvened, whatever is customary in that regard will be followed at that time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
house rentals in war time
['Some time ago the hon. member\nfor Vancouver South (Mr. Green) asked a question with regard to disabilities as grounds of rejection of recruits for the Canadian active service force. If the house will permit I will\nNational Defence-Recruits', 'just hand the information in the form of an answer to a question. It is somewhat lengthy but it may benefit not only the hon. member but the house in general.\nThe hon. member asked:\n. When may we get the information as to the findings of the medical officers who have examined recruits? This is of vital importance. I do not think there is any doubt that thousands of young Canadians have been rejected on medical grounds, and I think the committee should have a summary of the reasons for which they have been rejected in order that action may be taken to remedy the causes of these defects.\nThe answer is as follows:\nIn the early days of enlistment, it was not fully understood by all that statistics were to be carefully kept. The result has been that the mass statistics available on the examination of recruits in September of last year are not wholly reliable. Ordinarily in preparing mass statistics, a reliable cross section of 10 per cent of the whole is considered to be satisfactory.\nThe following figures based on an accurate survey of approximately 10 per cent may be relied upon:\nDefective vision Under-weight Heart disabilities Varicose veins Defective hearing Hernia\nDefective teeth Defective limbs Under standard height Flat feet\n(bistro-intestinal disease Deformity\naccounted for 88-2 per cent of rejections and are listed in the order of their importance.\nSome 29 other disabilities represented 11-8 per cent.\nThe highest single cause of rejection was defective vision which accounted for 31-87 per cent of the total of rejections.']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might answer this question orally. To the first part the answer is:	In some cases yes; as to the
extent, not known; impossible to say. As to the second part of the question I would say that the government departments have been carefully watching this situation and giving it as much attention as is possible in the circumstances.



[Stage Direction]
CONSERVATION of EXCHANGE-USE OF DOMESTIC fuel
Mr. PURDY:: With a view to conserving foreign exchange and increasing employment, will the government arrange (a) that as far as possible fuels produced entirely in Canada are used in all government buildings; (b) that heating specifications for all buildings now being constructed, including troop accommodation, will be written accordingly ?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Return tabled. PRIVILEGE-Mr. FULFORD


PRESS REPORT IN OTTAWA EVENING CITIZEN OF AUGUST 2
[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. T. FULFORD (Leeds); I rise to a question of privilege. In last night's Ottawa Evening Citizen, that newspaper, in reporting my few remarks in the house the day before, printed "George T. Fulford (Con. Leeds)." Mr. Speaker, I positively deny that allegation.
[Stage Direction]
2402	COMMONS
National Registration-Mayor oj Montreal

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to put an important question to the ministry.
Yesterday, in the city of Montreal, an amazing thing happened. The mayor of the city of Montreal, in a signed statement delivered to the press at a press conference in relation to the matter of national registration, openly defied the law of Canada. I hold in my hand a copy of the statement which he then made and which was delivered to the press of Canada:
I declare myself preemptorily against national registration. It is unequivocally a measure of conscription, and the government recently elected, last March, declared through the mouths of all its political chieftains, from Prime Minister Mackenzie King to Premier Adelard Godbout of Quebec, and not excluding Messrs. Lapointe and Cardin, that there would be no conscription under any form whatsoever.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I saw in the press room yesterday, a dispatch from the press censor to the effect that it was not in the public interest to mention the matter. I wonder if the hon. gentleman will continue? Mr. Fulgence Charpentier signed it as press censor.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is no point of order. This is still a free parliament.
I call attention to this paragraph in the press statement:
Parliament, according to my belief, has no mandate to vote conscription. I do not myself believe that I am held to conform to the said law, and I have no intention of so doing, and I ask the population not to conform, knowing full well what I am doing presently and to what I expose myself. If the government wants a mandate for conscription, let it come before the people, without this time fooling them.
I may say that this outburst followed the granting by Mr. Parent, director of municipal buildings in the city of Montreal, of space in five municipal buildings for the purpose of national registration. That statement was published in the early edition of the Montreal Gazette. It was accompanied by an editorial which I have heard read but which unfortunately I am not able to reproduce to the house at this time. Suffice it to say that it called attention to the attitude of the mayor of the city of Montreal and demanded that the federal authorities take action in the premises.
To the surprise of everyone, after thousands of these papers had been sold on the streets

of Montreal, the press censor of Canada stepped into the picture and ordered the suppression of the whole edition. An appeal, I understand, was made by the manager of the publishing company to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), who referred the manager to the Secretary of State (Mr. Casgrain), under whose jurisdiction the press censor is, and that the latter informed the manager that he would refuse to alter the action of the press censor.
The questions I desire to ask the Prime Minister are:
Is there any longer a free press in Canada?
What action does the government propose to take to vindicate the majesty of the law in this country, having regard to the declaration of the mayor of the city of Montreal?
Is the government prepared to meet open defiance of the law on the part of a gentleman occupying the position of the mayor of Montreal, and will the government have the action of the press censor reviewed in the light of the facts?
The public of Canada will demand that this matter see the light of day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has asked me several questions. I should like first of all to look very carefully into the statement which he has read and also carefully to consider the questions which he has asked. In the meantime, I would simply say that hon. members may rely upon the laws of this country being duly upheld by the present administration.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
directing particular attention to the action of the press censor. I think that is a very important matter and that it should receive the immediate consideration of the government-to-day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say that I shall make it a point to confer with my colleagues at the intermission at one o'clock with regard to the whole matter. The reason I did not make special reference to censorship was that there are conflicting views, as I understand, with respect to what actually occurred in that regard, and I should like to be sure of my ground before expressing an opinion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the
government the editorial? I understand the Minister of National Defence had the editorial.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: No. The newspaper telephoned to my secretary last night a copy of the

National Defence-Recruits
statement which my hon. friend has read-not the editorial. May I say however that I am not sure that my hon. friend has the facts quite correctly with regard to the action of the censor. There is a fact that is left out, which is rather important and which is being considered by the government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not wish to prejudice the government's position. I think I am performing a useful public duty when I call attention to the situation. The responsibility is the government's and the public will demand that the situation be clarified.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think my hon. friend need have any worry, so far as the government is concerned, about the situation being clarified, but I do question, with all due deference, whether it is in the public interest for my hon. friend to raise the question just as he has done at this time, particularly in view of the fact that the matter has been called to the attention of the government by the press censor. As I understand it, the fact which has been left out is that the press censor had given instructions, before this paper was published, actually on the streets, that this particular article should not be published.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The editorial or the statement?


James Layton Ralston: The statement itself. That is my information. I may be wrong about that. It was telephoned to my office because of the fact, I suppose, that I am Minister of National Defence, and I immediately referred it to the minister who I thought was the appropriate minister in the circumstances, the Secretary of State, who deals with matters of censorship. When the manager of the newspaper telephoned me again I referred him to the Secretary of State. I can assure my hon. friend that, so far as I am concerned, the matter was put into the proper channel and, as I expect, it will be fully considered by the government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And a statement made later in the day?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot say.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Prime Minister rather intimated that.


PROCESSED BERRIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: I wish to direct a question to the
95826-152J
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I have already had one disappointment to-day -Mr. Henry Ford. I bought a new car. In order to ask the question I shall have to read a telegram. I have a wire from the board of trade of the city of Vancouver. Vancouver happens to be the third largest city in the dominion and is the greatest contributor in a voluntary way to the war effort. I may be out of order-I generally am-but I have heard my friends to the left reading wires into the record and I should like to read this one from the Vancouver board of trade:
Contents telegram forwarded you by coast growers re processed berry situation familiar to this board. Strongly recommend federal action in view seriousness situation. Vancouver business firms equally concerned with growers. Please advise federal members who received air mail information last night from growers our decision also minister.
Vancouver Board of Trade
I saw the minister about this matter the other day. The matter is of vital importance to us in British Columbia. We have a large stock of processed berries from this season's operations; we have orders from British firms and we cannot make delivery because so far British import licences have been refused. In the meantime these farmers are actually going without the necessities of life. I think it is time the minister advised us whether the government are going to guarantee these orders to the bank in order that these farmers may exist.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: The only thing I can say to the
hon. member is that we are giving very care-cul consideration to the situation existing in British Columbia, and will deal with it in exactly the same manner as we deal with all similar questions affecting agriculture across Canada.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I ask the minister to remember that the farmers of British Columbia cannot pay their bills and cannot live on "considerations."


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Layton Ralston: Some time ago the hon. member
for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) asked a question with regard to disabilities as grounds of rejection of recruits for the Canadian active service force. If the house will permit I will
National Defence-Recruits

just hand the information in the form of an answer to a question. It is somewhat lengthy but it may benefit not only the hon. member but the house in general.
The hon. member asked:
. When may we get the information as to the findings of the medical officers who have examined recruits? This is of vital importance. I do not think there is any doubt that thousands of young Canadians have been rejected on medical grounds, and I think the committee should have a summary of the reasons for which they have been rejected in order that action may be taken to remedy the causes of these defects.
The answer is as follows:
In the early days of enlistment, it was not fully understood by all that statistics were to be carefully kept. The result has been that the mass statistics available on the examination of recruits in September of last year are not wholly reliable. Ordinarily in preparing mass statistics, a reliable cross section of 10 per cent of the whole is considered to be satisfactory.
The following figures based on an accurate survey of approximately 10 per cent may be relied upon:
Defective vision Under-weight Heart disabilities Varicose veins Defective hearing Hernia
Defective teeth Defective limbs Under standard height Flat feet
(bistro-intestinal disease Deformity
accounted for 88-2 per cent of rejections and are listed in the order of their importance.
Some 29 other disabilities represented 11-8 per cent.
The highest single cause of rejection was defective vision which accounted for 31-87 per cent of the total of rejections.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: I should like to direct a question again to the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) with regard to contracts awarded. We have had no reports since April: those for May, June. July have been delayed at the printers, and inasmuch as that condition evidently is going to obtain until the house adjourns I would ask the minister if he will see to it that during the recess hon. members get

copies of the contracts awarded in his department for May, June, July, August and until such time as we again meet in November.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: It has been the practice of the department to mail copies of publications to hon. members whether parliament is sitting or not, and that practice will be continued.


Joseph Henry Harris: Will the minister see to it that this is made a public publication?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It will have all the publicity that any government document has. I do not know just what the hon. member means by a public publication.


MOBILIZATION OF RESOURCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale) :: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston). I am not clear as to whether the quota for which the Department of National Defence will ask from the results of the national registration will apply only to militia, or to the two other services as well.


James Layton Ralston: That is as to the number to be trained? What we were expecting was that it could apply to all services, that is to the army, the navy and the air force, as required.



DOMINION HOUSING ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I should like to ask the government a question arising out of an editorial in the Prince Albert Daily Herald of July 25 last. In part it reads:
Prince Albert's growing home building boom has been killed.
No more loans will be available under the Dominion Housing Act.
It goes on to point out that instructions have been received that no more loans will be made to intending house builders in the city of Prince Albert on account of certain alleged default on the part of the city authorities. Has any order gone out that no more loans are to be permitted in Prince Albert under the Dominion Housing Act?

Canadian Wheat Board


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I assure my hon. friend that no order has gone out that relates particularly to Prince Albert. If there is any action of the kind it is due to an order that applies to all municipalities.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I have made inquiries and I find that no instructions of the kind have been issued from the Department of Finance. The director of housing is travelling in the west and I have been unable to get in touch with him. I do not know what conversations he may have had or what questions he may have been dealing with there. But specifically, with regard to the question put by the hon. member for Lake Centre, the answer is in the negative.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, August 2, 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 5-Regulate and control deliveries of grain.
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: This is perhaps the most important section in the bill, because it constitutes the most radical departure from any principle hitherto contained in the Canadian Wheat Board Act. It gives the power-
"(i) to regulate deliveries of all kinds of grain by producers to country elevators, loading platforms, mill elevators and terminal elevators and to fix the maximum amounts of any kind of grain that a producer may so deliver in any period of time and to prescribe penalties to be suffered by any producer who delivers or attempts to deliver any grain otherwise than in accordance with the board's regulations herein authorized".
As I understand that section, the board is to have power to issue regulations that will establish a quota in respect of wheat that the farmer will be allowed to deliver to the wheat board this fall, and determine at what rate and in what quantities he shall be allowed to deliver the remainder over the rest of the crop year.
Now, two questions arise out of this provision, first of which is the basis upon which deliveries of wheat to the wheat board shall be made this fall. Yesterday when the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Weir) said he
believed he would be allowed to sell about 1,500 bushels of wheat to the board this fall, I asked him on what he based that assumption, and he said he was figuring on five to ten bushels to the acre. That is what I have heard, although the government have not made any statement as to what the basis of rationing will be. A second problem arises, then: how is the farmer going to finance if he is allowed to deliver to the wheat board only a small percentage of his crop? Assume that a man has a crop of twenty bushels to the acre, with two hundred acres in crop. That means 4,000 bushels of wheat, and if he is allowed to deliver only five bushels to the acre-we will assume it is only five; it may be more-he will sell only 1,000 bushels, so that he must store the other three thousand. For the 1,000 bushels he will get roughly $500. Out of the $500 he must first pay his taxes; for in Saskatchewan the provincial government have a law which provides that no man may deliver wheat to the elevator until he has a certificate from the municipal council that he has paid his current year's taxes. The next charge will be his threshing and harvesting expenses, which will be considerable. Then he will have some store obligations which have accumulated during the summer months. These are charges of honour which he has to meet, How much will he have left out of the $500? I submit that he will have absolutely nothing left with which to begin the winter, except a large accumulation of wheat on his farm which he cannot sell.
This is not going to affect the farmer only. Consider how it is going to upset the western economy. As one hon. member said yesterday, during the fall months we usually sell from 300 to 400 million bushels of wheat, which means a sudden injection into our western economy of from $200,000,000 to-$300,000,000, depending on the price of wheat. Under these regulations and this programme of rationing this year the amount is more likely to be $40,000,000 or $50,000,000 for that portion of the crop the farmers will be allowed to sell. What will be the effect on the towns and cities of western Canada? Instead of $250,000,000 of purchasing power there will be only perhaps $50,000,000. I submit that whether or not the government are aware of it, before Christmas of this year we are going to face one of the worst economic catastrophes we have ever seen in western Canada, not only for the farming population but for the entire community.
What do we propose to do about it? I submit that something must be done. On
Canadian Wheat Board

July 25 I suggested that the government ought to consider either buying the wheat outright, as they have done in some parts of the United States, sealing it up and taking title to it; or, what I think is more practicable, giving the farmer an advance. Then when he is finally allowed to dispose of his grain the first charge against his receipts will be the advance he has received, and he will be given the difference between the two. What policy has the government evolved to meet this very serious problem? What solution has been offered by the wheat committee of the cabinet? The Minister of Mines and Resources says it is moonshine, so that I can rule him out to begin with. Then the other day he said we were so busy that we did not always have time to bring clear thought to these problems, and it is quite possible that many members of the government have been in that condition for a considerable period of time.


Mr. CRERAR:: Apparently that is not the position of the hon. member.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, not at this moment. Now we come to the second member of the wheat committee of the cabinet, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who said on Thursday last that the government was considering the matter of financing that portion of the grain which necessarily will have to be retained on the farms. They are giving consideration to that.


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: Yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then I come to the Minister of Agriculture, who is another member of that wheat committee. On the
same day, at page 2315 of Hansard, he said:
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-
He did not say whom.
-put up additional storage. If additional storage is put up, then the 70 cents will take care of the farmers' wheat up to 50 cents a bushel to the farmer, and that is probably more than he could get under any borrowing scheme which could be devised. If some way could be found to get additional storage, then the government would be advancing at the rate of 70 cents Fort William, which would be about 52 cents at the average place in western Canada for No. 1.
I interrupted to ask:
Does the government plan to do that?
Mr. Gardiner:	That would be the simplest
way if it could be done.
This is not the time to tell us what could be done. This is not the time to place before this committee several alternatives, to say we could store it or we could give assistance in

financing or we could make an advance. This is the time this government ought to be telling us what they are going to do, not what they could do. We can all think of a score of alternatives, but this government is supposed to be giving us a policy. That is why, of course, this legislation should have been brought in two or three weeks ago and considered by the committee on agriculture, so that all these facts not only could have been placed before hon. members but could have gone out to the farming population.
The fact of the matter is that the government has not a policy for the marketing of this wheat. The Minister of Mines and Resources waves it out of the field altogether. The Minister of Trade and Commerce says the government is considering the matter of financing. The Minister of Agriculture says perhaps we can get somebody to build storage facilities. But no one says what the government actually propose to do to meet this very pressing problem. I suggest that they have not a policy, that the wheat committee of the cabinet are floundering around like three blind men in a dark room looking for a black cat that is not there. That is exactly the situation.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is not new.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, it is very much out of date; and so are some of the ideas which have been emanating from the wheat committee of the cabinet.
I do not think this committee of the whole should be asked to pass this section until we have a statement from the government as to exactly what will be done to help the farmer in respect of that part of his crop which he is not going to be allowed to sell and which must be stored on his farm. I suppose in a few moments I will be told by one of the ministers of the crown that this will be done by regulation. That is not good enough. In parts of Alberta wheat is going into the elevators right now. Therefore the regulations must be ready. They should be ready; and if they are, then the government knows now what it is going to do, and this is the time to tell us. It is not good enough to wait until all the members have gone home and then issue a regulation saying we will do this or that. At the present time, from the speeches made by the three members of the wheat committee, it is very evident that they are not exactly clear on what they are going to do.
I ask the government two questions, and I think we have a right to be given specific answers. First, what will be the basis of the rationing? Certainly it cannot be based on

Canadian Wheat Board
first come first served; otherwise all the benefit will go to the farmers who have trucks and can rush their wheat to the elevators. Second, and more important, what will 'be the basis of financing in respect of that portion of the crop which the farmer is not to be allowed to sell, which I understand will be the major part of his crop? How is he going to finance? Is he going to get an advance on the wheat? Is the government going to back his guarantee to the banks so that he may get an advance from them? Or, as the minister suggested, is the government prepared to put up storage facilities so that the farmer can deliver all his wheat and get the full amount payable under this legislation?
We do not want alternatives. We want to know definitely what the government proposes to do, because they will have to do it within the course of the next few days, and they might just as well tell us now. I ask the minister to give us a statement at this time.


Jean-François Pouliot: I should like to ask the minister just one question. Has this bill been submitted for approval to, or have any recommendations in connection with it been received from, the consultative committee on political economy?


James Angus MacKinnon: I am sorry, but I could not hear my hon. friend.


Jean-François Pouliot: In court I would ask the reporter to read back, but I will repeat my question. Was the bill submitted to the consultative committee on political economy, composed of Mr. Clark, Mr. Towers and other gentlemen?


James Angus MacKinnon: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: That answer will shorten my remarks.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I asked the minister for a statement as to how this section will operate.


Mr POULIOT (Translation):: Mr Chairman, there did not exist at the time of confederation, a federal department of trade and commerce; there was, however, a department of agriculture which remained in existence for many years .
Here is what the British North America Act states with respect to immigration and agriculture. The matter is one of joint jurisdiction. Section 95 reads as follows:
In each province the legislature may make laws in relation to agriculture in the province, and to immigration into the province; and it is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to agriculture in all or any of the provinces, and to immigration into all or any of the provinces; and any law of the legislature of a
province relative to agriculture or to immigration shall have effect in and for the province as long and as far only as it is not repugnant to any act of the parliament of Canada.
We again find these provisions in sections 35 and 36 of the report submitted by the Fathers of Confederation. On Feb. 19, in the House of Lords-


The CHAIRMAN (Translation):: Could the hon. member point out the relevancy of his statement to section 5 of the bill at present under consideration? Subsection 2 of rule 58 provides that all discussion in committee be confined to the section under advisement.
Mr POULIOT (Translation); Mr Chairman, I first of all drew the committee's attention to the fact that, although there existed no department of trade and commerce at the time of confederation, wheat was nevertheless grown in this country. There was only a federal department of agriculture which assisted in the marketing of farm products, while all aid to agricultural production itself came from the provincial departments in this field. We now have a department of trade and commerce that fulfils, as regards the marketing of farm produce, the very same mission formerly entrusted to the department of agriculture. I would therefore request the abolition of the federal department of agriculture, and the distribution to the provinces, according to the ratio of their farm population, of the moneys expended in connection therewith. I offer this suggestion, and do claim that there is a relationship between my remarks and the bill at present under advisement. We are dealing, at the moment, with the marketing of wheat, not by the Department of Agriculture but through the federal Department of Trade and Commerce.


Thomas Vien: The present section authorizes the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) to establish regulations with respect to marketing. The hon. member suggests that the Department of Agriculture be abolished because the Department of Trade and Commerce sees to the marketing of wheat. This matter is not, in my opinion, related to the consideration of section 5 of the bill. The point raised by the hon. member is thus out of order.
Mr. POULIOT (Translation); There is another matter I would like to broach, Mr. Chairman. As I said, a moment ago, we had no department of Trade and Commerce in 1867, and the first minister to head such a department was Sir Richard Cartwright, appointed to this high position by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1896. However, it is only nine years later, in 1905, that the western provinces were established. Cattle breeding has given way to

Canadian Wheat Board
production of wheat on such a large scale that Canada has become the granary of the world. Mr. Fisher, who represented Brome in the house, was minister of agriculture in the -Laurier cabinet.
We often hear, to-day, that our western farmers are complaining bitterly about the hardships they are forced to endure. It might be pointed out to them, however, that in more prosperous times they were the ones who insisted that new railway lines be opened, a fact with which you are undoubtedly well acquainted, Mr. Chairman, since you have been able to examine many of these cases. You have taken a special interest in the building of these new railway lines requested mostly by our western population, with the result that, in these provinces to-day, there are a great many more miles of trackage than in any other part of Canada. When times were good, they asked for new railway lines. Wheat prices were excellent, and greater railroad facilities were demanded for the marketing of this commodity. Once they obtained these new lines, the western farmers insisted that the cost of farm machinery be reduced. They were apparently hard to satisfy.
If the western grain growers lost a part of the British market before 1930, it is precisely due to the fact that they refused to reduce, once the war had ended, the war-time price of wheat. They remained adamant on the subject. As a consequence, Great Britain had to resort to capital investments in the Argentine Republic with regard to the production of wheat.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Translation: I feel that I must once again draw the attention to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) to the rules of this house. His remarks have absolutely no bearing on the section now under consideration. We are called upon to discuss the advisability of authorizing the Canadian Wheat Board to regulate and control grain deliveries. The hon. member's remarks might have been more appropriately made upon second reading of the bill, with respect to the general problem of wheat marketing, or he might resume them a little later when the bill is up for third reading. At the moment, however, his observations have no bearing on section 5 under discussion.


Jean-François Pouliot: I accept your suggestion.


James Angus MacKinnon: The hon. member for Weybum asked about the rationing and the basis of financing grain in storage in farmers' bins. I am informed that deliveries of grain will be regulated on the most equitable basis possible. The wheat board has been in contact with the various

provincial governments of western Canada, with the producers, with the producers' organizations and with everyone from whom they thought they could get good and helpful advice. The regulations have practically been decided upon and it is hoped that they can be announced within two days. At this time it is not a matter of great public importance to go into the question whether decisions should have been arrived at earlier or not, but I do know that every possible effort was made to arrive at a decision on the various questions affecting the wheat problem of western Canada, and I say frankly, but without any intention of giving offence, that if we do not stop talking about the regulations it will soon be too late to put them into force.
As to help being given to the farmer in the matter of his personal expenses while marketing his grain under the quota regulations, I am satisfied that the provincial governments in western Canada, and they are the ones in charge with respect to that matter, will be most sympathetic and generous in their dealings with the farmer.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: What about financing?


James Angus MacKinnon: I have referred to financing in what I have just said. The matter of financing, the method of financing and the possibility of financing, whether it will be done by one organization or another and with or without the help of the government-all these are matters that have been considered, but no decision has as yet been arrived at. At this very time people are waiting in this city to be heard on that question, and if this bill gets through I have an appointment with one or two organizations this afternoon. I can assure hon. members that every effort will be made to see that the very best possible is done to help the farmers in the circumstances in which they find themselves.


James Lester Douglas: May I say this, following what the minister has just said. The minister has just taken over this portfolio; he is piloting one of his first bills through the house, and is doing it very well. I do not want to be unpleasant at all, but I must say that his answer is not satisfactory.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Why not?


James Lester Douglas: I will tell the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) why not. For the Minister of Trade and Commerce to say that if we stop talking about the regulations we will get the regulations is just putting the cart before the horse. Here is what the government are saying: We have consulted with a lot of different groups of people; we have a lot of different ideas and are comparing

Canadian Wheat Board
them and trying to work out a solution; we have not yet reached a decision, but if you will give us the tremendous powers contained in clause 5, then as a result of our deliberations we will formulate a policy.
I say that the government have no right to come here and ask for the powers contained in clause 5 unless they have a policy and are prepared to tell the house what they propose to do if we give them these powers. These powers enable the board to say to the farmer: You cannot sell all of your crop on the market this fall, perhaps not till next spring or midsummer. That is what it means.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Power to regulate delivery.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is what it means, and I say we should not give these powers unless we are first told exactly what is going to happen to the farmer while he is waiting to sell the remainder of his grain. When the government ask for these powers they should tell us what they propose to do with them if granted. The minister says that we should stop talking so that the regulations can be put in force, but it is not the fault of the opposition if the regulations are not ready. There should have been consultations with the producers and with organized farmer groups six weeks ago. Everybody knows that since the invasion of the low countries our markets have been gone, that we have been faced with a tremendous surplus, and that storage was going to be our most pressing problem. These things should have been taken into consideration by the government six weeks or two months ago and a policy formulated and brought down to the house and placed before the agriculture committee, where it could have been gone into thoroughly. But that was not done. Instead the Prime Minister announces that the house will probably get through about August 3, and then about August 1 down comes the bill in the dying days of the session. That is not good enough.
So far as I am concerned I would sit here not only for a day but for a week rather than approve a clause giving these powers to the board unless we know what is going to happen to the farmer under these powers. I do not propose to go back to western Canada not knowing whether the farmer after disposing of a portion of his crop will get back enough money to pay his threshing expenses. What is going to happen to him from then on if he has no money? No emergency relief has been passed for him by this parliament, and the provincial governments cannot pay him relief. In my constituency all relief was
stopped completely in July. I quite agree with the minister that the provincial governments will probably be agreeable to protecting the farmer from his debtors, but what is he going to do without money? How is he going to feed and clothe his family all through the fall and winter and carry on until he is allowed to sell the remainder of his crop? It is not good enough to say that the government will work out something on an equitable basis. I have not faith enough in the judgment of some of the men who have formulated the policies of this government in the past. Their ideas of what is equitable may not agree with other people's ideas, and what they propose may be equitable or it may not be. I submit that we have no right to grant these powers until we get something that is a whole lot more satisfactory than what we have to-day.


Mr. PERLEY:: We are in a hurry to get
through.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: It looks like it.


Ernest Edward Perley: I want to say this in regard to the statement which the minister made in reply to the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas). No responsible member of the house dare vote for this clause. He would not be fulfilling his duty to his electors and the people of Canada to vote for a clause of this kind. The minister says that as yet no decision has been arrived at. He says, however, that the matter is being considered and that a decision will be arrived at. He tells the committee that he is meeting to-day with certain groups who are in Ottawa. I presume it is those who are here trying to persuade the government to finance the building of additions to elevators so that they can take all the grain. Let me tell the minister that I have arranged to have my crop combined, and if I get home within ten days it will be all combined and delivered as fast as I can get it to the elevator.
This clause is not fair to the farmers of western Canada. They do not know where they are at or how much they can deliver. The ones who are combining their crop will get it all delivered. I challenge the members of this house to vote for this clause as it is to-day. I shall not delay the committee any longer. I simply say that this clause should be deleted and the government left to handle the problem any way they like. Certainly I shall not vote for clause 5.


James Garfield Gardiner: The suggestion made
by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) can be met only by passing this
Canadian Wheat Board

clause. He has pictured the situation very clearly in what he said about his own position. Leaving out of consideration altogether the question whether or not the legislation should have been brought down earlier, the situation is pretty much as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle described it. That is, the farmers are about ready to take out their equipment, whether it be binders or combines, to cut their crop, and when they are in that position they will want to know how they are going to have to deliver their crop and how much they can deliver. The preferable thing would be to do what the hon. member for Qu'Appelle is going to do. Other farmers who are similarly equipped will be combining their crop and taking it directly to the elevator. That is what we have been doing for years. It is the easy and natural thing to do, and it is what the farmers will do if they can.
But the only difficulty about that is this. There will be many farmers of the type described by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), men who have not combines but binders, and who cut a very much smaller crop. It may be only 1,000 bushels when they are through, or 500 or 600 bushels, and if there is a shortage of storage the problem is going to be to get some money for them all at the beginning of the season so that they can pay their costs both of harvesting and seeding and at least get along until the time comes when something can be worked out in the way of financing whatever part of the crop has to be left on the farm.
Let me repeat that the most acceptable way would be, if it could be arranged, to get our wheat to the elevators when we want to take it there and obtain our advance on it. That would be the easiest way to deal with the matter. But before you can deal with it even in that way this legislation has to be passed, certain people will have to be seen, and certain arrangements made in order that this storage shall be properly distributed. For example, in some sections, although not to a great extent this year in the constituency of the hon. member for Weyburn, there is very little wheat, but there are elevators all over those areas. Wheat will have to be moved from some of the areas where the yields are good and put into elevators in poor crop districts. A full check must be made on that situation as it affects the farmers as a whole. Men situated like the hon. member for Qu'Appelle may be able to take out a combine next week, harvest all their crop, and get it to an elevator. But if everyone who is in a position to do so were to move 
his crop into the elevators in the next two or three weeks, by the time the Peace River crop was harvested there would be no storage left, and persons up there would not be able to get any advances.
This brings us back to the position taken a moment ago by the hon. member for Weyburn, that under the circumstances we should have to arrange for some kind of financing. Either we should have to take care of the people by means of relief, or arrange for them to get an advance of a certain amount on each bushel of wheat. I believe I am correct in saying that no system we can devise other than a direct payment by the government on wheat which is retained on the farm-indeed, no system we could devise of financing it in that way, would provide the farmer with anything like as much for each bushel of wheat as he would get if he could put it in storage at a shipping point.
These are the questions which men have been waiting in Ottawa the greater part of this week to discuss with the government. All that this section gives power to do is, that if any of the means which have been spoken of, which would make it possible for the farmer to get his grain into the market, should fail, the government still has power to arrange for a quota on deliveries to elevators, in order that those who have big crops and extensive equipment shall not jam the storage facilities to the roofs in the first week or two, and leave everyone else sitting with no opportunity of getting anything in.
I hope it will not be necessary to use this power. I think every hon. member also hopes that we can get along without all the difficulties of trying to apply quotas to deliveries from each individual farmer in the west. But if we are compelled to do that, we think we ought to have the power to do it. That is all that this section involves. It simply gives the government a power which under existing legislation they have not got. They may not have to use it. I am quite sure that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle would not wish to deprive the government of the power if it were necessary for them to use it in the final resort for the proper handling of this year's crop. If we can get the legislation agreed to, and then begin to discuss with provincial governments, with elevator organizations and with financial institutions just what can be done, we shall be able to announce just that more quickly to the farmers what we will be able to do in connection with the whole crop situation, and we shall be able to get along better than we can do by merely discussing the matter here hour after hour.

Canadian Wheat Board


Ernest Edward Perley: I notice that one of the sections contains a penalty. What will happen if the regulations go out within three or four days, including of course the provision that a producer can deliver only a certain quantity of grain, and by that time a farmer has already delivered more than that amount? With much of what the Minister of Agriculture has said I agree. We do not wish to be unfair. But I think, in view of the minister's statement that a plan is being considered, he might outline the plan. I know that there are interests here that are asking the government to finance additions to the elevators. Is that the plan to which he referred a few moments ago when he said that he is going to meet them and the matter will be decided in the next day or two?


James Garfield Gardiner: Answering the first part of my hon. friend's question, I do not believe that any regulations put out by any department of government would be made retroactive, and I do not think anyone need fear prosecution for having done sometning which he did before the regulations were promulgated.
Coming to the other point: regulations of this kind may not be necessary after certain discussions have taken place, but this house may be out of session.
Mr. DIEFENBAIvER: What discussions?


James Garfield Gardiner: If you are going to arrange for financing you will have to discuss it with the people who are going to do the financing.


John George Diefenbaker: What discussion
could possibly affect the needs of the farmers at the present time?


James Garfield Gardiner: Discussions as to the building of additional storage at certain points of delivery. Not as to the necessity of the putting into effect of this regulation, but whether the provision can be made or not is something which nobody knows at the moment, for this reason. At the present time we are constructing all over western Canada buildings for air training. The supplies of lumber for building purposes are becoming more or less limited. It may be difficult for the government to obtain the amount of lumber necessary for the storage which will be required. That is one matter which has to be considered.


John George Diefenbaker: Then is it correct that the only way whereby storage facilities can be provided for the expected crop this year is the building of additional facilities, additional bins, and that sort of thing?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, that is not the only way it can be done, but it will take more lumber to do it in any other way. There is another way of doing it; every farmer can put thousand bushel bins on his farm. To do that you have to put four sides on each thousand bushel bin. But if you put fifty thousand bushels in a heap you still have got to put only four sides around it, and it takes very much less lumber and labour to do it in that way.
These are some of the matters which have to be considered. If we are going to take into consideration at the moment only the future welfare of the farmers in western Canada, I would say that the most that could be done on his behalf would be to encourage him to put storage out on his farm. But let me point out this, that in the United States they have been trying for two or three years to do that. Do you know how much storage they have got out? I understand that on the farms of the United States there is accommodation for about 33 million bushels. They have a scheme to grant loans to persons who will provide storage. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that about 33 million bushels of storage has been put out on farms and the remainder of it has been placed at the shipping points, so that in actual experience it is not accomplishing the results which one might have hoped to get from it. To build one of these bins costs about S100. If a farmer has only a thousand bushels of grain, and he has to lay out $100 for lumber to build a bin, he is not going to have very much security left upon which he may raise money on his crop which is in storage there.
That is one of the difficulties we are up against at the moment. All these matters will have to be considered before our policy is finally decided. Probably it may be well to encourage both methods-first, to encourage the farmer, in so far as it is practicable to do so, to provide bins on his own farm and put his wheat there and have it where he can market it when he finds it possible to do so. The farmer who can raise and handle wheat in bulk would be the farmer if any who does not need assistance to finance. The man who has only five, six, seven, eight hundred or a thousand bushels of grain will not get very far with the 30 or 40 cents which he would receive if he had to finance on grain on the farm. It would not help him to any great extent through the winter. If however he got 50 or 52 cents he might get through the winter. So that all these situations are being considered, and we shall finally make a decision. I should not say they are being considered. As a matter of fact they have been
Canadian Wheat Board

considered all through the period outlined by the hon. member for Weyburn. The government is prepared to take certain action as soon as the legislation giving the power to act is put through the house, and then we can go and sit down with these people concerned and make whatever arrangements can best be devised and announce them to the farmers, with a view to having them financed through the year under the very difficult conditions that exist.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: It is rather queer to me that the Minister of Trade and Commerce should say that members should not discuss these provisions in the bill and that the longer we discuss them the longer the farmer will have to wait for the regulations to come into force. Either that is a definite admission that there is no policy or it indicates that the government is hesitant about bringing the regulations before the members of this house. Now if there is anyone who should have an opportunity to discuss these regulations it ought to be members of parliament. It appears that every organization in the country is being consulted with respect to the regulations, but members of parliament will go home without any idea of what is going to take place. There should be some arrangement whereby all these regulations that are to be passed will be sent directly to members as well as to the other parties concerned; otherwise we shall have no definite information with regard to the government's policy.
There is one thing which I think is being overlooked in connection with this financing of the farmers. It is true that if the farmer gets only a small portion of the cash return for the crop he will be in a terrible position. Reference has been made to the grocer's bill, the doctor's bill and so on. These are minor considerations. I do not think it is likely that the grocer will bring an action against the farmer for the bill of $40 or $50 which he owes, but definitely the machine companies will bring action against him if he does not pay for the combine he bought a year ago. In my town alone 52 combines were sold on time last year-in one little town. These were not paid for in cash and there is a definite agreement that the farmers must pay the balance this fall, at any rate in the majority of cases. The government can say, "Oh, well, the province can take care of that."


James Angus MacKinnon: That is within the confines of their duty.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, but if the province attempts to pass debt legislation the government declares that legislation ultra vires, and what can the province do then?

This is a serious situation. Suppose the machine companies do carry the farmer; they will not reduce their interest. We should take action right now to protect the farmer in the event of his being unable to make payments because of dominion legislation, and regulations to be set forth limiting him to the sale of so much grain. Definite legislation should be put through at this time to provide that the machine companies shall not force the farmer to pay interest on his obligations in view of the fact that he cannot sell his grain and get the money for it. It is not a fair deal. I do not know of any business organization in the country that would tolerate it for a moment. Take the aeroplane industry or munitions factories-the Bren gun is a good example. How long would they operate under the conditions laid down for the farmer? They would not do it. I doubt whether their patriotism would go so far. At any rate, it would not be good business, and it is not fair to ask it.
I think we should know on what basis the quota will be issued. Will it be on a bushel basis or on a per acre basis? We ought to get that information. The debt question is one that needs immediate attention now, so that we as representatives of the people can go back and tell the farmers exactly what will be done. When we get back the farmers will say to us, "What are we to do about our debts?" I had a letter yesterday stating that a machine company is demanding payment for a combine purchased last fall. What is that man to do? He is paying 7 per cent interest on it and he has only about 2,500 bushels. That is his estimate, and usually in the fall he does some other combine work. But how can he get money to make the payment on the combine if he is not assured that he will get some return in the form of a cash advance for the grain stored on his farm? Yet the companies insist on their pound of flesh; they demand their interest. It is not right, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce knows that as well as I do. If the provinces declare a moratorium they are looked upon as repudia-tors and if they pass debt legislation it is called ultra vires. At least the government should give them power and should encourage them to do it, and should make some regulation with regard to the interest that is to be paid. And it should be done now, so that the people will know where they stand.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: I will make a few remarks and then finish, so far as this bill is concerned, until the vote comes if a vote is necessary. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) suggested that he

Canadian Wheat Board
would probably be having a combine in his fields right away and rushing his crop to the elevator. I do not doubt that in my fields a combine will be going very shortly, but I do not intend to rush my grain to the elevator. It is up to the member for Qu'Appelle and to myself to keep the grain back on the farm if possible, and it is up to every large farmer who can possibly this year finance without putting the grain into the elevator to do so in order to give the smaller farmer, who has not the same opportunities, a chance to put in as much grain as possible.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
about the amendment with regard to the elimination of the 5,000 bushel clause? That does not look like it.


John Gordon Ross: That is an opportunity to sell, because there is no other opportunity, any time through the season.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That leaves the matter wide open.


John Gordon Ross: To hear some hon. members speaking with reference to this part of the bill, one would think that the government was trying to do something to take away certain advantages which the farmers have. That is not the position at all. The government is endeavouring to get power to do certain things to protect certain farmers against others. If the thing is left open, naturally the big farmer who has the machinery and the power, who owns the combines, is the man who will thresh first. He has the trucks and he is the man who will put his grain into the elevators right away, and the result will be that the smaller farmer will be left with nowhere to sell his grain, and the 5,000 bushel clause does not affect him at all. This power is being asked for for the purpose of protecting the smaller farmer, for the purpose of giving each farmer an opportunity of putting an equitable amount of grain into the elevators this fall in order that he may get his advance price on it.
It may sound easy to some people to make all the arrangements that are necessary this fall in connection with this matter but I do not think it is an easy matter for the best minds you can find in the country to do it at the present time. There are many factors that enter into it. First of all, we do not know how much grain will be held back voluntarily by the farmers who can afford to hold it back, and we cannot know that until delivery starts. It seems to me therefore that it is our duty, in this house and when we get back, to try to get as many of the people in the country who can afford to hold grain back
on the farm to do so in order that the man who is not so fortunate can get grain into the elevators and get his cash price.


Charles Edward Johnston: What if the price goes up next year? How will the little fellow fare as compared with the big one?


John Gordon Ross: Exactly the same, because he will sell it through the board in the same way.


Charles Edward Johnston: The price may go up to a dollar.


John Gordon Ross: Well, if it does he gets his participation certificate the same as the other.


Charles Edward Johnston: He will not need to sell through the board.


John Gordon Ross: That may be. On the other hand he is probably not going to get the top price. He may sell part way through, and the other man may get more money at the end. But I am not going into that part of the argument at present.
Storage arrangements must be made, and to-day we do not know how much additional storage capacity can be built at the shipping points or how much the farmers can build themselves. This is not an easy thing to decide. The responsibility for seeing that the farmers in western Canada are not placed in the position that my hon. friends fear is on the government, and they have to take that responsibility. My hon. friends may not agree that this government will discharge their responsibility properly in that regard, but I believe they will. They have done it in the past and will in the future. I am perfectly willing to leave to the minister and to the government the arrangements that must be made for our people, and I am satisfied that proper arrangements will be made.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would say to the hon. member, "according to your faith be it unto you." I certainly hope it will work out that way. The situation is much more acute than the Minister of Agriculture would indicate by his remarks a few moments ago.


James Garfield Gardiner: I know it is as acute as it can be.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A moment
ago the minister said the purpose of this was to give them power to establish a quota if necessary. It might not be used, depending on what storage facilities can be found. Let us not delude ourselves; they are going to have to use it, beyond any doubt. The minister talks about elevators through my constituency where they had no crop last year and the year before. But wheat has been
Canadian Wheat Board
COMMONS moved in there; most of the elevators are packed full. The other day in the debate on the Canadian National Railway bill the Minister of Transport said, as I understood him, that there were 24,000 cars full of wheat in Canada now that could not be got into terminal elevators.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There was an embargo.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes. On July 24 the Minister of Trade and Commerce pointed out that we have a carryover of between 290 and 295 million bushels, and this year a crop of between 350 and 400 million bushels is expected. Our storage facilities are about 424 million-


James Garfield Gardiner: We all realize that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But the minister said we "may use" this.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that in figures, but after all 100 million bushels of extra storage is not an impossible thing. That is what these figures really mean. People do not market all their grain the first day they start to thresh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But as the minister said the other day, what they will need is storage for 150 to 160 million bushels. And while people do not market all their wheat the first day, most of them will try to market it before Christmas.


James Garfield Gardiner: Even if they do.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A hundred
million bushels of storage is not going to be prepared right away. There is no use talking about this being a possibility. Under this clause we are due for a rationing system, a quota system. I am not objecting; I do not see how the government could do anything else. But if we are going to have a quota system we should be told what it is going to be and on what basis the farmer will be able to carry on in respect of the part of the crop which he keeps on the farm. The minister says that the government are ready to take certain action the moment this legislation is passed-*


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
action?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister
said the government is ready to take certain action. We want to know, what action?


James Garfield Gardiner: I can answer in these words: The government will take the action which is in the best interests of the western farmer, and will take it just as soon as this legislation goes through to make it possible.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course that is not an answer.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is not an answer. What is happening in this house is that increasingly parliament is being made a farce. We pass a bill and say those responsible will issue regulations, and the regulations are in themselves practically a statute. That is what happened under the National War Services Act, and that is what is going to happen with this legislation. The government say to hon. members of this house: Just shut your eyes and sign a blank cheque and when it is all over we will make the arrangements and you will see what you have for Christmas.


James Garfield Gardiner: Let us finish that point, then. The government, of course, as has been said by hon. members in all sections, had they desired so to proceed, did not have to bring this legislation in; they could have acted under the War Measures Act and done just what my hon. friend says. But the government did not think that the proper thing to do; we thought we should have specific instructions regarding a matter of this kind as far as it might be possible to give them at this time. I venture to say that things can happen within the next two months that may make it necessary, even with this legislation, for us to do things under the War Measures Act that are not anticipated at this moment. You cannot anticipate everything that is going to happen, with the situation now existing in the world. This bill gives the government power, delegated to it by parliament, to do a certain thing. If parliament does not want the government to have that specific power to set a quota for deliveries in order that smaller farmers can get the advantage of sufficient storage in order to be able to finance, that is one thing. But if they want to say definitely to us, "Go ahead and do it," that is all this legislation asks for.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Oh, no. The
minister says they choose rather to come to parliament for specific instructions. What specific instructions are contained in this clause?


James Garfield Gardiner: To set a quota system
if necessary.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No. The
board is given powerto regulate deliveries of all kinds of grain by producers to country elevators, loading platforms, mill elevators and terminal elevators and to fix the maximum amounts of any kind of grain that a producer may so deliver in any period of time.

Canadian Wheat Board


James Garfield Gardiner: That is just a description of a quota system.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There are no specific instructions there. We are giving the board blank powers. We have a rjght to know; if as the minister says the government are prepared to take certain decisive steps and to follow certain specific policies, we should be told what they are. I have never heard of a government saying: You pass an act, give us the powers, and we are all ready to do something about it, but we are not prepared to tell you what we are going to do.


James Garfield Gardiner: This section does that
thing, all the way from (a) to (i).


Ernest Edward Perley: Not to regulate deliveries.


James Garfield Gardiner: It gives the government power to do certain things through the board.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Two
wrongs do not make a right, and because the government have taken that power they want to perpetuate it. I do not particularly understand the situation involved here, but the principle involved I do understand, and the hon. member for Weyburn has correctly and succinctly stated it. The government should give heed to the protest he has made.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Section 7 of
the act says:
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:
(i) to regulate deliveries of all kinds of grain by producers. . . .
And so on.


James Garfield Gardiner: What are some of the
other powers?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister knows them very well. They are:
(a)	to receive and take delivery of wheat for marketing as offered by the producers thereof;
(b)	to buy and sell wheat . . .
(c)	to store and transport wheat;


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the very principle you are objecting to.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No. The board has never had power to refuse to take delivery of wheat. Now we are giving the board power not only to refuse to take delivery but to prescribe at what times and in what amounts the farmers shall deliver their wheat. All we are asking is that the minister be specific when he says the government is prepared to take certain action. Let us know what the
action is. Let us know what protection is to be given. The minister says they are in discussion with certain groups of individuals. Surely the policy of the government is not going to be any different after those discussions from what it is now. All the discussions will be concerned with the details of financing. This government has unlimited power under the War Measures Act and the mobilization act, and the discussions will be only in connection with working out administrative details. The policy of the government should be formulated now, and probably it is. Why does not the minister tell us exactly what will be the gist of the regulations which probably will come out next week? No doubt the government has them drawn up and all ready to publish; everyone knows that. Why are we not told what they are? Are they of such a nature that the government dare not tell us about them? Is the government afraid that if they tell us now what they have in mind in connection with the marketing of this crop, the amount of wheat the farmer will be allowed to deliver and the load he will be asked to carry, the members will raise such a row that we may be here much longer than is anticipated? Surely the government should tell us. This is the most revolutionary step ever taken as far as western agriculture is concerned. For the first time the farmer is going to be restricted as to how much wheat he can sell. That is new; and he is to be paid on the instalment plan.


Mr. EVANS:: On a regulative basis.


James Lester Douglas: On an instalment basis, and he is to be allowed to sell only a percentage of his crop. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) made an appeal for the smaller farmer. Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't know; whenever the government wants to get by with something they always say they are protecting the smaller farmer. I want to know just how the smaller farmer is to be protected. For instance, if it is going to be on a basis of five bushels an acre, in what position is that going to place the small farmer with a hundred or a hundred and fifty acres of wheat? That will give him 750 bushels that he will be allowed to sell, for which he will receive $375. What is he going to do with that? The other day I suggested to the minister that if the government wanted to protect the small farmer they should fix the price on the basis of the first thousand or two thousand bushels and taper it off after that. Then the farmer would get a price commensurate with the price of production for his thousand or two thousand bushels, and after that the price would decline. Then it
Canadian Wheat Board

would pay the man with a big crop to store a large part of his grain. There is nothing here that gives the small farmer any more protection than he has now.
It is most unsatisfactory for the government to come here and say, "We want this bill passed, and we want it done in a hurry. We have a lot of plans in the back of our heads and we are ready to put them into operation the moment we pass this bill. We will not tell you what the plans are or what the regulations will contain or what restrictions we will impose upon the farmer or what provision we are going to make to help the farmer carry on this fall and winter." With all deference I say to the government that this is not good enough and should not be accepted.


Mr. TRIPP:: Perhaps the hon. member would tell us just what he would be satisfied with.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Certainly; I should be glad to do that. I have stated it in the house two or three times already, and if the hon. member had been here and properly awake he would have heard me.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Two dollars a bushel.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, nothing like that. I suggested that the government help the small farmer, and encourage the large farmer to keep his wheat on the farm, by fixing a reasonable price for the first thousand or two thousand bushels and then tapering the price off on the remainder.


Vincent Dupuis: What would be your idea of a fair price?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not think I should enter into a discussion with the hon. gentleman. I think this matter is away beyond his depth.


Vincent Dupuis: But we have to pay something because of it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is so, and we in the west pay a great deal of money in connection with eastern matters. The other day I suggested to the minister that if the farmer is to be placed on a quota basis-and I do not see that anything else can be done in the circumstances-then the farmer should be allowed to deliver a certain percentage of his crop, for which he should get a definite payment.


Charles Robert Evans: But what should he get?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would say 90 cents a bushel.


Charles Robert Evans: And what amount should he deliver?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should say at least 40 per cent of the crop, and perhaps 50 per cent. Let him deliver that grain to the wheat board. If that percentage should be found to be too great it might have to be further reduced. But here is the important part; the percentage of his crop which he is not allowed to deliver to the wheat board could be retained on the farm, and two things done. First, arrangements could be made with the banks to make advances so that granaries may be constructed in districts where there are no granaries now, in order that the farmers could store their wheat. Second, an advance should be given to the farmers on that portion of their wheat retained on their farms. I would suggest that the advance might be 40 cents a bushel on the farm. The government would take a lien against that crop, so that when the farmer was finally notified by the wheat board that he would be allowed to sell that wheat, it would be sold and the first charge against his grain ticket would be the government lien, which would be subtracted and he would get what was left.
That would not cost this government a dollar more. It does not make much difference whether you pay him 40 cents now and 30 cents next spring or 70 cents next spring. The only difference is that the government would have to arrange through the Bank of Canada or through the chartered banks to have these advances made. To-day the government are doing all sorts of financing and making all sorts of advances in connection with these great munitions plants they are building. Millions of dollars are being spent on those plants. Why cannot the government advance money to the farmer on the wheat he is storing on his farm? If you can spend millions of dollars to build eight munitions plants, five of which we will not even own when the war is finished-this will allow private interests to get their fingers into the pot-then the government can arrange through the central bank to advance money to the farmer on the security of the wheat he is storing on his farm. They will have all kinds of security. They will have the lien on the wheat, and that money will be repaid as the first charge against the grain ticket, and I would impose very heavy penalties for any infringement of the agreement.
That is what I suggest, but that is what the Minister of Mines and Resources called moonshine.


Thomas Vien: Shall section 5 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No; we want an answer from the minister.

Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. MaeKINNON (Edmonton West): There is no necessity of an answer to that statement.


Mr. QUELCH:: I have a few questions I should like to ask. I have been waiting as patiently as possible to get the floor, but it is now one o'clock.


Thomas Vien: Shall section 5 carry?


An hon. MEMBER:: One o'clock.


Victor Quelch: If you are not going to call it one o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I shall ask my questions and carry on with the debate. First I should like to know-


An hon. MEMBER:: One o'clock.


Victor Quelch: There has been a good deal of criticism because of the fact that up to the present the government have not stated what is to be their policy in this regard. For instance, would the government advise a farmer to do everything in his power at this time to provide storage on his farm? Would the Minister of Agriculture consider that a sound policy? Would he advise the farmers, while they have a little spare time before harvesting commences, to go ahead and build all the storage they can? Is that advisable? If so, the farmers should know now, because within a week they will be busy harvesting, and then they will not have time to build granaries. I should like an answer to that question before I go further. Is that part of the policy of the government?
Mr. MaeKINNON (Edmonton West): I think it is most reasonable and natural to suppose that the farmer is giving that matter very serious consideration at the present time, just as we are giving attention to any necessary help that may be required from outside sources.


Victor Quelch: I have received a number of inquiries about this, but I have not been able to get any information from the government. How long will the grain have to be stored? Will open bins be sufficient? It will be remembered that in past years when it was necessary to store grain the farmer simply drove a number of posts in the ground, sheathed them with inch lumber and put a cover over it. Will it be possible to clear up this grain in February and March? If that is so, open bins should be sufficient. If, on the other hand, protection is necessary, the farmer should be told. If it is necessary to store in this way the farmer is ready to make provision by boxing off a part of the barn or by closing up a couple of box-stalls. Surely it is up to the government to let them know what has to be done. You are not
giving them any advice. The minister says the government are consulting with the various farm organizations; apparently they are consulting with everybody except the people's representatives.


James Garfield Gardiner: They have been here and have discussed it.


Victor Quelch: We have had no discussion in this house.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, I have been asked by a number of the members of the house what the intention is with regard to sitting this evening. Of course our desire is, now that the arrangements with respect to the conclusion of its work is known, to get through the business of the session just as rapidly as possible. There is always an advantage in sitting in the evening as well as in the afternoon and forenoon when an effort is being specially made to conclude the business of the house. On the other hand, I gather that a good many members would prefer not to sit to-night. What I was going to suggest, if it met with the approval of the house, was this, that provided the bill which is now engaging the attention of the committee is disposed of before six o'clock, we might continue for one hour after six with supply, and then adjourn at seven o'clock. But if the present bill is not disposed of by six o'clock I think we ought to rise at that hour as usual, and sit to-night to see if we cannot at least get this bill through its third reading to-day. I think that order will perhaps serve to accommodate everyone.
I have also been asked if the house will sit on Monday, which is civic holiday in this city. I think the civic holiday should not interfere with the house sitting, because we are all anxious to get through.


John Ritchie MacNicol: We will sit on Monday?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Thomas Vien: We were on section 5.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Chairman, this morning I took only three minutes of the time of the committee to ask a couple of questions which the minister apparently is not prepared to answer, at least at this time. There are one or two comments I wish to make on this section with respect to matters which are of great importance, points which I think should be considered.
First we should consider what are to be the actual conditions in the west as a result
Canadian Wheat Board

of the operation of this act and particularly of this section. I do not believe in criticizing for the sake of criticizing, and I do not think anybody can ever accuse me of having done so on any agricultural question. Any criticisms I have ever made have always been of some point which I considered of vital importance, and I would say the same of criticism by any member of our group.
I appreciate the provision which will make it possible to pay the farmer for storage on the farm. I also appreciate the necessity for the establishment of a quota. I think that is necessary. But as we are allowing for a payment of only 70 cents a bushel and, further, are malting no provision whatsoever for an advance against the grain on the farm, I contend that a small delivery quota will create chaotic conditions on the farm. I drew up after lunch a short summary of what would happen unu^r this section, showing the number of bushels threshed on the farm, the quantity delivered and the payment made. As a basis I have used 20 bushels to the acre as the yield, and 5 bushels to the acre as the quota delivered. On that basis, with an acreage of 80, the yield would be 1,600 bushels, and the farmer would be able to deliver 400 bushels. At 70 cents Fort William, which would mean 50 cents locally, he would receive $200. Against that grain he would have to pay harvesting expenses, and in harvesting expenses I include stooking, binder twine and threshing, which would take at least 12 cents a bushel; so that he would have to pay for harvesting expenses a total of $192. So that all that he would receive net, after paying his expenses, would be $8.
Double the acreage: On 160 acres, at 20 bushels to the acre, the yield would be 3,200 bushels, the quota delivered 800 bushels, payment received $400, harvesting expenses $384, leaving the farmer $16.
Take 300 acres. The yield would be 6,000 bushels, the quota delivered 1,500 bushels, payment received $750, harvesting expenses $720, leaving the farmer the sum of $30.
Has the minister considered how the farmer is going to continue to live on the farm and be able to finance himself and his family over the winter when all the cash he has left from his crop is $8 if his acreage be 80, or $16 if his acreage be 160, or $30 if his acreage be 300? How is he going to buy fuel for the winter and clothes for his children if he has a family? The first charge against a crop in Alberta is hail insurance and in Saskatchewan is taxes. What about his mortgage payments? They would have to be forgotten, no doubt. Would the minister himself feel like asking a man to come on

his farm to thresh his crop if he knew very well he would not be able to pay the thresher? The thresher works on only a small margin of profit. He has to pay his crew and his fuel bill, and how can he thresh a crop if he does not get paid for it? I am not exaggerating the seriousness of the case. These are facts that must be faced; they are conditions that are bound to arise. What is the minister's suggestion in that regard?
We suggest and I would say that the only solution is to make provision for an advance against the grain on the farm. That will have to be done. If it is not done, you will have chaotic conditions in the provinces. The provincial governments will be forced to pass a moratorium. There is no question about that, and even a moratorium will not help very much in meeting the situation. Certainly taxes will not be paid, or mortgage payments, nor will the machinery companies be able to collect payments. What are the storekeepers to do? Are we going to pass on to the local storekeeper the duties of a banker? The local storekeepers have had to assume that responsibility, but it is not fair to ask them to do it; and how long will the local storekeeper go on giving credit when he has no knowledge of when the farmer will be able to sell his grain and pay him?
The minister has stated that he was considering making an advance to the farmer against the grain on his farm, and we know that various farm organizations in the west have been urging that very thing. On the other hand we have the statement from one of the senior ministers in the cabinet, the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), that the suggestion is "moonshine." It is all very well for the minister (Mr. MacKinnon) to shake his head, but the Minister of Mines and Resources made that statement and has not yet seen fit to withdraw it. Therefore we must conclude that so far as the cabinet is concerned the suggestion to make an advance to the farmer against the grain on his farm is moonshine. I think the minister should at least make a statement to reassure us on that score. I would ask him to state that steps will be taken-I do not ask him to state just what they will be or how they will be made-to make it possible for an advance to be made to the farmer against the grain in storage on his farm.


James Angus MacKinnon: I
have on more than one occasion answered the question just asked by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), and I do not like to repeat it over and over again. The answer could not have been given better than it was

Canadian Wheat Board
given this morning by the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner). He gave it in a fair and an easily understandable way.


Victor Quelch: He gave his point of view. He just said that that was his idea. He did not say it was government policy. We want to know the government's policy.


James Lester Douglas: That is, how
it could be done.


James Angus MacKinnon: I think that hon. members will have to depend on the statements on this matter which have been made already.


Victor Quelch: Surely the minister does not ask us to accept such an answer. We have two ministers dealing with the matter. On the one hand we have the Minister of Mines and Resources stating that such a suggestion is "moonshine." On the other hand, we had a statement-


James Angus MacKinnon: Excuse me; I do not for a moment accept the construction which is being put on the statement that is alleged to have been made in this chamber.


Victor Quelch: It is not a question of "alleged."


Charles Edward Johnston: That is what he said.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think I must once more take a little part in this debate. Apparently, to judge by the play which my hon. friends in the south or southwest corner of the house are making upon my reference to "moonshine" the other evening, I have made a contribution to the gaiety of nations.


Charles Edward Johnston: It showed the attitude of the government.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Will my hon. friend be patient? The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr Douglas) in the course of his remarks, made the suggestion that the government should consider buying outright the grain on the farms and paying for its being stored there or, alternatively as he said, giving an advance on the grain to the farmer. Certainly that is a proposal which requires very careful consideration. May I tell my hon. friends that for the last five years the government have been writing off advances made over twenty years ago in Alberta and Saskatchewan for the purchase of seed grain. It was definitely understood when these advances were made that they would be repaid. I believe that some of them were made as far back as 1914. As hon. members will recall, we had excellent crops in 1915 and 1916.
What happened? The attitude of the farmer, and not he alone but everyone, towards an obligation he may owe to the government is different from his attitude towards an obligation he may owe to a private party. There were many farmers-and I do not criticize them particularly; the same is true of any other class of people-who felt that because they owed this money to the government they were not under the same kind of obligation to repay it as they would be to repay a private debt. It may be regrettable that such is the case, but any person who has had some experience of government administration knows it to be a fact, true not only of farmers but of others.
If the government through the agency of the wheat board made advances willy-nilly on farms all over this country, and those advances came due at some later date, imagine the representations which would come from hon. members in all quarters of the house, to the effect, "Well, this poor farmer cannot repay, and the government should carry him along." That is precisely what was done with regard to the seed grain loan.
So that the matter is not altogether so easy as my hon. friends maintain it is. Probably some method for giving advances on grain on farms can be worked out. But when you come into that field-and I say this with some hesitation, because my hon. friend the leader of the opposition is a lawyer and I am not- you enter the field of property and civil rights, where the jurisdiction and control lie not with the federal authority but with the provinces. Consequently, if advances are to be given, and certainly if it is expected that they will be repaid, it cannot be done in the free and airy and easy manner in which some hon. members say that it should be done. I do not agree that the government, as trustees for all the people of Canada, can legitimately regard this matter other than in the light of trusteeship. We are trustees for the taxpayers of Canada as much as for any class in the community, and we should fail in our duty if we did not give this matter the closest attention. That is why I characterized as "moonshine" the remark made the other evening by the hon. member for Weybum. Perhaps this term was too strong.


Victor Quelch: It was irrelevant, I should say.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: But I do maintain that there is a difficulty in the matter. To hear my hon. friends talking, one would think that nobody in this government and very few in this house outside of themselves had any regard for the position of the western farmer. That is not the case.
Canadian Wheat Board


Major James William Coldwell: I do not think anybody suggested that.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The record of the last eight or nine years, and certainly of the last five years, proves what I have said. We should not forget that in the years 1937 and 1938, when there was very serious crop failure in Saskatchewan, the government, with the approval of parliament, contributed over $40,000,000 direct to the relief of that situation.


Mr. JAQUES:: You could not do less.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not question that. But when my hon. friend gets up and declares that nothing has been done, that the western farmer's' problem is not understood and that it does not get sympathetic treatment from this house, he is not stating a fact.
Furthermore, we gave a guarantee of 80 cents a bushel, an initial advance on the crop of 1938. It is a fact that this cost the treasury of this country well over $50,000,000, and as my hon. friends know, we shall never get a dollar of the money back. Even last year, when there was a crop on the prairies of 460 million bushels, we made through the Prairie Farm Assistance Act a contribution of almost $10,000,000 for farmers in certain districts which had short crops.
In the light of these facts it is unfair to give the impression in this house and to the country that the rest of Canada is indifferent to the welfare of the prairies.
May I say this, further, in all sincerity. I have lived in the prairie country all my life. I love the prairie country. I know the tribulations and the difficulties which the people there have had. We must carry with us the judgment and the sense of fair dealing of the people of eastern Canada if we are ultimately to solve our problems in the west. Not many days ago a gentleman in eastern Canada who, to my knowledge, and I have known him many years, has been a good friend of the west, said to me, "Crerar, I am getting a bit fed up with all the stories of gloom and hardship and blue ruin which we hear about the prairie country."


Major James William Coldwell: Unfortunately they are true. That is the difficulty.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He ought to go out west and see how true they are.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: He would then be
fed up worse than he is.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That may be, but I ask my hon. friends to remember this fact, that the prairie provinces, no matter what we may feel about it, have a representation of only 55 in this house of 245 members; and unless

we can carry the judgment of eastern Canada in requests that are reasonable, then I think that in the long run it may tell against us.


Major James William Coldwell: But to get that judgment you have to state the facts.


John Gordon Ross: Fairly, though.


Major James William Coldwell: That is what we are trying to do.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Coming back to the question of storage, we are not blind to the need of it. It is a most difficult matter to work out, and it cannot be worked out by some member getting up and demanding that before this section passes we must have the whole thing clear-cut. It cannot be done in that way. I ask my hon. friends to recognize this-though they may not give me credit for it. I say to them once more that the government are not unsympathetic to the suggestions they have advanced. Those suggestions will be given consideration. Personally, I should hope that a method may be found of meeting my hon. friends, but I do not think it is reasonable to hold up the passage of the measure until the matter is set out in complete detail to the satisfaction of every member of the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister is now endeavouring to beat a strategic retreat and he is throwing up a smoke-screen in the process. The statement I made the other day was not a suggestion to buy out the wheat on the farm.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Pardon me-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister made his statement and I did not interrupt him. Let me quote Hansard, which is a better record than the minister's memory. I quote from page 1947 of Hansard. I said:
I ask the minister to tell us now or later how the financing will he done. Will the farmer who keeps his wheat on his farm get an advance on it, or will he be paid outright for it and receive a storage allowance?
Mr. Crerar:	Would my hon. friend recommend that that be done?
Mr. Douglas (Weyburn):	Recommend that
what be done ?
Mr. Crerar:	Would my hon. friend recommend that the government buy the grain outright and store it on the farm?
Mr. Douglas (Weyburn): No, but what the government could do is pay a substantial advance.
Mr. Crerar:	I am asking what my hon.
friend would recommend.
Mr. Douglas (Weyburn): I am recommending to the minister that a substantial advance be made to the farmer, sufficient to enable him to finance. That is, if he is going to be allowed to sell only a certain amount of wheat in the fall, and he has to carry the

Canadian Wheat Board
rest, he can carry it only if there is a sufficient cash advancement to enable him to carry on his fall operations, be ready for his spring operations, and provide for his family in the winter. Is the Minister of Mines and Resources opposed to that? The minister is better at posing questions than answering them.
Mr. Crerar:	I think, if you ask me, the
suggestion is moonshine.
There can be no confusion of the issue. We were not speaking at the time of buying wheat outright; we were discussing the matter of financing. The question is not whether we appreciate what the government has done in the past, what it did in the way of relief in 1937 and 1938. What is the use of throwing up a smoke-screen of that sort? Why throw dust in the eyes of the people? We are making a suggestion with regard to advances. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, speaking on Thursday said:
The matter of financing the portions of grain which necessarily will be retained in the farmers' own granaries has been receiving our serious consideration.
These two gentlemen, the Minister of Mines and Resources and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, are both members of the wheat committee of the cabinet. One says that the matter is receiving serious consideration, and the other stands up, even to-day, and points out how difficult it is, how many obstacles lie in the way. The fact of the matter is that the government's own wheat committee of the cabinet are not agreed as to exactly what they propose to do. One tells us that it is under consideration, the other simply rules it out and says that it is not as bad as we thought in the first instance. That is not policy. We are not making unreasonable demands from the east; the minister need not drag that in. What I asked for this morning, and all that we have asked for, is a clear-cut statement from the government as to what they propose to do with the powers under section 5. The Minister of Agriculture made a statement this morning. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has just referred to it and said, that was the answer. What was the answer? The answer was to outline a set of alternatives, saying, "We could do this, or we could do that, or we could do something else." But he did not say what they were going to do, and he ended up by saying that when this legislation is passed there are certain actions which the government propose to take. All we ask is that before this legislation passes we be told what these actions are, not in an administrative way but as to the general policy underlying the actions. That is not unreasonable. We have a right to know what those actions are, and it is little wonder if we are confused, when two
ministers on the wheat committee of the cabinet give diametrically opposite views regarding the matter.
I put this to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Minister of Agriculture did not give a satisfactory answer. We do not want to be given a set of alternatives. All we want is this: If the Minister of Trade and Commerce will assure us either that storage facilities will be provided, so that the farmer can sell his wheat this fall, or that, for that portion of his wheat which he cannot sell, he will get a cash advance, I personally will drop the debate this minute. That is all the assurance we want. The Minister of Mines and Resources pointed out the difficulty in connection with the collection of money in days gone by. That is an administrative detail, and I am not saying that it is easy. But I repeat what I said this morning during the absence of the Minister of Mines and Resources. All that it is necessary to do, if the farmer can deliver a portion of his grain which he is allowed to deliver under this quota, and if he can store the rest on his farm or wherever he has storage facilities, should he get an advance from the wheat board of 40 cents a bushel on wheat on his own farm, that would be sufficiently low to make allowance for any mistake in grading or for any overestimate on his part of the quantity of wheat he had. That would have to be computed. The wheat board would have complete control. He cannot sell the wheat anywhere else under the present circumstances, and when he comes to sell the rest of the wheat at such 'time as the board notifies him that he is allowed to sell it, the first charge against his grain tickets will be the lien which the government has placed against the wheat in respect of which he has been given the 40 cents. From the grain tickets would be deducted the wheat board's lien. He could not dispose of the wheat he had retained on the farm unless he smuggled it out and gave it to someone else, because heavy penalties are imposed under the act. If the minister will get up and say that the farmer will get a cash advance on the grain which he is not able to sell to the wheat board I am prepared to stop debating the matter.


James Angus MacKinnon: All I can say is that the wheat committee of the cabinet is seeking a solution right along the line indicated by the hon. member for Wey-burn.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does that mean that the government has not a policy? Let us be concrete and definite.
Canadian Wheat Board


James Angus MacKinnon: There has not been a decision.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it true that the government does not know yet what it is going to do?


James Angus MacKinnon: There is not yet a final decision.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is no final policy on the matter. That is definite and concrete. I intervene only in the hope that possibly this discussion may conclude.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The statement of the
leader of the opposition is quite correct, for the reasons I have stated. My hon. friend would be the last man in the house to say that the government should carelessly or recklessly advance money all over the prairies for grain on the farms.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: It is now the third of August.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have no doubt if the
hon. member were sitting in the place of the Minister of Trade and Commerce administering the department he would have a solution in fifteen minutes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We should
have had it fifteen days ago.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I say a word about
the hon. member for Weyburn. He is becoming an expert in intellectual gymnastics in this house. He not only splits hairs but quarters them as well.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He is
pretty good.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: All this intellectual
juggling with phrases and all the demands he makes may sound very well back on a portion of the prairies, but it is not an effective contribution to the solution of this problem. My hon. friend when he was speaking the other night did ask, "Is the government going to pay for grain outright on the farms? Will the farmer who keeps his wheat on the farm get an advance on it, or will he be paid outright for it, or receive a storage allowance?"


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It was a
question.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Why did my hon. friend
ask it?


Mr DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Because I
I want to know. The government have not told us anything yet.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: But was my hon. friend
serious in suggesting that wTe should buy outright a man's grain on the farm and pay storage on it? If he was not serious, why did he ask the question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Because it
has been done in other countries.


Major James William Coldwell: It has been done in
the United States and elsewhere.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: We are not discussing the
United States. We are trying to find a remedy for this problem in Canada.


Charles Edward Johnston: Does not
the grain company do that now?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The Minister of Trade
and Commerce has given a reasonable answer to the proposals of the hon. member for Wey-bum.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Except that
the Minister of Mines and Resources contradicts it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I stated a moment ago
and I repeat that this matter is under consideration. It is not an easy thing to settle. We are not in the position this afternoon to answer in the affirmative the question of the hon. member and to submit a method by which it can be worked out. The public interest has to be protected.


Mr. GOLDING:: Hon. gentlemen opposite
do not think of that.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There are many members in this house and many people in Canada outside of the prairie provinces. We recognize the importance of this problem; I think I may modestly claim that I recognize its importance just as fully as any hon. member sitting diagonally opposite me. There is not only the interest of the farmer himself to consider; there is also, as I think the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said the other evening, the vital interest of its effect on the whole national economy. In the light of all the facts and in the light of all the study that we can give to it we shall do the best we possibly can to solve this problem, not only in the interests of the farmers of western Canada but in the interests of the whole national economy. When the hon. member for Weyburn rises in his place and says that before he will agree to this clause he must have in black and white before him what we propose to do, I tell him it cannot be done. We are all anxious to get through; I do not think I am unreasonable in that position, and I hope my hon. friend will accept that suggestion in the spirit in which I make it.


Major James William Coldwell: The best answer to the minister regarding his criticism of the hon. member for Weyburn was given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he said a few minutes ago that the government was considering suggestions in line with those made by the hon. member for Weyburn. Of course

Canadian Wheat Board
if the government have no policy at the moment which it can present to the committee regarding this matter then it is useless for hon. members to continue to ask the government to submit its policy. I agree with the leader of the official opposition to that extent.
But may I say this word to the Minister of Mines and Resources, whom I have known for many years. We know perfectly well that when farmers in western Canada begin to cut their grain they become anxious as to what is to be done with it and how they are to meet the obligations they have assumed in connection with the raising and harvesting of that crop. I have many letters from my constituents asking the very questions that the hon. member for Weyburn has been asking for the last twelve or fifteen days, and I imagine that every hon. member from western Canada, irrespective of party, has the same kind of letters coming to his desk. People there are anxious to know what is going to be done. That is quite natural, I think the minister will agree.
The criticism I would make, particularly at this stage of the discussion, is that last year the wheat matter came up late in the session. If hon. members will recollect, it came up just before their majesties arrived in Canada, at which time it was hoped that the house would prorogue when their majesties arrived. This year, with this tremendous problem facing us, no proposals of any kind were made until practically in the dying days of the session. This important matter, important not only from the point of view of western Canada but also, as the minister reminded us a few moments ago, from the point of view of the whole economy of Canada, should have received much earlier and more careful consideration. The crop year ended on July 31. To-day is August 3. Already farmers in certain parts of western Canada have cut some grain and threshed some grain and delivered or attempted to deliver some grain. Consequently this matter is of pressing and primary importance.
Speaking for myself and my party in this debate we have been anxious that there should be no suggestion made that because it was late in the session this matter had not been given the consideration that it deserves. We are going to have this problem again next year, perhaps in a different form. I am afraid that our entire agricultural problem, the agricultural situation in both the east and the west, is going to confront us for a very considerable time to come. The world outlook is such that I believe that can almost be taken for granted. Therefore I suggest to the minister that if the government want to avoid
delay at the end of the session when we are all tired, they should bring down their suggestions earlier than they have on this occasion.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not want to monopolize the discussion, but may I say this in respect of what has been said by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, the hon. member who has just taken his seat, and others in criticism of the government for its delay in bringing down this measure. Perhaps that criticism is justified up to a point. But there was a reason for that delay. By some hon. members it may not be regarded as a very good reason, but I think it is a substantial one. The reason was that until the last week or ten days no one knew what the possible crop this year in western Canada might be. As late as two or two and a half weeks ago, when we had a wave of extremely hot weather over the prairies and there was a lack of rain, which fortunately came a few days later, there was very general apprehension all over the western country as to what the crop outcome might be.


Mr. COLD WELL:: As between what figures? Was it not between 350,000,000 and perhaps
450,000,000 bushels?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I heard estimates even lower than that. I have seen, as my hon. friends have seen, a crop on the prairies which looked first-class in the middle of July, suffer from rust and heat until it was cut in half. We could not intelligently bring down proposals dealing with the question of farm storage and all these other matters that have been mentioned, much earlier in the session. We may be criticized, but we did desire to see the picture more clearly as to what the final outcome in regard to the crop was likely to be.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the minister say that was the reason for the delay?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That was the chief reason.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then it was a very minor reason.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, my hon. friend is not correct. However, I hope we are making a little progress, and I shall not transgress further on the good nature of the committee.


Mr. WEIR:: The Minister of Mines and Resources has already expressed some of the thoughts I had in mind in connection with this matter. In this legislation the government has attempted to do two things. The first is to regulate deliveries by farmers to the elevator companies. From what I can gather of the sentiment of the house I think that principle is agreed upon and recognized.


Major James William Coldwell: Quite.
Canadian Wheat Board


William Gilbert Weir: In the second place the government comes forward with a proposal to pay farm storage. That is the beginning. From that point matters must be worked out by negotiation. As the minister has stated, even two weeks ago the question of how large the crop was going to be could not be answered. At that time we were experiencing a heat wave throughout the west which might have severely depreciated the crop. Now the government has come forward with a proposal to regulate deliveries to the elevator companies and to pay storage on the farm. From that point on it is in a position to negotiate with various institutions in regard to the carrying out of any other details that may be necessary. They can say to the banks, if you like, "We have taken authority to do these things. What arrangement can we make with you to assist in the financing?" On the other hand they can say to the elevator companies, "We have taken authority to do these things. What can you do in the matter of providing additional storage capacity if that is required?"
Those are the things that have been done; those are the principles the government has laid down to start with, in dealing with the present emergency situation. But until the legislation is passed and the bill enacted the government is unable to make an approach to this situation. Therefore I submit that it would be quite out of place, and the government would not have the authority, to proceed to deal with these other matters which have been discussed at such length during the debate. When this bill is passed they will have authority to do these things, and they can say to these people, "Here is what we have done by way of legislation in our approach to this problem. What can we work out with you, by means of negotiation, in an attempt successfully to meet this situation?" I submit that this is a reasonable approach, and I think the bill might now be passed, since these two principles are included from which the government can go on to deal with the rest of the problem.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not wish to intervene unduly in this discussion, but I do not think I should allow the statements of the hon. member for Macdonald to go unchallenged. The passage of this bill is not a condition precedent to any arrangement that may be made either with the banks or with the elevator companies. That is only a plausible excuse for not giving the information requested by hon. gentlemen in the southeast corner. There will be no trouble with the banks provided this government gives its guarantee io the wheat board, as I assume it will have to do. I do not think this matter

can be financed in any other way. I think the milk in the coconut is that the elevator companies have made certain suggestions to the government with reference to providing additional storage facilities, and that the question of financing those facilities is what is uppermost now in the minds of hon. gentlemen.
I do not know enough about the question of storage to discuss intelligently what should be done. I am content to have the government adopt a policy which will help the farmer, provided that it does not bear too onerously upon the public treasury. But the matter of deliveries certainly is a vital question to the farmer. He wants to know what he is going to be able to do and how much he is going to get in advance. After all it is the question of the almighty dollar. What is the farmer going to be able to get by way of advances from the wheat board under this legislation? That is the information for which these hon. gentlemen are asking. I think the government should tell them whether it is going to be nothing or something; and if it is to be something, what that something will be.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I should like to make one point clear. So far as I am aware there have been no suggestions that the government should finance the construction of any storage facilities anywhere.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am glad to hear that, because I was afraid that was in the offing.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: So far as I am aware that suggestion has not been made.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a reassuring statement.


Mr. WRIGHT:: I am glad to hear the
government admit something at last. They admit that until a few days ago they had no wheat policy. In other words they have been gambling on the off chance that there might be a crop failure in the west to let them out. That has been pretty well admitted this afternoon; but fortunately they are not let out, and we have to face the situation. I think it should have been faced fairly. Many hon. members of this house know something about farming, both in the east and in the west, both in this corner of the house and on the government side. We have a standing committee on agriculture, but it has not been called together this session. Apparently so far as the government is concerned there is no agricultural problem in Canada, or there has been none until the last three or four days.
AUGUST 3, mo
Canadian Wheat Board
I think this is entirely wrong. The government should have been considering this matter. If it had been placed before a committee of this house some time ago we would not have had the spectacle we have seen in the last few days. Now I think the government should make some definite announcement, so that the farmers may know what they will have to do and what storage they will have to provide for themselves. The farmers of the west can provide a good deal of storage if they are given time; but if they are in the midst of harvesting they have no chance to provide it. If they had known even a week ago it would have helped. But apparently we do not know yet, and how in the world the government can expect them to provide that storage when they are in the midst of their harvesting operations is more than I can understand as a practical farmer. I think we should have some definite information on this matter just as soon as possible, if we are to be able to do anything to help.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: There has been some discussion with regard to agriculture in the east as compared with the west. I want to clear up any misapprehension which may lie in the mind of any hon. member from the east that we in the west are not thinking as much of the east as they are thinking of us. I should like them to know that we appreciate the relief that was sent out to us when there was no wheat at all, and the western plains, which had produced so much wealth, were nothing but deserts. We should like them to know we appreciate the bonus which was given last year, but I object to the impression being given that this government, under the bonus scheme, handed over about $10,000,000 to the west, entirely as a gift. They collected almost $2,000,000 under the one per cent levy in the west and they are going to collect some more. No statement has been made that a bonus will be paid this year.
We appreciate the fact that the price has been pegged, but -it makes a lot of difference whether we can take advantage of that pegged price or not. The people of the west are in dire straits. I believe it was yesterday that an Ontario farmer member stated that about 53 per cent of the farms in the east were mortgaged. I ask hon. members from Ontario if 90 per cent of the farms in Ontario were mortgaged, if there was no opportunity to get any income this fall, if there was nothing to stop the mortgage companies from coming in and taking the rest of it, would they not be up here fighting just as hard as we are? The mortgage companies are moving in on the farms of western Canada. Men who have put in thirty or forty years on their farms now find they 95826-153
have no protection. They are given no assurance that they are going to receive any benefit from the grain left on their farms. We are fighting with our backs to the wall. We are staying here to get that assurance, and once we get it we shall be satisfied. I should like the house to listen to and think over what a statesman said at Westminster on July 11, 1940. I quote the words of Mr. Lloyd George, as given that day.
. . . Every great country that has developed itself into an important empire, has always begun with agriculture, and it was only when it left agriculture that it began to decay. It was true of every empire in the world; it was true of the Persian and Roman empires, and it was just beginning to be the symptom of that decay that was premonitory of the destruction of our empire, too.
Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River); In view of the fact that this government is practically responsible for the amount of money a farmer will receive according to the number of bushels of wheat he has to sell, will the Minister of Trade and Commerce state whether the debtors of western Canada will be protected against their creditors?


An hon. MEMBER:: That is provincial.


Charles Edward Johnston: I know the government will say that that is a provincial responsibility, but they should consider the position in which they are putting the provinces. They are saying to the provincial governments, "We will not give these prairie farmers the full price for their wheat, so you fellows look after the debts." That is an unfair situation in which to put the provinces. What action can the provincial government take to-


Mr. MARTIN:: Change the constitution
of Canada.


Charles Edward Johnston: I was going
to say-


Thomas Vien: What relation is there between this speech of the hon. member and the section of the bill which gives power to the board to regulate deliveries of wheat? So far as I can see, there is none. It is the duty of the Speaker or the Chairman to apply the rules of the house so as to expedite business as much as possible. This morning there has been a tedious repetition of the same questions and the same answers. Hon. members have repeated their own remarks and the remarks of others. It is my duty, under the rules of the house as construed by parliamentary authorities, to draw the attention of hon. members to tedious repetitions. As an illustration the following question has been asked time and again; "Will the government table the regulations?" and

Canadian Wheat Board

the answer has been, "No, definite decision has not been arrived at, as to what the regulations should be." That having been made emphatically clear, any repetition of the same question or of general discussion on this question is tedious repetition, which obstructs the committee in the expedition of its business. It is my duty to call attention to that fact. I could cite numerous authorities, but experienced parliamentarians know that rule very well.


Charles Edward Johnston: I was dealing with section 5, subsection (i), which says:
(i) to regulate deliveries of all kinds of grain by producers to country elevators, loading platforms, mill elevators and terminal elevators and to fix the maximum amounts of any kind of grain that a producer may so deliver in any period of time-
This section relates definitely to the amount of grain which a producer may deliver. It is because of that restriction on delivery that I am asking the government what protection is to be given.


Thomas Vien: That question has been asked time and again, and the government has answered.


Charles Edward Johnston: They have never answered this question.


Ernest Edward Perley: No.


Thomas Vien: I hear the hon. member for Qu'Appelle say "no". May be the answer was not satisfactory to the hon. member, but the proper way of challenging an unsatisfactory answer from the treasury benches is not by repeating the question but by the test of a vote. It is improper and against the rules to repeat an argument when an answer is unsatisfactory.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Probably
there is a slight misunderstanding. There are two questions involved. The one which has been asked repeatedly and which the minister has refused to answer had to do with what provision will be made for advances to the farmer. That question is not being asked again. The hon. member is now asking what debt protection will be arranged for with the provincial governments in view of the fact that the farmers will be restricted under the provisions of this section. I think that question is in order, and it has not been answered.


Charles Edward Johnston: It should
be answered by the minister.


Victor Quelch: I should like to correct
what I think is a false impression created by the Minister of Mines and Resources when he was dealing with the question of advances to farmers in western Canada. He stated [The Chairman.J
that because of the unfortunate condition that had existed when loans were made before, the government were not very enthusiastic about having those conditions repeated. When the Minister of Agriculture spoke in this house on February 11, 1937, he showed what the true situation was. I do not think the Minister of Mines and Resources was giving a true picture, so I shall quote what the Minister of Agriculture said.


Thomas Vien: The question of advances to farmers is not now before the committee. The section before the committee is No. 5, which provides that the wheat board shall have power to regulate deliveries of wheat. That is all there is to it. Advances to farmers come under section 4.


Victor Quelch: I would point out that the success of section 5 depends upon whether or not advances can be made.


Thomas Vien: My ruling is that it
is not covered by section 5.


Victor Quelch: May I-


Thomas Vien: If the hon. member
wants to appeal from my ruling he may do so; otherwise it is not debatable.


Victor Quelch: I am not going to refer to your ruling, Mr. Chairman; I simply want to know whether I may correct a statement which was made by the Minister of Mines and Resources.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member cannot do that if he refers to advances to be made to farmers. That is out of order. There is no question before the committee with respect to advances to farmers. We are studying whether the wheat board should have power to regulate deliveries.


Victor Quelch: I shall wait until the bill
is up for third reading.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I support the principle of this particular section, but I do wish that the consensus throughout western Canada could be considered to be represented by the press clippings read yesterday by the minister. I can hardly conceive of the Sifton papers in the western provinces offering very severe criticism of anything this government might propose in connection with wheat marketing. Many of us from the west are in the position of having to go back after the session to meet our people, and it is not fully realized by the house I think that the farmers of western Canada are going to be in a position where they cannot meet their obligations, cannot pay their taxes, cannot

Canadian Wheat Board
possibly carry on. I do not think that has received full consideration by the government.


Thomas Vien: Order. We have been
considering this clause for the last two or three days. Clause 5-I shall read it if hon. members have not read it-is as follows:
Subsection one of section seven of the said act is further amended by adding thereto the following paragraph: -
"(i) to regulate deliveries of all kinds of grain by producers to country elevators, loading platforms, mill elevators and terminal elevators and to fix the maximum amounts of any kind of grain that a producer may so deliver in any period of time-
And so on. The question whether the hon. member has to go back to the west and face his electors is not connected with clause 5 of the bill.
Section 5 agreed to.
Sections 6 to 8 agreed to.
On section 9-Weekly report of purchases and sales.


Ernest Edward Perley: Will the minister state that when we come back in November he will submit a full report to the house of the whole operations in regard to the 1939 crop and in regard to what has happened to date in connection with the 1940 crop? This clause provides for a report to be made by the board to the minister, and I think we should have had an interim report at least. Will the minister assure us that we shall have a detailed report when we return in November similar to the reports of 1935-30, 1936-37 and 1937-38 so that we shall know exactly where we stand?


James Angus MacKinnon: We hope and it is expected that by that time we shall be able to make a complete report on the 1938-39 crop, but it will not be in the public interest to give at that time figures on the 1939-40 crop.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-Offering wheat for sale.
Mr. HANSELL:: Mr. Chairman, I have said very little up till now because for one reason I think we have men in this group who are more or less experienced with wheat, but I consider section 10 one of the most important in the whole bill because it deals with the marketing of wheat on the world's markets. We are facing considerable difficulty this year with regard to storage, because we have a surplus on hand and a crop coming on, and apparently a good crop, and world markets have to some extent broken down. It is the opinion of some that western Canada may again come into its own because the climatic 95826-153i
cycle is beginning to upturn and wet years are beginning to return. It may, therefore, be that the problem of marketing of wheat and our wheat surplus will grow more acute as the years go by. I recognize that we have to deal with one thing at a time; at least we have to deal with one crop at a time, but if we have a bumper crop in 1941 I do not know where this country is going to be under the present financial system.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Perhaps we shall be under wheat.


Ernest George Hansell: Perhaps we shall be under wheat. Section 10 provides that the board shall "offer continuously wheat for sale in the markets of the world through the established channels." I should like to ask whether the wheat board has given serious consideration to possible changes in world marketing policies. This to my mind is one of the most important questions which farmers in this country may have to face in the days to come. There is no question that we are living in an age of change. We shall win this war, but whether world trade after the war will function as in days gone by is extremely doubtful. I noticed the other day in the press that Japan is attempting to set up a new world order. We may have a separate Asiatic economy. It is a well known fact that the Berlin-Rome combination is attempting to bring about a new Europe. I have said that we expect to win the war. I believe that through divine guidance we shall win this war but afterwards we may find ourselves faced with a new European-North African economy. Apparently the pan-American conference now sitting in Cuba has been dealing with this very problem. The Americas may find that after the war they are left pretty much on their own. If world economy is to be-sectionalized in that way, the old system of world trade is liable to collapse. Whether such a world could function under the present system of trade agreements based on the present international financial system is to my mind very doubtful indeed.
We have to be far-seeing, and I do not think I am going off my course when I say that if I had any particular criticism to make of the government it would be that I have some doubt as to how far-seeing they are. It is becoming recognized more and more clearly by the people of Canada that necessity speaks and Mackenzie King follows. If we are not far-seeing, if within a year or two we are simply deluged with wheat and have no market for it, then we shall have a problem indeed. And so I ask the minister on this clause, has the wheat committee or the Department of Trade and Commerce considered the advantages and disadvantages of a new system of
Canadian Wheat Board

world trade? In answering that, the minister might tell me, if he cares to do so, whether the department has considered the possibility of a system of world trade by barter. I want to say through you, Mr. Chairman, to this committee that changes are going to be made, and in my reading and attempting to predict the future I feel that world trade on a barter system is a coming thing. I should not be a bit astonished if in a few years the whole financial system of the democracies completely collapses.
I believe I have said enough. Perhaps the minister could give us some answer.


Thomas Vien: Carried?


Ernest George Hansell: No. I want to know what we are plunging into.


James Angus MacKinnon: I cannot give any extended answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Macleod. I suppose that everybody who is thinking nationally and internationally is studying and following the issues raised by the hon. member, but I do not know what sort of answer he expects me to give. Certainly no solution of our present difficulties can be presented by the Minister of Trade and Commerce at this time.


Ernest George Hansell: This is what I had in mind. We have a wheat board and we have an advisory committee. A good many of my agricultural friends have insisted that representatives of agriculture be on that committee. They will be very valuable members. They know wheat; they know the various intricacies of the operations of a wheat board. I have no criticism to make along that line. But this matter of world marketing is a big problem, md I have been wondering how much attention the wheat board is paying to the economic structure of the world.


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman's question hardly arises under section 10. As now worded, paragraph (j) of section 8, to be amended by section 10, reads:
to offer continuously wheat for sale in the markets of the world through the established channels. . . .
The proposed section amends section 8 by dropping the word "continuously," to give the wheat board the right to offer wheat for sale in the markets of the world at intervals instead of continuously. The hon. member speaks of changes which may take place in trade relationships in the world, in the basis of that trade, perhaps by coming back to barter trade. I have allowed a great deal of latitude, thinking that these remarks were

preliminary, but it is now evident that they are the substance of the hon. member's speech; they are irrelevant and out of order.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, I humbly bow to your ruling, and I would offer this observation to the minister, that in a few years' time, if I am still here, I shall remind him of what I have said this afternoon.


Thomas Vien: That, again, is out of order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Why is the word "continuously" being taken out?


James Angus MacKinnon: To suit altered conditions. At the present time we have but one purchaser.


Ernest Edward Perley: In his statement the other day the minister said that the British cereals import committee had, in a wire to Mr. Mclvor, stated that they wanted the grain exchange to remain open. Does the cereals import committee insist on trading in futures? When they buy wheat do they insist on the board taking futures back? If so, what amount of the 100 million bushel sale which was reported here yesterday is taken back in a future, and what future?


James Angus MacKinnon: In connection with the previous sale of 50 million bushels to the cereals import committee, futures were purchased. This present sale of 100 million bushels is also being handled in the futures market, but at this time I am unable to give further particulars.


Ernest Edward Perley: In connection with the 50 million bushel sale, I understand that the import committee' had bought a future and the board delivered the wheat on the future.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: They bought the wheat for future delivery.


Ernest Edward Perley: All right. I am asking if they delivered on the future, whatever month it was in. I assume it was July.


James Angus MacKinnon: The cereals import committee bought futures from the wheat board.


Ernest Edward Perley: And the board delivered wheat on the future?


James Angus MacKinnon: Not yet.


Ernest Edward Perley: Well then, they have not sold any wheat yet.


James Angus MacKinnon: Oh yes, they have.


Ernest Edward Perley: No. They have not delivered any cash wheat. The answers are not

Canadian Wheat Board
very satisfactory. We have now a definite statement that this import committee wants the exchange open. I have here a report in to-day's press to the effect that last Wednesday the pit was deserted, that there was no trading, and now we have the statement that part of these sales of 50 and 100 million bushels is in a future. I think we ought to have a definite statement of how much, and in what future it is held. Was the 50 million sale in a July future or in a May future?


James Angus MacKinnon: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I do not know very much more about the technicalities of the wheat market than doe's the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, but I do know that the wheat board-and I think that this information is all that the producer and consumer of wheat in Canada expect at this time-have made two sales of wheat to the cereals import committee,-one early in June, of 50 million bushels; the other yesterday, of 100 million bushels, and that that wheat will be taken over from the wheat board some time in this coming crop year.


Ernest Edward Perley: One other question. How much of the 150 million bushels has already been delivered?


James Angus MacKinnon: 1 understand that it is not in the public interest to answer that question.


Ernest Edward Perley: You do not know whether you have sold any wheat-cash wheat-or not.


James Angus MacKinnon: We have sold 150 million bushels.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 11 and 12 agreed to.
On section 13-Definitions.
James Garfield Gardiner: The first amendment of this section, which I now move, is:
That subsection (2) of the proposed section 18 under clause 13 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
Whenever any wheat product intended for consumption in Canada is delivered by the processor thereof to any purchaser or is imported or taken out of customs warehouse, there shall be imposed and collected, in addition to any duty or tax that may be payable under any other statute or law, a processing levy payable by the processor or by the importer or the transferee who takes the wheat product out of bond for consumption, as the case may be, at a rate to be fixed by the governor in council, not exceeding, however, fifteen cents per bushel utilized for the production of the wheat product: Provided, however, that no such wheat product shall be imported into Canada without permission of the board; and provided further that in the case of any wheat product delivered pursuant to a contract in force on the twenty-fourth day of July, one thousand nine hundred
and forty for the future delivery of such product, the levy shall be payable by the purchaser and shall be collected by the processor and any processor who fails so to collect the said levy from the purchaser and pay the said levy to the board as required by subsection three of this section, shall become liable to pay the said levy.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
James Garfield Gardiner: I have two other amendments. I move:
That subsection (3) of the proposed section 18, under clause 13 of the bill be amended by striking out the words "collected by the processor from the purchaser and", in the second line of the said subsection, and by striking out in lines 5, 6 and 7 of the said subsection the words "and any processor who fails to collect the said levy from the purchaser shall become liable for the said levy".


Mr. SENN:: There is just one question in that connection. It may not be important to everyone but it is to a certain number of people in Ontario. I understand that about
6,000,000 bushels of Ontario wheat are milled annually. Of that amount something like 1,500,000 bushels is known as customs milling, where the farmer takes the wheat to the mill and has it processed into flour, taking it home and getting the flour at first cost. If this tax is levied against that amount of wheat who is going to be held responsible? Will it increase the cost of flour to the farmer or will the miller himself pay the extra charge?


James Garfield Gardiner: Before replying to that question I should like to move a further amendment which affects the same thing. I move:
That subsection (9) of the proposed section 18, under clause 13 of the bill be amended by adding after the word "delivered" in the last line thereof the words imported or taken out of the customs warehouse".


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Thomas Vien: Shall section 13 as amended carry?


James Angus MacKinnon: Do I understand that the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) asks whether a farmer taking wheat to a mill to have it processed for himself pays the tax?


Mark Cecil Senn: Yes.


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes, he does. The purpose of the legislation is to provide a fund for the benefit of the producers of wheat.


Mark Cecil Senn: I suggest that the farmer might better sell his wheat and let the miller pay the shot, and do away with the system of customs processing.
Canadian Wheat Board


James Garfield Gardiner: As I understand customs processing at the mill, the farmer takes his wheat and he gets so much flour back. The miller keeps a certain amount by way of toll for the work done.


Mark Cecil Senn: That is right.


James Garfield Gardiner: It will not make any difference at what price the wheat goes in because it will come out at the same price. In that case it is processing of wheat for the farmer.


Mark Cecil Senn: The two ministers are expressing contradictory views. Who is right?


James Garfield Gardiner: If he sells the wheat, action will be taken in the matter.


George Hugh Castleden: Would not the 15 cents
be collected?


Mr. GREEN:: Who is expected to bear this tax? That is a question of particular importance to British Columbia, because according to a press dispatch of two days ago the bakers of Vancouver have already raised the price of bread one cent, from eight cents to nine cents a loaf. I quote from the press report:
Vancouver, July 31-Majority of Vancouver bakers will advance bread prices one cent from eight to nine cents a loaf to-morrow, for standard 16-ounce unwrapped and 15-ounce wrapped loaves, Ian Davidson, secretary of the Master Bakers' Association said to-day. Two loaves will now sell for 17 cents.
Davidson said the price raise is necessitated by the new federal wheat processing tax which meant increased flour prices to bakers.
The minister said the other day that the tax was not meant to raise the price of bread, and on receiving representations from Vancouver that there was a danger of this rise he wired back as follows, according to the press report:
Suggest Vancouver citizens unnecessarily alarmed regarding processing levy. Actual increase in cost per loaf is minor, and millers and bakers should absorb this increase without adding to the retail price of bread.
Now the actual result is that the price of bread has gone up and I suggest to the minister that it is a consequence that should be very carefully considered not only by the government but also by the house, because in essence it means a tax of one cent a loaf on bread, and with bread at 8 cents a loaf, that amounts to a tax of 12 per cent. Talk about the sugar tax. This is far worse than the sugar tax about which there has been so much complaint over the years, and it is a tax that hits the poorest people the hardest. It will be used as an excuse for raising the price of some other foodstuff which the people

must have. I am afraid this rise in the price of bread will have a serious effect on the whole life of Canada in the next few months or perhaps throughout the war. Would the minister explain what the government propose to do about the situation? They have the power through the war-time prices and trade board to prevent this rise in price. I suggest that if it was not the intention that the tax should be passed on to the consumer, they should have the board step in at once and wipe out that increase in price.


James Angus MacKinnon: I wanted to explain these amendments before there was any discussion, but I did not have an opportunity. I should like to make this statement. Two points are covered in the amendment. Section 18, subsection 2, as it stands in the original bill requires the purchaser, or baker, to pay the levy, while the processor or miller is required only to collect the levy from the purchaser. In these terms the purchaser is required to bear the whole levy, whereas it is the government's intention that part of the levy might be borne if possible by the miller as well as by the baker. The amendment just introduced makes it legally possible for the miller to bear part of the levy. In connection with that I am asking that the war-time prices and trade board deal with this very question.
The second point covered in the amendment provides that if the board should license the importation of wheat flour or other wheat products, these products will be subject to the processing levy as well. This comparatively minor point was overlooked in the original drafting of the bill.


Howard Charles Green: Then it was not the intention of the government that anyone who buys a loaf of bread should have to pay any more for it?


James Angus MacKinnon: That is correct.


Howard Charles Green: Will the government take steps to see that they do not have to?


James Angus MacKinnon: I so stated.


Howard Charles Green: But merely referring the matter to the board does not mean that the buyer of the bread will not have to pay an extra cent.


James Angus MacKinnon: I am hopeful that it will be dealt with properly by the war-time prices and trade board.

Canadian Wheat Board _


George Hugh Castleden: I want to bring up the same point. The price of bread has already-gone up a cent a loaf. On the figures given the other night, indicating that Canada consumes bread representing about fifty million bushels of wheat, and that about fifty loaves are made out of each bushel, it is clear that the fifty cent increase which the consumer is going to have to pay on each bushell will amount to 825,000,000 a year. The processor, according to this bill, is supposed to collect 15 cents a bushel, and pay it over to the wheat board. This means the wheat board will receive only $7,500,000, and that the millers will keep the remainder, making an increased profit of $17,500,000. If there is no control over the price of bread, the millers are going to receive this additional profit, and instead of adding to the consumption of wheat and bread in this country we are going to curtail it, because the poorer people will not be able to buy bread at the higher price. The Ogilvie Flour Mills and Consolidated Bakeries, linked through their directors with the Royal 'bank and the bank of Montreal; Canadian Bakeries, linked with Maple Leaf Milling company; and Canada Bread, linked through their directorship with the Dominion bank, stand to make about $17,500,000, while al'l the wheat board will get is about $7,500,000. That is the evil of this legislation, as it stands. I make two suggestions: first, that steps be taken to see that all the increase in the price of bread on account of this levy goes to the wheat board; second, that the war-time prices and trade board make it possible that wheat in this most nutritive form be made available to every man, woman and child in Canada, and that does not mean processing and milling it all into white flour.
I just wished to point out the evils that may arise as a result of this legislation. I am not sure, from what the minister said, how the amendment will change it. It did not appear to me in the moment I had to study it that it would prevent the millers or bakers from making that tremendous extra profit through the existence of this processing tax.


Ernest George Hansell: That this processing levy does affect other industries has already been pointed out. In that connection I wish to enter a protest. Where other industries are affected by legislation, I believe that legislation should be brought before the appropriate committee. We have heard criticism concerning the lateness in bringing down this bill. There is no reason whatsoever why it could not have been brought down earlier so that there might have been time to send it to a committee where representations could have been made by industries affected. They could
have appeared before that committee, put their cards on the table and let us know how they are affected, and there the matter of ultimate taxation could have been discussed. But no opportunity has been given for that.
I understand that the agriculture committee has not held a single meeting this session. When it comes to matters of agriculture and a processing tax on wheat products resulting perhaps in a rise in the price of bread, such questions should have come before that committee, and I want to register my protest.


Mr. GRAYDON:: I wish to say a word in regard to the increase in price of one of the most important foodstuffs that people use. The rise in the price of bread is a serious matter affecting the home budget. It is not enough for the government to say now that they are going to have an investigation by the war-time prices and trade board to see if something can be done about the increase. The government have a responsibility in this matter and should have seen, when the legislation was brought down, that those concerned were notified that the price of bread should not be increased by reason of this processing tax. There is no use in crying over spilt milk, but on the other hand, as someone logically said in another place not long ago, while there is no use in crying over spilt milk, one may have to attach some responsiblity to the person who is still holding the pail. That is the situation in regard to this matter.
Here we have spent many days trying to help the working men of this country by a system of unemployment insurance; on the other hand, while that is a step in the right direction and will give him some benefit, we are now by virtue of other legislation in this parliament apparently causing an increase in the price of one of the most important commodities the working man uses. I do not think the answer the minister gave is, under the circumstances, good enough. To refer the matter to the war-time prices and trade board is not sufficient. If that board is going to function effectively in the interests of the consumer, it should have seen that these baking concerns were not permitted to raise the price of bread. I would ask the government to give us this afternoon a definite statement, not that they are going to refer this increase in price to someone, not that they are going to consider the matter, but that they are going to put the price back where it was before. That is the government's duty. They have taken that power upon themselves in the various bills we have passed since last September. If, by virtue of that power they cannot reduce the price of
Canadian Wheat Board

bread by one cent, then I say their powers are either not broad enough or not being used as the people of this country expect them to be used.


Mr. FURNISS:: A few moments ago the minister said that the processor might absorb part of this processing tax. If he attempts to do that, I wonder if he will not pass it on in the price of the by-products. Out of every bushel of wheat there are about twenty pounds of by-products. I understand they get about forty pounds of flour from a good bushel of wheat; that is what we used to get when we took grist to the mills, and the other twenty pounds came out in the form of bran and shorts, which are used by almost every stock raiser in the production of milk or bacon or beef. If the processor should undertake to absorb one-third of this tax, he might pass that on in the price of the byproduct, which would mean five cents on every twenty pounds of by-product from a bushel of wheat. If.that were carried out, it would mean an increase of $5 a ton in the price of bran and shorts. I do not see anything in this measure that prevents the processor from passing on part of that tax to the consumer of these by-products.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On July 24, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce introduced the resolution which preceded this bill, he made this statement:
Based on the experience of past relationships between the price of wheat and the retail prices of bread throughout Canada, the rate of levy we are recommending should not require any change in the retail price of bread.
Perhaps it should not, but according to all the press statements it has.
Mr. MaeKINNON (Edmonton West): Here and there.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have seen
press clippings from half a dozen of the large cities across Canada, and I imagine the situation is fairly general. Could the minister explain how this figure of 15 cents was arrived at? I pointed out the other evening that according to the department for farm management of the university of Saskatchewan, the price of wheat would have to rise 52 cents a bushel before an increase of one cent would be justified in the price of a 20-ounce loaf. This is less than a quarter of the increase that would justify an increase of one cent in the price of bread. It seems to me, therefore, that the government would be quite in order in doing one of two things, either increasing the amount of the processing levy to a point which would justify that increase of one cent, or insisting that there should be no increase
IMr. Graydnn.]
in the price of bread. Certainly the milling industry of this country, which has enjoyed a great monopoly for a number of years, can well afford to absorb this tax.
Will the income from this processing tax go into a special fund to be paid on the participation certificates of the farmers who have delivered wheat to the wheat board? Can the minister give us an assurance that this income will not be used in connection with the administrative features of the board, but will all go back to the farmers?
Mr. MaeKINNON (Edmonton West): On this point I would refer the hon. gentleman to subsection 5 of section 18, which reads:
Notwithstanding the provisions of The Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, sums received by the board, as hereinbefore provided, shall be deemed by the board to be ordinary revenue of the board and shall be held and expended by the board in all respects as such ordinary revenue and not otherwise.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like
an interpretation of that, because I am not a lawyer. Does that really mean it will not be used for administrative purposes but will go entirely to the farmers?
Mr. MaeKINNON (Edmonton West):	It
will be part of the revenue of the wheat board.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will it be
specifically earmarked for the fund?
Mr. MaeKINNON (Edmonton West): It will be part of their revenue and will be called upon if and when a payment is made on the participation certificates.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It will go
into the general fund?
Mr. MaeKINNON (Edmonton West): Yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will it go
into the general fund or into a special fund?
Mr. MaeKINNON (Edmonton West): It will go into the general fund. I have been asked to put the following figures on Hansard. Our technical advisers tell us that on the four and a half bushels required for the manufacture of one barrel of flour, the processing tax, at the rate of 15 cents a bushel, is equal to 674 cents a barrel. One barrel of flour is used for the manufacture of 270 pounds of bread. Therefore, applying the 674 cents a barrel levy on the 270 pounds of bread, there would be an increased cost of a quarter of a cent per pound of bread. That is on the basis of the tax of 15 cents a bushel.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If that is the case, why should the price control board not enter an action against the producers, the bakers or millers, who have raised the price of bread

Canadian Wheat Board
one cent a loaf? They are trying to gyp the public out of three-quarters of a cent, because, divided between them, the increase would mean only one-eighth of a cent to the baker and one-eighth of a cent to the miller. If the price control board has not power to enter an action against those who manufacture the flour and bread, then it should have that power, because certainly that increase is not justifiable. They should not be allowed to make an extra three-quarters of a cent when their increased cost is only one-quarter of a cent. If they were patriotic they would divide that one-quarter of a cent between them, each absorbing one-eighth. Certainly they should not increase the price of bread to the ordinary consumer.


John Gordon Ross: Probably the price was too high at the start.


Howard Charles Green: Is it perfectly clear that the price control board has power to telegraph Vancouver this afternoon and order that the price be reduced from nine to eight cents a loaf?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes, it has that power. I may tell the committee frankly that at this moment, and for some hours at least, this matter has been in the hands of the war-time prices and trade board.


Howard Charles Green: I would strongly urge that this step be taken this afternoon. I suggest that the attitude of the war-time prices and trade board on this matter is entirely wrong, if the press dispatch I hold in my hand is correct. Just below the report I read a few moments ago, appearing in the Ottawa Citizen, this further item appears:
Hector B. McKinnon, chairman of the wartime prices and trade board, informed of an announcement that bread prices would increase a cent a loaf to-day in Vancouver, said last night that "to the best of our knowledge" no other similar step had been taken in Canada since legislation was advanced in the commons placing a 15 cents a bushel processing tax on wheat for domestic use.
Then he went on to make this significant statement:
The board has power to police prices in war time but Mr. McKinnon said in no case would action be taken until the matter had been fully probed.
I suggest that action should be taken at once; that prices should be put back where they were before, and then let the probe be held. If the price should be increased, that would be the time to increase it. Instead, the price has been allowed to go up. There will be an investigation which may last for weeks, and then it may be found impossible to get the 96826-154
price back to its original level. The minister has admitted this afternoon that three-quarters of that one cent rise is just highway robbery.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not quarrel with the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver South, but I believe they are predicated upon a newspaper report that there has been an increase of one cent a loaf.


Howard Charles Green: The minister admitted this afternoon that there had been increases in several centres.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And he started an investigation.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am referring to the report from Vancouver. Perhaps I misunderstood, but my understanding of what the hon. member said is that the newspapers carried a report that the bakers in Vancouver were increasing the price of a pound loaf of bread by one cent, and that the chairman of the war-time prices and trade board had stated that the matter would be investigated. I am not criticizing the newspapers, but sometimes their reports are not accurate.


Howard Charles Green: We do not have to depend upon newspaper reports; the minister himself has said that is the situation. His department either knows or does not know whether that is so.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It does, because the wartime prices and trade board has been told to take action.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I did not hear the minister state that he had any definite information that the price in Vancouver had been raised a cent a loaf.


Howard Charles Green: Let us ask him whether he knows or not.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Perhaps he can answer when I have finished. I am simply suggesting that care must be taken in accepting these reports. I remember about six or eight weeks ago when I was asked a question in the house about fifty Germans who were reported to have landed in Quebec. An hon. member wanted to know why we were permitting Germans to enter this country. That went out over the radio; some members received telegrams, and I received a number of letters when, as a matter of fact, not a single German got off the boat. Reports of this kind sometimes do get out. I will say this: If the bakers of Vancouver have raised the price of bread one cent a loaf when the increase in cost is only one quarter of a cent a loaf, they should be investigated.

Canadian Wheat Board


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister go further and say that if they have done that, the wartime prices and trade board will be asked to issue an order this afternoon that that price be reduced.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It would be difficult for the war-time prices and trade board to issue an order to the bakers in Vancouver to reduce the price of bread one cent a loaf when they do not know that the price of bread has been increased one cent a loaf.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Trade and Commerce said that they have the power to force prices back to the previous level.


George Hugh Castleden: The Minister of Agriculture has stated that this processing tax would not apply where a farmer took wheat to a mill and got flour in return. Subsection 2
reads:
Whenever any wheat product intended for consumption in Canada is delivered by the processor thereof to any purchaser there shall he imposed and collected, in addition to any duty or tax that may be payable under any other statute or law, a processing levy payable by the purchaser at a rate to be fixed by the governor in council not exceeding 15 cents per bushel of wheat utilized for the production of the wheat product.
According to the information I have from the Department of Trade and Commerce, the processor is liable and must pay the 15 cents a bushel to the wheat board. Which of these interpretations is correct?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not a lawyer, as many have pointed out in this house, and there is just a possibility that I missed a point in making the statement I did a moment ago. I said that the practice is for a farmer who has a grist to go to the mill and return jvith a certain amount of flour and perhaps Dther things, such as bran and shorts. The miller takes a certain percentage of his wheat, oased on what he takes away. My opinion at the moment is-I may be wrong-that there has not been a transaction such as is referred to in the section. There has been no sale of wheat and there has been no purchase of wheat. I do not think I would be liable to the processing tax if I did that. When I take wheat to a mill to be ground I am simply having it turned into something which I can eat when I take it back home. I am not selling anything and I am not buying anything.


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to have a statement as to whether the processor is liable or not. When the resolution was introduced it was said that the tax would come into force on the night of July 23, and I got

a statement from the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the effect that the processor was liable.


James Angus MacKinnon: That
is correct.


Howard Charles Green: What information has the minister with reference to increases in the price of bread across Canada?


James Angus MacKinnon: I shall have to depend entirely upon what I have seen in the press. I think I saw one dispatch to the effect that in Vancouver bread prices had been raised one cent a loaf, and I believe I saw another dispatch that prices had gone up in Montreal. Apart from those two, I have not heard of any other place where an increase has occurred. May I say that when I stated that the war-time prices and trade board had the power to issue definite instructions, I gave that as my own opinion, but I believe it to be correct.


Mr. HATFIELD:: Have prices of flour and mill feed been increased?


James Angus MacKinnon: I understand from the press that the price of flour has been increased 70 cents a barrel.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Which works out to a quarter of a cent a loaf.


Ernest Edward Perley: I am certainly in agreement with the principle of this section. For a number of years I have advocated a domestic price for wheat, and I am pleased to see that the government have seen fit to adopt this principle. I think the way they are going about it is the only way it can be done, that is, by a processing levy. I was pleased also to hear the minister say, I believe in answer to a question asked this afternoon by the hon. member for Weyburn, that the revenue from this processing levy will go into a general fund to be distributed through participation certificates which will apply on all grain.
I am not satisfied with the 15 cent tax; I think we should go further than that. I believe there will be considerable difficulty in enforcing the legislation. We have it now that there has been an increase in the price of bread in several places. This levy of 15 cents a bushel amounts to about a quarter of a cent per pound loaf. I would have raised the levy to the point where it would warrant an increase of one cent per loaf in the price of bread. I think this would be acceptable to the people who would have to pay the extra price when they realized the amount of revenue that would accrue from the tax. Domestic consumption amounts to about
50,000,000 bushels, and if this tax were 50

Canadian Wheat Board
cents, the revenue would be $25,000,000, which would be distributed over all the wheat delivered to the board as well as export wheat.
I think the people who have to pay an increased price for their bread will be satisfied on the whole because of the general benefit there will be all round. I am not going to oppose this section at all. I am in favour of its principle, but I should like to have seen the processing levy considerably higher than is provided for in the bill.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West) moved the third reading of the bill.


Ernest Edward Perley: Mr. Speaker, I desire to take a few minutes to reply to the statement that was made yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) just before the house went into committee on this bill. He made reference to certain facts, referred to conferences held with western men, with the pools and with representatives of rural municipalities, and read a number of press clippings, also a cablegram, dated July 23, to Mr. Mclvor from the cereals import committee. He also announced the sale of 100,000,000 bushels of wheat. We have already discussed that sufficiently, so I shall not refer to it now, but if I had been given an opportunity when I attempted to reply to the minister's references to me yesterday, I should have had something to say about that.
The minister also read a letter from a gentleman who is a member not of this house but of another place, referring to a certain conversation which I had had with him, and which he practically denied.
In the debate on the address, I think, and certainly in the budget debate on June 27, I referred to that conversation. The date of the letter which the minister quoted is July 11, and I think he would have been a little more courageous and more courteous if at a proper time and on a proper occasion he had made his references to that letter. But he left it to the last minute yesterday when I had no chance to reply. I regret that I have to do so now, at this late stage of the bill, which we all want to see through this house before six o'clock.
The letter admits that I had been invited to attend the then minister in his office. There is no question about that. The letter also says that the statement I made in the house discloses a defective memory or possibly a vivid imagination, and that what I had said had not the remotest relationship to the facts. May I
95826-154}
suggest that possibly that gentleman himself may have a conveniently defective memory. He may also lack imagination. May I recount exactly what did take place.
The conversation could not be termed confidential at all. It was rather a general discussion covering the whole wheat situation. The conversation took place in September, on the last day of the war session. Hon members will recall how the house was rushing legislation through and that we had no time to spare for a general discussion of the wheat question. So I sent a note over to the then Minister of Trade and Commerce to this effect: Before parliament prorogues, are we not going to have a statement on the wheat situation, which I should like to discuss? The minister replied in a note which he sent back by a page, asking me to follow him to his office when he went out. I went to his office, where he greeted me and presented me with a nice cigar. We sat down and I smoked it. That would indicate how long the conversation lasted because it takes me ten minutes to smoke a cigarette, and I got through most of that cigar.
I asked him, "What about the wheat situation?" I had not brought it up in the house, and he thought that was very fair of me. But he said, "Of course you know that Mr. Rank has been appointed sole purchaser of wheat for the British government and for France." I think that was the first time I had heard of that.
I asked him about the price for wheat. Can hon. members for one minute imagine me following the minister into his office, on his invitation, to discuss this matter and not asking him a few questions about wheat? He announced that Mr. Rank had b" n appointed purchaser for the British and French governments, and I said, "How about the price?" He replied, "I do not think we can discuss that." There was nothing definite but he did mention with respect to price that the suggestion had been made that the grain exchange should be closed. I said, "Why not? There is a war on." I reminded him of what had taken place during the last war, that Britain had closed her exchanges as soon as the war broke out, and I further reminded him that Great Britain had set a price on grain of $1.35, which was an increase of five cents because the domestic price had previously been $1.30. I said that the British price of $1.35 was equivalent to $1.15 in our market. He agreed, but would not say anything or commit himself to any price policy. However, when I suggested that the exchange should be closed and the board handle all the grain, he remarked to me that as far as he himself Was concerned he would like to do it. He said,
Canadian Wheat Board

"I am tired of the whole business. It has given me a lot of worry. I do not know any more about this than possibly I should, and I am depending upon my associates." I said, "I think you should close the exchange," and his exact words in reply were these, "My colleagues in the cabinet would not agree to that." I did not press him very much further.
I said something about price and the grain interests. I said, "Surely there is going to be a very considerable increase in price," and he replied, "I think so myself." We discussed that further, and I said, "I think price increases are going to be general all over the country."
The war was on; Britain had closed her markets and appointed this buyer, and wheat would be an important factor. We had a general discussion for quite a little while. Then I asked, "How far are you going to let the thing go before the government takes some action such as was taken in the previous war?" He said to me, "The interests generally think that the price may ultimately-sooner than we think-go to SI.25, but," he said, "there will be no action taken until it gets to around that figure, if it does." Probably we all regret that it has not gone up. But this is an exact statement of what took place. I suggested to him that the government should accept Mr. Rank's suggestion and close the exchange. The minister carried in his pocket until yesterday that letter dated July 11. He shakes his head, but he did not produce it until yesterday, and I think he would have displayed more courage and more courtesy if, since the letter is dated July 11, he had produced it on some previous occasion when I mentioned that fact.
I am not going to labour the point, but I have raised it more or less as a matter of privilege, in order to state that that conversation did take place. My imagination is no greater than the other fellow's and the minister has just as poor a memory as he stated that I have if he says that what I am now saying did not take place. I am putting this on Hansard simply that it there may be recorded that the statement which I have made in the house was correct, and I think hon. members will have to take my word for it as readily as they would accept that letter.
We have had very little information with respect to this whole matter. My complaint all along has been this lack of knowledge. Were it not that we are getting this allimportant measure so late in the session, I certainly should have moved that the bill be referred to a select committee somewhat like that which functioned in 1935 and 1936. We would then have got the information to which we are entitled.
[Mr. Perley.l
In announcing the sales yesterday and in referring to them again to-day the minister has been most indefinite. He has stated that we are dealing in futures, but we do not know how much, and in what months. The farmers and producers, whose business it is, have not received the information to which they are entitled. The minister said yesterday, when I asked him about the price, that it would not be in the interests of the public to disclose it. I have here a report from the grain exchange, dated on Friday last, reporting that the Argentine had made a sale last week of 2,500,000 bushels of wheat to the British government, and the price was given, over 80 cents as at Canadian seaboard. Then why all this secrecy concerning the price at which our wheat is being sold? In connection with the Argentine sale, the British government did not control the announcement of the price. Why should the government do so in connection with the purchase of our wheat?
My final protest relates to the storage charge in the agreement which was made by the board with members of the grain exchange. We were informed last evening that the producers are losing certain days of free storage, and that certain classes of wheat will be subject to storage charges when it is in the boxcar of the carrier. I again protest against that provision, and suggest and hope that the minister will see to it, if this agreement is renewed this year, that it be changed so that no such situation can continue, because it is neither fair nor reasonable that the elevator company should be paid storage for grain which is in the carrying company's car when it is in transit.
I will not further delay the house, but allow me to say in conclusion that I hope that, when we come back in November, the minister will be able, with the experience of this business which he will gain in the next few months, to give us more definite information, and we shall expect the reports which are due to this house with respect to the whole business and operations of the board on the 1938-39 crop, and up to date on the 1940 crop.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Speaker, I desire only to complete a statement which I was attempting to make when we were dealing with section 5 of the bill. At that time I was stressing the argument that, in view of the fact that the price to be paid to the farmer under this bill was very low, and in view of the further fact that the quota of deliveries to be allowed the farmer would necessarily be small, it would be impossible for him to finance his immediate expenditures, and I therefore urged the necessity

Canadian Wheat Board
of making loans to farmers on grain stored in their own granaries. The Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) in his reply emphasized the point that the proposition was not quite so simple as hon. members in this comer were trying to make the committee believe. He stated that the experience of the federal government as regards the collection of loans made to farmers in western Canada had been somewhat unfortunate; indeed, he left the impression that loans made to the western farmers had not been collected.
In order to correct that impression, I should like to quote from a statement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in this house on February 11, 1937, when dealing with the question of federal loans to farmers. He said:
The federal and provincial governments each undertook to pay fifty per cent of any loss which might be incurred by the municipalities as a result of seed being advanced to the farmers. During that period $4,385,000 was advanced for seed purposes.
I want to emphasize the fact that I examined the records in 1928, after there had ceased to be any need for the giving of seed or the providing of relief of any kind, and I found that only $180,000 of the money had not been paid. There was advanced $4,385,000 and at that time only $180,000 had not been paid, and much of that has been paid since.
In the light of that fact, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree that the Minister of Mines and Resources was justified in saying that the government's experience had been unfortunate. When one takes into consideration the trying period which agriculture had gone through, I think we came off very well indeed.
I would also stress that in Alberta we recognize the fact, in making loans to-day to farmers for seed grain or in dealing with the question of hail insurance, that it is necessary to impress upon them the need to repay those advances. We are having great success in the new hail insurance scheme which we have in operation in Alberta; the payments are being made punctually. I do not think there need be any trouble in this matter. We have not at any time asked the federal government to say how these advances should be made, whether through the wheat board or by guaranteeing the banks. All we asked was a statement to the effect that advances would be made. I am satisfied it is quite a simple matter of administration to arrange for these loans, and unless they are made the result is bound to be chaos in western Canada.


Charles Edward Johnston: Speaking on the point on which the chairman of the committee ruled me out of order a little while ago, I should like to draw the attention of the government to the position
in which they are placing the provinces when they have not definitely decided on the amount they are going to pay the farmers for the quantity of grain they are required to hold on the farm.
The question of debts in the west is a serious one. Every provincial government has had grave difficulties in handling its debt problem. Not long ago the Manitoba government made a statement, which I saw reported in the press, wherein it was intimated that if something were not done in regard to wheat they would have to declare a moratorium. No province, especially Alberta, wishes to be in that position; and the dominion government is throwing the responsibility upon the provincial government. We often hear it said in this house and other places that the reason why the dominion housing plan is not being carried out in Alberta is that the banks will not lend people money because they cannot collect these debts. The provincial government, they claimed, was passing legislation prohibiting the collection of debts.
The condition in the west is such that people cannot pay their debts, for the simple reason that they are not being allowed here to get money. The dominion government is not paying them sufficient to cover the cost of production of wheat so as to enable the farmer to pay his debts. It is obvious that when the farmer does not get cost of production, it is-utterly impossible for him to pay his debts,, and it is the responsibility of the provincial government to step in and protect these-farmers, citizens of the western provinces, against something for which the dominion government was directly responsible and which is an unfair imposition upon the provinces. Here we have a condition in which the dominion government will be responsible for the amount of money advanced to the farmer. If the money the government advances to the farmers per bushel for the number of bushels in storage is not enough to cover their debts, mortgages which will be coming due on their combines this fall, then one of two things will happen. Either the mortgage companies will seize the machines and the farmers will lose the equity they have in them, or the provincial government must come in again and either declare a moratorium or pass such legislation as will protect the citizens. Then the provincial government is blamed for not paying debts, and the financial institutions, especially the chartered banks, at once refuse to make loans because they say that the provincial government's legislation makes it impossible for them to collect. The mortgage companies make the same statement. It is evidently unfair for the dominion government not to take steps now to see to it that these debtors are protected,
243S
Canadian Wheat Board

because obviously the dominion is to blame. Whether it can get out of the difficulty or not is something I am not contending; whether it can pay sufficient to the farmer in the form of an advance to enable him to pay his debts, I am not arguing. But I say that the responsibility rests with the dominion, and the dominion should assume that responsibility and not put the onus upon the provinces.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My
only purpose in rising now is to remind the house that we in this corner have been endeavouring for the past two days to call attention to a serious defect in the bill, namely, that while the bill gives power to the wheat board to ration the amount of wheat which the farmer may deliver to the board, no provision has been made and no proposals have been outlined by the government as to what will be done with reference to financing the remainder of the farmer's wheat which he will be compelled, under the powers given the board, to store on his farm. I will not labour the point; it has been made again and again throughout the last two days. If the figure given by some hon. gentlemen opposite is correct, the amount the farmer will be able to sell is five bushels to the acre. That is what he will sell this fall, and that means roughly 25 per cent of his crop, which represents 25 per cent of the income he ought to have. That means he will not be able to buy the things he needs and he will have to take his payments on the instalment plan.
What we have been asking the government to do is to outline, if possible, some policy whereby the farmer will be able to get an advance or to be assisted in financing during this year, not only for his own sake but for the sake of the entire western economy, that, will find its income, which is in large part derived from wheat, reduced this year to 30 or even 25 per cent of the normal amount. The government have said that they have certain regulations in mind. There are several courses which they might follow, but they have not intimated the particular course they do intend to follow, and to us that is a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs. Ministers have pointed out again and again that the subject is under sympathetic consideration; that the government is appreciative of the situation; that it will do whatever it thinks ought to be done in the circumstances. As the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) put it the other night:
We can take care of the situation in front of us; we can take care of so many million bushels at 70 cents a bushel. If. some is moved
IMr. C. E. Johnston.]
out, we may be able to take care of all in storage, but somewhere along the way during the next five or six months we shall know exactly what we can do.
With all deference to the government, good intentions are not enough; sympathetic consideration is not specific. In passing this legislation we have given very wide powers to the Canadian wheat board. We submit that in return there should be placed on the statute books equally specific guarantees to the wheat producer that during the period between the time he sells his first amount of wheat to the board and the time he is allowed to sell the remainder, some provision will be made whereby he can meet his current obligations and maintain his family in decency. We want that put into the act. Consequently I move, seconded by Mr. Coldwell:
That the said bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions that they have power to amend it by adding a provision that the wheat board shall make an advance payment to the farmer in respect of that portion of his wheat crop which he is required to store on his farm.
Before you put the amendment, Mr. Speaker, may I say this in conclusion. All I am asking, all that this amendment asks, is that we shall set the basis upon which the payment shall be made. It is not an increase in expenditure. I do not see how it can be ruled out on that ground. It makes no difference whether you pay the farmer 40 cents now and 30 cents in the spring or the whole amount in the spring, the result is the same: It is not an increase in expenditure. It merely changes the basis on which the board will make the payment to the farmer for the wheat delivered. I therefore ask the government to give the amendment serious consideration.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: We had no notice of this amendment and I did not hear it when my hon. friend read it, but from your reading of it, Mr. Speaker, I think there is a doubt whether it is in order. If I caught the sense correctly, it is an instruction from the house to the committee to amend the legislation in a way that certainly carries the risk of creating an increased charge on the public treasury; and if my understanding of the rules is correct, it is not within the competence of a private member to move in that direction.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Before you give your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I submit that there is no guarantee that any interest rate would be paid on that amount advanced. There is in Canada a central bank of which

Debts Due the Crown
the people are the owners, and there is no difference whether the wheat board pays to the producer seventy cents in the spring or forty cents now and thirty cents in the spring.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In addition to the point raised by the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), may I suggest that this amendment changes the whole provisions of the bill as presented to the house, and therefore it is out of order.


Georges Parent: Does any other hon.
member wish to speak to the point of order? If not, I think the amendment is out of order, for the reason that has been stated by the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie), namely, that it changes the provisions of the original resolution, and in addition it requires a payment by the government, which the hon. member has no right to do. I therefore rule the amendment out of order.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I reluctantly challenge your ruling.


Georges Parent: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion? Carried.
Motion (Mr. MacKinnon, Edmonton West) agreed to and bill read the third time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise to a point of order. The Minister of Mines and Resources is not dealing now with schoolboys. He cannot ride me down. I challenge the ruling that the amendment is out of order.


Georges Parent: The hon. member cannot challenge it. I have already called the bill a3 having been read the third time. Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre) moves, seconded by Mr. Gardiner, that the said bill do now pass and that the title be as on the order paper. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion? Carried.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No. I rise to a point of order. First of all, I challenged the decision ruling the amendment out of order, and I asked an appeal to the house. That was not given.


Georges Parent: The hon. gentleman did not make an appeal to the house. What he said was "I challenge the ruling." There was no appeal to the house from the decision of the chair.
Motion agreed to and bill passed.



DEBTS DUE THE CROWN


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 99 to amend an act respecting debts due to the crown.-Mr. Ilsley.
James Lorimer Ilsley: It is necessary to deal with one rather important amendment made by the senate to Bill No. 99, to amend an act respecting debts due to the crown. The house passed an act which empowered his majesty in the right of Canada to deduct from the amounts due by way of salary to civil servants the taxes due from those civil servants to provinces with which the crown in the right of Canada has agreements for the collection of taxes. Those provinces are Ontario, Prince Edward Island and Manitoba. The bill went to the senate and was discussed there. I think the first stage of the matter in the senate was this: It was suggested that the government give consideration to a further amendment permitting the right of garnishment to creditors of civil servants as against the crown. That was a fundamental alteration of the whole bill. I sent a memorandum to the government leader in the senate briefly stating some objections to taking that position at this stage of the session. I gather that my suggestion that the question was a large one, having many ramifications, was not particularly well received in the senate. The position taken there was that it was an extremely simple question and that there was no reason why civil servants should continue to have an exemption from garnishee proceedings, a position which, at first blush, appears to a great many persons as reasonable.
The senate then proceeded to make an amendment, and have suggested a rather long section to be added to the bill. In order to make the position of the government clear, I must read that amendment. It is:
2.	The said act is further amended by adding thereto as section three the following:-
3.	(1) In any case where any officer, servant or employee of His Majesty in the right of Canada is indebted to any province, municipality or person in any specific sum of money on a judgment recovered for or on account of
(a)	any income tax, special tax or wage tax (including interest and penalties) or
(b)	any other manner of debt not sounding in damages, whether such debt be or be not of the genus of a debt for taxes,
the like recourse by the judgment creditor against third parties by way of garnishment of judgment debts, as applies against garnishees,
Debts Due the Crown

generally, in and by the law of the province in which the judgment has been recovered shall be available to such judgment creditor against the Minister of Finance as a third party garnishee, but subject to the subsequent provisions of this section.
(2)	The Minister of Finance shall not be subject or required to answer in or to attend at any garnishment proceedings; he shall be liable as a third party garnishee in his representative capacity only and he shall be subject in matters to which this act extends to orders and directions, specific or general, of the governor in council.
(3)	The judgment creditor shall produce to the Minister of Finance a certificate of the judgment, the garnishee order and an affidavit made by some person having knowledge of the facts stating the amount due on the judgment and for what it was recovered and establishing the identity of the judgment debtor as an officer, servant or employee of His Majesty in the right of Canada.
(4)	The governor in council may authorize the Minister of Finance to retain by way of deduction out of any sum or sums of money which, from time to time, may be due or payable by His Majesty in the right of Canada to any officer, servant or employee of His Majesty in such right (such deduction to be by instalments or otherwise as that minister may, in the interest of the efficiency of the public service, determine) the amount of any judgment debt due or payable in any garnishment proceedings instituted under the authority of, and in compliance with, this act, and to pay out such sum or sums of money so deducted to the provinces, municipalities and persons who are, pursuant to their respective garnishee orders and to this act, entitled to be paid it or them.
The section is carefully drawn and is designed to meet certain objections which might be offered to the course proposed. I have had the section examined by the officers of my own department and the officers of the Department of Justice, and I am afraid that I must say on behalf of the government that the government is not prepared to accept that section. I shall have something to say about the other two amendments before I take my seat.
It is, of course, necessary that the reasons should be given. I am setting them out in some detail because the matter is one of some importance and also one of some complexity. The reasons are:
1.	Because the proposed amendment is of doubtful constitutional validity. The province has exclusive authority in relation to the jurisdiction and procedure in civil matters in provincial courts. By the provincial statutes the garnishee must be "within the jurisdiction of the court" or "within" the province, or "resident in" the county. It is doubtful if parliament can in effect extend the jurisdiction of the provincial courts to include the Minister of Finance as a garnishee.
I do not express any opinion myself as to whether this amendment is constitutional or not, but the advice of the Department of Justice is that it is of doubtful constitutional

validity, and certainly when a doubt is raised in a matter of this importance it is a reason for further consideration by this house.
2.	Because under the present state of the law the crown cannot be impleaded in the courts without a fiat. This principle constitutes the main impediment in the way of garnishee proceedings. The proposed amendment would in effect amount to the abandonment of this prerogative of the crown in a limited class of cases. It is most important that the position of the crown in relation to the courts should not be altered in this respect without full consideration being given to the whole problem of proceedings against the crown.
I think that reason speaks for itself, and I could not make it any clearer if I attempted to enlarge upon it.
3.	Because the question of recognition by the crown of voluntary assignments of debts due from the crown is allied to the subject matter of the amendment and it is not clear why it should not also be dealt with.
By this I mean that the crown does not recognize assignments. I am not sure whether it is accurate to say that the crown cannot recognize assignments; perhaps it is, but certainly it would appear to be anomalous if we got the law into this position, that the crown must recognize judgments of creditors against debtors and be amenable to garnishee proceedings, but could not recognize voluntary assignments. In effect, it would mean that if the creditor obtained a voluntary assignment from the civil servant debtor, he would find that he was no further ahead, the crown not recognizing his assignment; but if he put on quite a substantial amount in the way of costs by reason of a suit against the debtor, he would bring himself within the provisions of this measure. I think the two matters should be dealt with together; they are so closely allied that for an act to deal with one and not the other would be improper.
4.	Because the proposed amendment only permits garnishee proceedings to be taken in respect of any judgment for or on account of any tax or other debt not sounding in damages. The justification for excluding other judgments is not clear.
There may be some reason, but it is not clear from the legislation nor is it clear to me. I do not think it would be clear, at least at first blush, to members of this house.
5.	Because the grounds for making a distinction between officers, servants or employees of His Majesty in the right of Canada on the one hand and other persons to whom amounts may from time to time be due from the crown on the other is not apparent from the proposed legislation, will not be apparent to the public, and require consideration. In particular, it is not clear why such persons as senators, members of the House of Commons, judges, and persons entering into contracts with His Majesty in the right of Canada are excluded from the provisions of the amendment;

Debts Due the Crown
Certainly consideration would have to be given to drawing a distinction of that kind. There may be grounds for it, but they are not apparent from the legislation and I think should be carefully considered before we make any such distinction.
6.	Because under the proposed amendment a creditor is put to the expense of obtaining a judgment and garnishee order and forwarding them to the Minister of Finance but the Minister of Finance is not under any obligation to make deductions from the sums payable to the debtor of such person.
In other words, this section, while it purports to give the right of garnishee, gives what is little more than a pretended right of garnishee, because in the end it is provided that the governor in council may pass upon the question as to whether the garnishee order is to be complied with or not. It is a curious situation, that the creditors should go to the expense of garnishee proceedings, serve the minister with these papers, deposit an affidavit establishing identity, and so on; then, when we come to the end of all this, it is within the discretion of the governor in council whether any attention is to be paid to it at all. Yet those are the provisions of the amendment.
7.	Because in form the proposed amendment is open to the following objections-
I would emphasize that these are objections of form. They may be met, I suppose, by changing the form, but I think it is important that the matter be dealt with as fully as possible, because it may form the ground for future consideration if this question comes up again, as it may.
(a)	The expression "third party" is well understood to mean a person made a party by a defendant who claims to be entitled to contributions or indemnity from such person. A garnishee is not a third party.
(b)	This proposal is to extend to claims by the provinces for taxes. Where the crown seeks to recover its taxes from third persons such remedies as the writ of extent are ordinarily employed rather than garnishee proceedings. It may even be doubted whether the crown is entitled to proceed by way of garnishee since such expressions as "person" and "judgment creditor" used in the provincial statutes relating to garnishee proceedings are not apt to describe his majesty. The municipality, too, has special remedies to enforce payment of taxes.
(c)	The expression "garnishment" implies compulsion and is an inappropriate term to use with reference to his majesty even though the statute provides merely for voluntary and not compulsory payments.
(d)	The exchequer court has by statute exclusive jurisdiction over claims against the dominion crown and it should be made clear that the senate proposal is to apply notwithstanding anything contained in the Exchequer Court Act.
(e)	The Minister of Finance has no "representative capacity" to represent his majesty in the courts; that representative capacity is vested in the Attorney General of Canada.
I have set out somewhat fully these five objections in point of form to the senate amendment, because I do think they have some importance.
8.	There has been no demand from the public for this legislation and it is an inappropriate
stage of the session at which to open up a matter of such extent and importance.
Those are the reasons I would suggest why the house, at this stage of the session, should not accept the senate amendment. I have left out of account any consideration of any practical matters which may or may not be of great importance. The ones that occur to me are the inconvenience and expense to the crown of acting in these garnishee proceedings, as well as the doubt as to need for any further remedies to creditors of civil servants, or, in other words, the whole question of the adequacy of present remedies.
That is the amendment relating to garnishee proceedings.
With regard to the other two amendments,
I am prepared to accept amendment No. 1, which is the proviso that the Minister of Finance may not retain in any one month an amount greater than that seizable per month by the law of the province in which the civil servant resides. Perhaps it is confusing to have this amendment brought in at this stage; but, as I stated at the outset, the main section of the bill authorizes a deduction by the crown in the right of Canada from the salaries of their civil servants in these provinces to the amount of the taxes due to the provinces from those civil servants. This merely provides that the crown cannot keep more than a certain amount per month out of their salaries. That amount is the amount seizable per month under the law of the province in which the civil servant resides. We have no objection to that.
The second amendment is that this section shall come into force upon proclamation by the governor in council. I am afraid I shall have to disagree with that amendment, because it is desirable that the bill should come into force on assent being given.
I therefore move:
That a message be sent to the senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house
(a)	.agrees to amendment No. 1 to bill No. 99, an act to amend an act respecting debts due to the crown;
(b)	disagrees with amendment No. 2 for the reason that it is desirable that bill No. 99 should come into force on assent being given; and
(c)	disagrees with amendment No. 3 for the following reasons

Those are the reasons I gave while I was speaking.
Debts Due the Crown


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I
cannot argue the legal aspects of this matter, but it would appear to me that those who drew up these objections were determined to find every excuse against this proposal. It seems to me to be rather like an ex parte statement.
It has been said that there has been no public demand for this legislation. I should like to say that for years I have attempted to get such legislation through the house, and on one or two occasions I brought up the matter in the house. There is quite a general feeling, perhaps not expressed by great public meetings or petitions because this is not that kind of thing, that well paid or fairly well paid civil servants should pay their debts. I think it is to the advantage of those civil servants who are honest-and the great majority of them are honest-that there should be some procedure to deal with those who are not. I do not know about the other provinces, but in-British Columbia we have a law under which the crown can be garnisheed, and no legal objection seems to have been taken to it. I am sorry to see the government take the stand they have taken in this matter.
Mr. T. J. O'NEILL (Kamloops):	Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) has prefaced what I intended saying. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has said that there is no public demand for this, but that statement is hardly in accordance with the facts. If that statement goes out, it will leave the impression that no one is particularly interested in seeking this legislation. I can tell the minister that there are a great many who want to see such legislation placed on the statute books of this country. I would say that probably three-quarters of the people in this country cannot see any justifiable reason why a civil servant should be entitled to any more consideration than anyone else. A man who works for the transportation companies is subject to garnishee, and if he is garnisheed two or three times his services are dispensed with. I can see no reason why civil servants should receive extra consideration.
Motion (Mr. Ilsley) agreed to.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
MOTION FOR CONTINUATION OF SITTING AFTER SIX o'clock
Thomas Alexander Crerar: The understanding was that we would go on until seven o'clock to-night.


Alan Webster Neill: Why?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In order to do that, it is necessary to put the following motion, and I so move:
That the Speaker do not leave the chair at six o'clock.


Alan Webster Neill: This is unnecessary. We
cannot possibly get through to-night and we shall have to come back on Monday. We have been sitting from eleven o'clock in the morning until eleven o'clock at night all week, a thing which we have not done for years, and no great object can be achieved by sitting any longer to-night. We have to come back next week and I think we have done enough.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I would point out that if this motion does not pass, under the motion passed yesterday or the day before the house will resume at eight o'clock and go on to eleven o'clock.


Alan Webster Neill: The motion for adjournment can always be put.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am sure the hon. member
for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) will not press the point.


Mr. MacINNIS:: There is a great deal in the position taken by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill). We have been working under a terrific strain during the past two weeks, and I cannot see what can possibly be accomplished by sitting this evening until seven oclock when we cannot finish the work now before us. I think the leader of the government could very well move that we adjourn at six o'clock.


John Gordon Ross: Both hon. gentlemen were in the house at the time this arrangement was made.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There was not a dissenting voice in the whole house.


John Gordon Ross: The whole house agreed to carrying on until seven o'clock.


Alan Webster Neill: How was it put to the
house?


John Gordon Ross: The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) announced it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The Prime Minister announced it at three o'clock, and no objection was taken.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Supply-Fisheries-Administration
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Vien in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
77. Departmental administration, $129,300.
Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Fisheries) :: Mr. Chairman, on Friday, July 23,
when this item was last before the committee for consideration the leader of the opposi-sition (Mr. Hanson) asked for some information with respect to the relations between the Department of Fisheries and the government of New Brunswick, and to what extent we had contributed to the establishment of a fish processing plant at Caraquet, Gloucester county, New Brunswick. The hon. gentleman questioned the economic soundness of the project and invited me to answer several questions which he asked at that time. I did not then have before me sufficient information to answer his questions, but I have taken the trouble to look into the matter and I now have the information he wanted. I believe the best way to lay this matter before the committee is to give the questions asked by the leader of the opposition and then my answers.
The first question asked was:
Did the government contribute to the establishment of a new fish processing plant at Caraquet, and was that contribution made out of this grant?
The dominion government allotted out of vote 503, which was to aid fishermen, groups of fishermen and others, to establish or better establish themselves in the industry, a grant of $100,000 to the province of New Brunswick. Permission was sought by the provincial authorities to use $75,000 of that grant partly to subsidize a fish processing plant which the province had induced the Gorton Pew (New Brunswick) Limited, to establish at Caraquet. The authorization was given on August 26, 1939.
The next question was:
I understand that the province of New Brunswick undertook to contribute 75 per cent of the total capital cost of this plant?
It is correct to say that the province undertook to subsidize the establishment of the plant to the extent of 75 per cent of the cost of construction, but this was not to exceed $150,000 in all.
The next question was:
I want to know the total capital cost of the plant.
The total capital cost of the plant is in the vicinity of $250,000.
The next question was:
I want the Minister of Fisheries to find out from the province of New Brunswick what the arrangement is with the Gorton Pew Company.
The arrangement is in the form of a written agreement dated July 24, 1939, which calls for the building by the company of a plant at Caraquet to be subsidized by the province of New Brunswick to the extent of 75 per cent of the cost, but not to exceed $150,000, and the performance of certain conditions by the company. These conditions include the purchase of suitable round fish of good quality offered for sale by fishermen up to the extent of 9,000,000 pounds a year at current prices for five years, commencing from the time the works shall be ready for operation, and to process the same through the said works as frozen fish. The performance of its obligations is guaranteed by the company by a mortgage of $150,000 on the whole undertaking for ten years.
The company also undertakes to employ New Brunswick labourers and pay fair wages.
The company shall keep available for the fishermen at all times at least 2.400 cubic feet of suitable refrigerated space for storage of baited trawls, such storage to be paid for at a rate not higher than that prevailing in other commercial cold storage plants.
The company also must prepare and keep on hand an adequate supply of bait in cold storage, which bait shall be sold to fishermen operating in the neighbourhood at prices not higher than prevailing local prices.
Any disputes, differences of opinion, or questions arising between the province and the company are subject to arbitration under the New Brunswick Arbitration Act.
The next question was:
The next thing I want to know is whether any architect or firm of architects was engaged to draw plans for the plant.
Mr. Kenneth Campbell was engaged by the company to draw the plans of the plant. I am informed that Mr. Campbell is a graduate in architecture of McGill university, 1912, and has been in continuous practice since graduation, excepting for five years in the Canadian expeditionary force, with Nobbs and Hyde; Barott and Blackader, Montreal; Sir Austin Webb, London, England; with the late J. E. R. Carpenter, New York; and that he has had a varied experience in Montreal, New York, and Florida, designing large buildings, including schools, hospitals, hotels, apartment houses, office buildings and cold storage plants.

Supply-Fisheries-Administration
As consultants on the Caraquet plant, the engineers of the Linde Canadian Refrigeration company, and the Armstrong Cork company, were employed.
Mr. Campbell is a member of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada.
The next question was:
Were any difficulties encountered in the construction of the plant?
No; no significant difficulties were encountered.
The next point was:
The foundation of the building is at least three feet too low. No provision was made for ventilation in the basement, and that part had to be done all over again. The ventilation had to be installed in the basement at a greater cost.
Due to the nature of the ground, certain alterations were made in the plans raising the level of the main floor before construction was commenced. The level of the foundation was, therefore, changed before construction commenced and cannot be considered as being too low at the present time. The other changes which were made in the plans before construction commenced involved the thickening of the main wall at the top with from eight to twelve inches of brick, which was considered to be a wise provision in case the capacity of the plant had to be enlarged in the future. I am informed that this change involved an expenditure of $1,800. Another change which was provided for before construction was commenced involved the installation of an internal power plant, because competent engineers considered that the local power lines would not carry the load suitably.
There is no basement to this plant. The main floor of the building is well lighted, with numerous windows, and no difficulty is encountered with ventilation.
The next point was:
Part of one of the brick walls had to be torn down so that some necessary machinery could be installed in the building.
With regard to the removal of brick walls, the only change that was found necessary was the removal of from twenty-five to fifty hollow tiles to allow the manoeuvring of the machinery during installation after it had been got into the building through the ordinary doors. In addition to this, a few small holes were made through the roof to allow the introduction of hangers for the conveyer.
The next point was:
The first cement floor is a disgraceful job, not providing enough slope to force the water and offal into the gutters.
With regard to the cement floors, there were a few high spots which interfered with

drainage and this trouble was easily overcome. In addition to this, five extra outlets to the drainage system were installed.
The next point was:
Steam engines are not of standard build, and they began to heat after being in operation for a short time, and had to be taken down and repaired.
I am advised that- the steam engine in connection with the fish-meal plant is of a standard build and that the only trouble which was found was in the slight unbalancing of the fly-wheel, which was quickly adjusted, at no cost to the company or the government by the engineers in the employ of the company which sold the machinery.
The next point was:
The drying and fertilizing plant broke down on its first trial, and is not giving satisfactory service.
I am advised that the drying and fertilizer plant is operating to the complete satisfaction of the management, and that the only difficulty encountered was with the conveyer, which difficulty has been removed.
The next question was:
I want to know if any additional cost was incurred as a result of the difficulties which I have described, and if so, how was such cost borne.
Any additional cost over and above the original contracts was borne by the Gorton Pew company and the province. These additional costs were occasioned by the aforementioned changes in the wall construction and the power plant and due to increased costs because of war conditions.
The next question was:
Did the Department of Fisheries at Ottawa have a fully qualified representative or inspector examine the plans of the architect before construction of the plant began?
Yes, the engineers of the department examined the plans and the same were approved by the Minister of Fisheries on the recommendation of the acting deputy minister.
The next question was:
During the construction of the plant, did the federal government have a fully qualified representative or inspector examine and report from time to time on the quality and efficiency of the work being undertaken?
There were two fully qualified inspectors present throughout the period of construction at this plant. One was in the employ of the provincial government; the other in) the employ of the Gorton Pew company, and it was deemed unnecessary for the Department of Fisheries to send an additional inspector. The department, however, inspected the accounts concerned with this project and fully satisfied itself that the amounts estimated

Supply-Fisheries-Administration
had been spent by the company and the provincial government before paying its share, as well as satisfying itself by consultation with the inspectors that the plant was nearing completion and was capable of being operated.
The next question was:
Did the minister understand when he made this contribution that it was to be a free gift to a group of Americans who would not invest their own money in the plant, or was it just an indirect form of hand-out to the Caraquet fishermen?
The Minister of Fisheries, when he authorized this contribution, understood that it was to be used as part of a subsidy granted by the province of New Brunswick to help establish a fish plant in Caraquet which was greatly needed to help the fishermen of that district. The next question was:
I hope that the fishermen are paid decent prices for their fish. That is an important consideration. What control is there over this American-owned company to see that the fishermen of the Caraquet coast are paid a living wage for their catch?
The fishermen are paid the prevailing price which is, this year, $1 per hundred, gutted, heads on, for cod. This is about double the price received by the fishermen before this plant opened. The plant has been operating for about a month, and it has bought about 1,500,000 pounds and is buying all fish offered of any kind.
Proper control is exercised over the company by the government of New Brunswick.
Since the plant has been completed, the company has established a filleting plant without any additional subsidy. It has established a cod-liver oil plant which enables the fishermen to dispose of the cod livers which previously were practically wasted. The weekly payroll is from $1,500 to $2,000.
There is another matter to which I want briefly to refer. The leader of the opposition, as reported at page 1877 of Hansard, near the bottom of the second column, asked this question:
Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury):	Why do you
need a publicity .agent as well as a director of publicity? I know the director of publicity; he was an old school friend of mine. The job was created for him; there never was any such position before he came here, and he won his spurs by writing political editorials. He did not know any more about fish than I did, perhaps not as much. Why do you need both ithese men? I do not think there is any necessity for them, and I think the position should be abolished.
In justice to the director of publicity, who has been in office since 1929, I must say that the position was not created for him, but was created by the civil service commission in 1929 on requisition of the department, pursuant to a recommendation of the Maclean commission
which investigated fisheries in the maritime provinces in the years 1927-28. The present incumbent of the office received the appointment, not because the position was made for him, but as a result of competition, and was selected by the civil service commission from among several applicants.


Alan Webster Neill: May I ask his name?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: H. F. S. Paisley. Mr. Paisley, it is true, was a schoolmate of the leader of the opposition. He had been an editorial writer both in the east and in the west; for some years previously he had been a member of the press gallery; and from information on file and what I have been able to gather, he was appointed after a competitive examination by the civil service commission and has held the position ever since.
Now as to the publicity agent, may I refer the committee again to Hansard, page 1878, where I am reported as having stated:
Shortly after 1930 another similar job was created, that of assistant director of publicity.
I do not know what the purpose was, but the salary was the same.
These are the facts: This position also was created by the civil service commission, who also established the salary. The previous appointee was transferred from another position in the service by the then government in 1931, I believe, and he held the position until he took his pension two years ago. After he had retired and before his successor was appointed, it was pointed out to the civil service commission that the position of assistant director of publicity commanded the same salary as that of the director, namely $3,780. It was suggested that the classification should be changed and that the salary of the successor should be reduced. The civil service commission agreed to this, and instead of appointing an assistant director of publicity, appointed a publicity agent at a salary of $2,440 instead of $4,620.


Alan Webster Neill: Was the first publicity agent appointed by the civil service commission?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes. I am placing these facts on record simply in order to be fair to the officers who now hold these positions, because they have been quite a long period in the service, and I do not know that up to this time any criticism has been leveled against them. It is only fair that the correct situation should be presented to the committee.


Mr. REID:: There are one or two questions I should like to ask the minister. My first one is, is it a fact that his department is not paying a bounty on hair seals in British Columbia, and, if so, why has it been eliminated?

Supply-Fisheries-Administration


Joseph Enoil Michaud: That is correct. This year we are not providing a bounty on hair seals, and it is on account of economy.


Thomas Reid: It may be economy so far as the department and the country as a whole are concerned, but I can tell the minister that the menace of hair seals, particularly in the gulf of Georgia, is a very serious matter indeed, and this year they are going to breed more, because none of them are going to be destroyed. I have been receiving letters for the past three or four weeks informing me that hardly a net can be thrown in the water of the gulf of Georgia but is attacked by these hair seals. If economy is to be practised in the minister's department, certainly it should not be at the expense of this particular activity.
May I point out that in the matter of licences British Columbia provides the department with over half the revenue of the fishery provinces; for I notice in the year book that, of the total revenue of 552,281 received last year for licences, British Columbia paid $26,815. I am merely drawing the minister's attention to that fact, but I am protesting strongly against curtailment of the bounty, and I ask him even yet to reconsider it, because the menace is serious.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I find that last year parliament voted $30,000 to pay bounties on hair seals. Out of that amount $15,000 was allocated to British Columbia. From that province claims amounting to $8,865 were presented to the department. There were 3,546 claims paid in the province.


Thomas Reid: Is the policy of the department to be to allow these hair seals to propagate and multiply and become a greater menace to the fishermen of the province? Is that to be the continuing policy?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I cannot state that it will be a continuing policy. All I can say at the present time is that the future with regard to hair seals or other seals is uncertain. The matter of the amounts which the department will be allowed to expend on such matters is also uncertain and indeterminate. However, if we find that in the public interest it is necessary^ to cope with this as being a menace to the industry, we shall try to find some money, possibly from other appropriations. If the condition is such as to menace the future of the fishing industry on the coast, we certainly, as an emergency measure, would find the money necessary to cope with the situation as it may arise.
Mr. REID. Fine. Just one other question. Has the minister received any representations 
from the packers of British Columbia asking that consideration be given to the placing of an embargo against the exportation of sockeye salmon to the state of Washington?
The minister will remember that many members from British Columbia took up the fight on behalf of the fishermen when the packers offered them one of the lowest prices on record for sockeye salmon. The packers made the statement that they had lost their market in Great Britain; that there was no market remaining, and that they were not ready to pay any greater price than was represented by a reduction of 18 to 30 per cent below the 1939 price. It has developed now that the United States is paying 75 to 80 cents to the Canadian fishermen on the Fraser river for this fish, and the packers are viewing with alarm the exports of fresh sockeye salmon. I trust that the minister, if representations have been made to the effect that I have mentioned, will give the matter serious consideration before he imposes that embargo and deprives the fisherman of the opportunity he now has to sell his fish in the higher market. It took a great deal of energy, especially on the part of the member for Comox-Alberni, who for many years fought to have the embargo lifted. Prior to that time the officials of the department had been advising the Minister of Fisheries that the fishing industry could not exist if fishermen were allowed to export this fish. Now they are doing it, and because of the increase in price of gear, fish nets and fishery supplies, it is imperative that the fishermen receive as much as possible for their fish. It is surprising to learn that the packers are now asking the department to put an embargo to keep the fishermen from getting 75 to 80 cents for their fish when all they are offered on the Canadian side is from 50 to 55 cents.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: So far no request has been made by the salmon canners of the Pacific coast for an embargo on whole fish or fresh fish shipped to the United States. However, it has been pointed out to the department by these same people that the Americans were coming into the Fraser river waters and competing with them in the purchase of fish from the fishermen, offering prices which the packers felt they could not pay-


Alan Webster Neill: Is this recently?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes-owing to the fact that the price of sockeye on the British market was limited by the food controller of Great Britain. That is an unfortunate situation which at the present time I do not think the department would be justified in dealing with.

Supply-Fisheries-Administration
I do not think it would be justified in, attempting to interfere. I may tell my hon. friend that so far as this department is concerned, it is our intention to maintain the same attitude of independence towards the packers as we did to the fishermen.


Angus MacInnis: Are there any fishermen idle because of the dispute that developed between the canners and the fishermen at the beginning of the season? Has the trouble been cleared up now to the extent that all the fishing gear in British Columbia is employed?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I am informed that no fishermen are idle at the present time. At the beginning of the season, I understand, some fishermen using the purse seine method of fishing did not go out but remained idle for a week pending final arrangement with the packers, and after a week or ten days of negotiation they finally came to an understanding and went fishing.


Howard Charles Green: Two or three weeks ago the minister made a statement as a result of advice he received from an economic committee appointed by the government. The last paragraph of the statement reads:
It is the plain duty of the canners to make public a clear-cut statement showing whether or not the fishermen are being asked to carry only their fair share of the reduction in the return from sockeye operations consequent upon the reduction in sockeye prices made by the British Ministry of Food.
Has anything been done by the department to follow that up, or was it just a pious hope?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Nothing has been done by the department to compel the canners to do it, for the very good reason that the department has no jurisdiction over canners and no method of compelling them in that regard. That statement was by way of friendly advice to the canners, who are licensed by the province. For some years, since the last decision of the privy council, the federal government has had no jurisdiction and has not attempted to exercise any.


Howard Charles Green: Is this the position, that the government have washed their hands of the whole problem? The situation is that Great Britain has set a price for this fish, which means that the producers in British Columbia will take a loss. Surely the dominion has some concern over a situation that has come about in that way.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The canners have not made any representations either to the department or to the government suggesting that they wanted us to interfere in their business.
On the contrary, they intimated to us from the very beginning that they wanted no interference from the department.


Howard Charles Green: When I said producers, 1 meant canners and fishermen. The men engaged in the fishing industry in British Columbia will take a substantial loss because Great Britain set a price lower than the ordinary. Surely the government can do something about that.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I am not prepared to admit that they will take a substantial loss. The only class of fish in the price of which there has been a reduction on the other side is canned sockeye, which represents about 20 per cent of the export of the British Columbia take to Great Britain. On the other hand, if the price is going to be somewhat lower than in the past, so far as sockeye is concerned, the quantity exported will be much larger this year, because the British government has undertaken to accept a much larger quantity than heretofore in order to make up the difference in price.


Angus MacInnis: In the memorandum which the minister sent to some of the British Columbia members, and which has been referred to'already, the last paragraph reads:
It is the plain duty of the canners to make public a clear-cut statement showing whether or not the fishermen are being asked to carry only their fair share of the reduction. . . .
If it is the duty of the canners to make a clear statement, what authority is there to see that the canners carry out that duty? The minister said that as a matter of fact they told the department that they wanted no interference. But the fishermen who have been carrying a heavy share of the burden of reduction did want the government to interfere. This is what I want to know: If there is a duty on the canners to make a clear statement in regard to this matter, what government authority, either provincial or federal, is going to see that that plain duty is carried out?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: As my hon. friend knows, the federal government has no power to enforce sanctions either upon the fishermen or upon the canners, but in my humble opinion the provincial authorities have full power to get the packers to disclose fact? which, as I see it, should be disclosed, because the licence is issued by the province from year to year to enable the packers to carry on these operations. The provincial authorities could very well impose, as a condition to the licence, that the canners comply with certain obligations, among others one requir ing a disclosure of their true position.

Supply-Fisheries-Administration


Mr. HAZEN:: In view of the unavoidable absence of the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, I should like to direct the attention of the minister to an injustice, a great injustice that I believe is being done to certain residents of New Brunswick in the counties of York and Carleton by an order in council of May 9 last embodied in section 9 of the special fishing regulations of New Brunswick.
This regulation prohibits the catching of salmon with ordinary stationary gill nets in that portion of the Saint John river which extends from tidal water to Grand Falls. This part of the river was settled originally by United Empire Loyalists, men and women who had come out of great tribulation from the American colonies after the war of the revolution. These men had fought for their king and country and had been obliged to leave comfortable homes and an established form of living to build log houses and hew out for themselves a new living in a new land.
The officers and men of such regiments as the famous Delaney's Brigade, the Queen's Rangers, the New Jersey Volunteers, the King's American Regiment, the King's American Dragoons, the Pennsylvania Loyalists and the King's Orange Rangers, some of whom had fought with Rogers' Rangers in earlier Indian wars, were granted lands on the banks of the Saint John river in what are now the counties of York and Carleton.
It is their descendants and their assignees who suffer injustice by this order in council.
The grants that these men received from their king read in part as follows:
Nova Scotia.
George III by the grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, king, defender of the faith ...
To all to whom these presents may come
Greeting
Know that we of our special grace, certain knowledge and mere motion have given and granted, and by these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, do give and grant unto ... in severalty and in severalty unto their and every of their several and respective heirs and assigns a tract of land.
Here follows a description of the lands. And not only did they grant the lands but also-
... all woods, underwoods, timber and timber trees, lakes, ponds, fishings, fishing waters, watercourses, profits, commodities, appurtenances and hereditaments whatsoever thereunto belonging or anywise appertaining, . . .
And so on. Then they make certain reservations of gold, silver, and other metals and also pine timber.

By reason of that grant those men, their heirs and assigns, obtained, I submit, a vested interest in the fishing waters adjoining their land, and the government by this order in council have taken away their rights, and done so without any compensation. They might just as well have stepped in and taken the trees off their land by an order in council as to step in and deprive them of their right of fishing.
I know the government have the right to make regulations respecting fishing, but I submit they have absolutely no right to take away the right of fishing when that right was granted by the crown under the grant I have just read.
Even if they had the right to take it away by order in council, which I submit they have not, they should not take it away without compensating the owners. If they see fit to compensate the owners of that right, I do not think there would be much objection in most instances to their taking the right. But to step in and autocratically take this right away is something that no government should do or permit. The owners of these rights are being treated like non-Aryans living under a nazi regime.
These men derive some income, and a very much needed income, from the fish they obtain from this source, and it is not right, it is not fair, it is not just that the government should take away this right without any compensation.
The agitation to have these men deprived of this vested right was commenced, I believe, by certain anglers, men of wealth who possess fishing pools on a certain tributary of the Saint John river. That agitation, I regret to say, was supported within the last year or so by the New Brunswick Fish and Game Protective Association. I was the president of the Saint John branch of that association for some years; afterwards for two years I was president of the New Brunswick Fish and Game Protective Association, and whenever this matter came up at any meeting at which I was present I always opposed the claim of these anglers to have that netting stopped on the ground that it was an interference with the rights of private property. However, the agitation went on and as a result this order in council was passed.
I have here a letter, dated May 3, 1940, ipart of which I should like to read. It is written from Upper Woodstock, N.B., and signed by Bert L. Shaw, who no doubt is a descendant of one of those men who fought

Supply-Fisheries-Administration
for king and country in the American revolution and were afterwards given these grants on the bank of the Saint John river. He says:
To say that I, in common with hundreds of others, was shocked at the glaring discrimination handed out to the people living on the 130 miles of so-called non-tidal portion of the Saint John river would be putting it very mildly.
Altogether apart from their vested rights, what strikes these people as extraordinary is that when you get below the non-tidal part of the river, which begins, I think, about ninety miles from the mouth of the river, in the tidal part of the river men can carry on their salmon netting; they get their right under the magna charts, but in the non-tidal part this order in council takes away their rights and prevents them from getting their living, in part at least, by setting out their nets and fishing as they and their fathers did for generations.
Mr. Shaw also writes:
I notice in the press report of the cancelling of our fishing permits that the reason for so doing was because the Fish and Game Protective Association, together with the Hon. Mr. Pirie, had asked to have it done. I might say in regard to that that neither Mr. Pirie nor the Fish and Game Association own these rights. But they were granted to those original settlers by their king in recompense for their services to the crown when they fought for and won this country of ours in the war of 1759.
He should have said 1776.


Alan Webster Neill: Will the hon. gentleman
explain how these rights, if they are rights, were taken away?


Douglas King Hazen: By a mere order in council.


Alan Webster Neill: If they were granted by the crown they could be taken away only by legislation.


Douglas King Hazen: I have not gone fully into the law, but it is my submission as I have already said, that the government had absolutely no right to take away those privileges by order in council. But even if they had the right, certainly these men should be compensated. The writer continues:
And with the land they were given the right to fish the waters also, and for the last 180 years they and their successors have had the free use of this right. At least four times since this province was settled its citizens have, and are to-day fighting in defence of our rights and privileges and our homes, and there are 5,000 good citizens living on this river between Fredericton and Grand Falls who do not hesitate to say that the taking away of their rights is an outrage. They hold their lands and privileges under the same grants as do those living from Fredericton to St. John, and they feel that the taking of a part of their granted
rights, without their knowledge or consent, and without compensation, is a dangerous precedent, for if one granted right can be seized, then none of their holdings are secure.
I submit that it is a dangerous precedent for this or any other government to step in and by order in council take away rights that have been granted to these people by the crown. I wish to bring this matter to the attention of the minister and I ask him to see that justice is done these men.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: In his usual fair way
the hon. member for St. John-Albert has brought before the committee a matter which is and has been for some years of some importance in one section of New Brunswick. I must tell him, however, that he is certainly misinformed or labouring under a misapprehension if he believes that any inherent rights were taken away from these people.
The non-tidal portion of the Saint John river, on which abut several grants of land now occupied by these people, is frequented by the salmon which ascend the river to the spawning grounds in the upper regions. For some years, and particularly since 1931, that portion of the Saint John river extending for 150 miles was the only non-tidal water on this continent in which the use of nets was permitted at certain times of the year. Representations were made from time to time that the use of nets in those waters, which in the summer time are very shallow and narrow, did not permit proper escapement of salmon to reach the spawning grounds, that gradually the fish were disappearing from those waters, and that the commercial fisheries were being greatly impaired.


Alan Webster Neill: What type of nets were used?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Gill nets set by poles
across the water.


Alan Webster Neill: Set nets?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes.


Douglas King Hazen: Not across the water.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I saw them across the water last summer.


Douglas King Hazen: They do not extend from shore to shore. They go out into the water, but there are regulations governing the distance.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I should have said they are set crossways in the water.


Douglas King Hazen: For how many feet?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: For thirty fathoms. As a result of the agitation carried on from year to year by those interested in the commercial fisheries in the tidal portion of the water and those interested in the sport fisheries in
2450	COMMONS
Supply-Fisheries-[DOT]Administration
the non-tidal portion; in view also of the figures brought to our attention, which showed a constant decline in the amount of fish caught in those waters, it was thought advisable to stop the netting, and this spring a regulation was passed under section 9 of the non-tidal waters regulations, as follows:
The use of nets in non-tidal waters except under a permit from the Minister of Fisheries is prohibited.
This section of the regulations pertains solely to the province of New Brunswick. This is the only curtailment that has been brought about in the rights of these people. We have not given any right to anybody, nor do we purport to give any right to anybody to fish in those waters, because of the legal decisions which prevent us from exercising any administrative control over non-tidal waters. Nor do I think it is fair to state that the department has deprived these people of any ancestral rights. We have not interfered at all with their right to fish, if they have such a right. That is a matter on which it is not my duty to pronounce. We are simply regulating the method by which they may exercise their right, in order to preserve and conserve these fish for the general public. Last year seventy-five people availed themselves of the opportunity of taking out licences. They were licensed previously as well, but they never claimed that their rights were being encroached upon when they were compelled to take out licences before they could set their nets and follow that method of fishing on the foreshore of their property. Last year these seventy-five people caught salmon to the market value of $1,464, an average of $28 per person.
Those who are interested in the conservation of the fisheries of New Brunswick represented to us that if those nets were removed, the fish would have a greater chance to escape and reach the upper regions of the river, so that after a few years of free passage their number would be increased and the commercial fisheries at the mouth of the Saint John river would be benefited accordingly.


Alan Webster Neill: I presume these were commercial fishermen?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes. We have information that the fish are in much larger numbers this year. Their ascent to the spawning grounds in the Tobique river, the Salmon river and the upper reaches of the Saint John has been followed, and we have reports from our officers and from property owners along those rivers that the fish are more abundant now than ever before. Some of the old residents of the district have written me to say that they have never seen so many salmon

in the upper reaches of the Saint John river in any year during the last thirty-five years.
I do not think the department dealt too harshly with these people when they were told that they would not be granted licences this year to operate their nets. We have given them to understand that as soon as the money is available we will purchase their nets by way of compensation. We think this is only fair because we are depriving them of the opportunity to use them, and at present they are a total loss. We have not infringed upon the ancestral rights of these people; we have simply told them that they cannot snare salmon any more than they can snare deer, moose or any other wild animal. They have no more right to stop salmon swimming along the foreshore than they have to stop the water itself. They could not set fire to trees which might happen to be upon the land granted to their forefathers if those trees were too close to a settlement. Many restrictions are imposed by federal, provincial or municipal authorities for the good of the community.


Douglas King Hazen: I do not want to get into
an argument with the minister over this matter, but there are one or two matters to which I should like to refer.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 113, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939.
He said: I have checked these amendments carefully, and have had the officials of the department check them, and they tell me that there is no change in the meaning of the bill as sent to the senate. These amendments represent changes in form and draftsmanship.
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What is involved in them?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have stated that there is really nothing involved in the amendments; they simply change the draftsmanship, renumber the sections and so on.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 7.00 p.m.

National Registration-Mayor oj Montreal
Monday, August 5, 1940