PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Before the orders of the day are called I desire to rise to a question of privilege, and as the matter referred to is in a French paper I shall have to read it in French. It appears in Le Jour of Montreal, Saturday March 7, page 8:
(Translation)
A correspondent writes us as follows:
Are We Playing the Enemy's Game?
La Sarre, Que.,
Feb. 23, 1942.
Dear Mr. Harvey,
After reading in last week's newspapers the subamendments moved in the House of Commons by Mr. Liguori Lacombe and Mr. Jean Francois Pouliot respectively, it is my opinion that the manifest hypocrisy underlying these amendments is a most disquieting thing for our Freneh-Canadian nation.
And this is the ending of the letter:
This propaganda is certainly of German inspiration and its only object is to create disunity in all allied countries by fostering either racial or religious strife. It seems to perpetuate itself under various forms and I think it is high time our fellow citizens should become aware of the grave danger it presents.
Ldonidas Boisvert
I have only one word to say in this connection and that is that Mr. Jean Charles Harvey's patron saint, Voltaire, had adopted for a motto: "Lie and keep on lying, it is bound to bear some fruit." I might also apply to Messrs. Boisvert and Harvey the following quotation also taken from Voltaire: "Is there enough hellebore for so strange a malady?"
I protest energetically against insinuations of this nature and the only thing left for me to do is to mail a seidlitz powder to Mr. Leonidas Boisvert and the remainder of the

box, to wit eleven powders, to Mr. Jean Charles Harvey who is eleven times sillier than Mr. Boisvert.
Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, one word on this question of privilege. Every newspaper with the exception of Le Jour refused to publish this bit of turpitude from the pen of Leonidas Boisvert of La Sarre. I vigorously protest aga-inst this accusation of disloyalty to my country, and I wish to say here and now that without giving undue publicity to Le Jour, this person shall be called upon to substantiate his charges before the courts.



PRODUCTION, COMMANDEERING AND FIXING OF PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:	.
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo
South) : Yesterday I asked a question of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) or the minister responsible. It was thought possible that an answer might be given to-day either by the Minister of Finance or by the Minister of Munitions and Supply. The question had reference to the wool situation. I wonder if there is anything further on it.
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: So far as I can determine, the action taken was taken by the wartime prices and trade board, certainly in respect of prices. I understand that my colleague has a statement on the matter, but as my hon. friend knows he is unavoidably absent at the moment. Perhaps the information can be given to-morrow.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacKinnon (Edmonton West) for the second reading of Bill No. 13, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Douglas (Weyburn).
Mr. HOMUTH:: Might I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker? I understood very definitely last night from the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud), when the house adjourned, that it had been arranged to have certain other matters brought up first to-day.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Bill No. 5 is in charge of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), who is at the moment

Wheat Board Act
on the Pacific coast, and by arrangement with all parties this morning it was decided to go on with this debate.


Mr. W. F. RICKARD (Durham):: It is not my intention to delay the house on this bill; I shall take but a very few minutes. In fact, I had not intended speaking at all on this wheat legislation. As an Ontario member I was willing to accept the government's proposal as drafted in these -bills and let it go at that. Having listened, however, to so much discussion during the last couple of weeks from members on all sides of the house, and more particularly to criticisms that have been made of this legislation by members of the opposition, and having taken part in previous debates on the subject, I feel that as an Ontario farmer I should say a few words.
Since coming to this house about seven years ago I have heard wheat, wheat, wheat for two or three weeks every session. We have talked so much about wheat that we are getting more confused than ever about it. It seems to me that hon. members from the west cannot themselves agree on what they want. The hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) said- the other day that there are two schools of thought in the west so far as wheat policy is concerned. If I am any judge there are more like twenty-two schools of thought. But the difference between the two schools is found in the question whether we should pay so much an acre or so much a bushel. I can understand that for the big farmer who is growing thousands of bushels, so much a bushel may be preferable, but for the man who produces very little, perhaps through crop failure or some such cause, the other proposal is better; and I intend to support the bonus as proposed by the government.
We hear a good deal about this delegation of four hundred farmers that came to Ottawa, the implication being that they have to come here in delegations in order to get any consideration from the government; that they have to come and demand certain things to get anything done. Some of our Cooperative Commonwealth Federation friends express it by saying that the squeaking wheel gets the grease, the crying baby the milk, and all that sort of thing. I do not believe that is the position at all. I believe the government to-day are doing the very best they can to legislate for the benefit not only of the wheat growers but of all the farmers of Canada. And believe me, it is a big job. The Montreal Financial Times had a good editorial on March 13 in which the comment was made that
"Ottawa boosts wheat price and east must grin and bear it." The editorial goes on to say that the west has been disappointed that the war has not solved the wheat problem. The bonus on coarse grains to encourage mixed farming is a situation full of paradoxes. The paradox is that we are asking the farmers to grow more wheat, and are taking more wheat from the farmers at a higher price, but we cannot sell it. So far as I am concerned I do not think this is anything to grin about, nor would I if I had my own way accept some of the things that have been suggested. But I have agreed to accept the increase in the price of wheat from 70 to 90 cents and the increase from 230 million to 280 millon bushels, for a commodity which at the present time we cannot sell.
The estimated surplus in Canada for this crop year will be 400 million bushels. The United States and the Argentine will have practically another billion bushels, so that there will be a surplus of available wheat of over one and a quarter billion bushels, enough to do us for two or three years if no more were grown. Someone will say of course that if the war should end soon we would have plenty of markets for our wheat. I agree; but it is not very likely that the war will end soon, and the chances are the government is going to have to pay out huge sums of money to carry this wheat until it is needed. I do not say it will not be needed; eventually I believe it will. But I believe the government has gone as far as it should in raising the price, especially in the face of the need for money for armaments, tanks, planes, guns, ships and implements of war. I think the west should be satisfied.
As an eastern farmer when I go home to my constituency or anywhere else in Ontario I hear the old story, "You can't satisfy the west, it makes no difference what you give them. Why don't the farmers of Ontario stand up and oppose this legislation for the west and do something for Ontario?" Well, we are willing to do what we can for the west. We have always taken that attitude. I think hon. members will agree that when I have spoken in this house, on almost every occasion I have upheld the policies submitted to help the west. I have not agreed with everything, but I think I have been at least reasonable. But our farmers say, "If you give the western farmers 90 cents for wheat, they want a dollar; if they are given a dollar, they want $1.25." That is the attitude the farmers of Ontario take to-day. All the farmers are bonused

 we quite agree with that-not only in the
Wheat Board Act

west but in the whole of Canada. The government is spending from the end of July, 1941, to August 1, 1942, over $84 million on bonuses to farmers, of which over $62 million goes to the west. We have bonused coarse grains at $2 an acre, grass at $2 am acre, summer-fallow at $2 an acre-all these things. It makes the Ontario resident, not only the farmer but all Ontario citizens, wonder what we are doing or where we are going with this legislation. A new price is set for wheat, and there is some justification for it; but people compare that with the deficit of the Canadian National Railways, $50 million a year in recent years, and it is suggested that this wheat policy may cost the government $130 million. I am not going to argue whether that is right or wrong. I do not think anyone knows what it is going to cost, but I believe it will cost an enormous sum, considerably over the $50 million deficit of the Canadian National Railways in recent years.
The other day the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) said he thought the Ontario fanners were willing to accept dollar wheat; that they would accept anything that was reasonable if the west proposed it. I say right here that we are not accepting dollar wheat, and we are not accepting whatever the west proposes. We have problems of our own in Ontario; the west is not the only place that has a farm problem. We have the tobacco growers, the bean growers and others whose problems have been discussed1 by other hon. members-


An hon. MEMBER:: ' The apple growers.


Wilbert Franklin (Frank) Rickard: Yes, they have had no assistance of any account in Ontario. It has cost the government of this country very little for Ontario. Most of it has gone to the west and the east.
I have every sympathy for the west. I have visited the west; I have been all through the burnt-out areas in southern Saskatchewan, and I know the condition the people were in when I was there. I have every sympathy for them, and I am willing, as I said before, to support any legislation within reason to help them. But as Ontario members we cannot hand out everything to the west. Someone has said that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is from the west and therefore is naturally sympathetic with the western farmer. But I believe that the Minister of Agriculture to-day is doing the very best he can for all the farmers and all the people of Canada, regardless of east or west. More than that, I believe that in this measure he is trying to legislate for the small farmer more than for the man who has 10,000 or 20,000 or 50,000 or 100,000

bushels of wheat. This legislation will help the small farmer, and we are willing to accept it.
Someone has said, what about coarse grains? Well, it has cost the government about $6,000,000 for freight to bring coarse grains down to Ontario. Ontario farmers were glad to get them, yet many hon. members speaking here were opposed to the coarse grain provision. As it happened, this year we were short of feed in Ontario, and many farmers were glad to get coarse grain to feed hogs and cattle and to produce milk, butter and eggs. But those are things that are in demand; those are things we can sell. That is not the case with wheat. The farmers have played a very important part in this war effort, and I know they will continue to do so. The farmers are willing to contribute everything they have toward winning the war. If perhaps they do not get parity prices, they are willing to go on anyway; and I believe the west should adopt the same attitude. We do hope, however, to hoar some expression of satisfaction from some section of the west. I predict that if this sort of thing goes on very much longer Ontario may become the depressed province, instead of Saskatchewan, because certainly the west is getting all the legislation for its benefit.
I am not going to take up any more time, Mr. Speaker. As I said at the outset, I had not intended to speak on this question; I had made up my mind to accept the proposals of the government. These bills are to be referred to a committee, where I think all bills concerning agricultural policy should be sent. There we will have ample opportunity to discuss every phase of these bills and, I hope, arrive at some decision that will be beneficial to the farmers of Canada as a whole. May I add that I intend to oppose the amendment and to vote for the main motion.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, since I am a member of the agriculture committee, to which these various bills are being referred, and since any changes to be made will in all probability be made during that stage of the proceedings, my remarks will be brief.
In passing I should like to make reference to some of the statements of the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Rickard). I have no intention of entering into any controversy as between east and west; I deplore it when hon. members feel it necessary to raise that issue in this house. I must say to the hon. member, however, that if this agricultural policy for western Canada is costing eastern Canada money, let eastern Canada remember that from 1932 down to the present

Wheat Board Act
time we in the west have been penalized to the extent of around $90,000,000 a year in order to uphold the tariff and fiscal policies of the east. This year we are getting back just a little of what we have given eastern Canada.
So far as the amendment is concerned, I should think all hon. members of this house who have at heart the welfare of agriculture should support it. I am sorry that the majority of western Liberal members apparently feel obliged to vote against it because, as most of them have stated, of political reasons. I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) for having the courage of his convictions. This is not the first time he has found it necessary to vote against government measures in this house, and I am sure the people of his constituency must appreciate the fact that they are represented by a member who has sufficient courage to vote against the government when he feels they are not promoting the general welfare of the country.
Western people will very much regret the fact that this government has not seen fit to adopt the recommendations of the various farm organizations of this country who have asked for parity prices. The lowest price that has been submitted by any of these organizations I think is SI per bushel. I remember that last year the Minister of Agriculture stated no farm organization had said what it considered to be a fair price. That is not the case this year. The lowest price mentioned was $1 per bushel, while some of the organizations asked for more. The price being paid the farmers of the United States is considerably higher than that, about $1.27, and the price that was paid the farmers of Australia back in 1940 also was considerably higher than the price we received then or will receive under this proposal. In 1940 the farmers of Australia received 3 shillings 6 pence a bushel at point of delivery. I know the Minister of Agriculture has said that this amounts to only 63 cents in Canadian funds, but the Australian farmers are not paid in Canadian funds. They are paid in Australian funds, and in Australia three and six is worth 84 cents. That will buy 84 cents' worth of Australian goods; it will pay 84 cents' worth of Australian taxes, and 84 cents' worth of Australian debt. The farmers of that country are not interested in whether or not that will buy only 63 cents' worth of Canadian goods. The price being paid in Australia to-day is three shillings per bushel, which is 73 cents in Australian funds; and again I use Australian rather than Canadian funds. It is true that 44561-87
in Canadian funds that is only 53 cents, but they are receiving not Canadian but Australian currency, in which it is equivalent to 73 cents a bushel.
It is up to the government to decide to what extent it is necessary to restrict the purchases of wheat. But in that regard we must keep in mind the fact that it is very necessary and essential to the welfare of the country that ample reserves of all kinds of foodstuffs shall be maintained wherever possible, so that when the enemy is driven out of the occupied countries those vast supplies may be made available to the people of those countries. That can be held out to them now to show what can be done. The last hon. member who spoke deplored the fact that we were building up these reserves. We should glory in the fact that we are able to do so, because that will be the greatest incentive to these occupied areas to hold out. While it is up to the government to decide to what extent purchases shall be restricted, I should say it is not up to the government to decide whether or not the farmers shall receive a parity price. I say that because it is a very direct obligation on this government to see that the farmers shall receive a parity price. Otherwise they will brand themselves as a bunch of hypocrites. All this talk about a new social order will become just so much blather. Of what use is it to subscribe to the declaration of principles known as the Atlantic charter unless we are prepared to put those same principles into operation within our own country? How can we hope to solve the problems of the world if we cannot even solve our own problems? Surely the first thing to do is to put our own house in order.
Several hon. members have referred to the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture at page 1211 of Hansard, as follows:
We are taking every last dollar out of the treasury of Canada to deal with these problems which we feel it is safe to take at this present time.
That does not mean, of course, that the amount of money being made available for agriculture is all the money the government can get. The government can get all the money it needs for anything. That is not the point, and 1 do not think that was what the minister meant. I believe the minister meant that this was all the money the government could safely put into circulation without the danger of inflation. In other words, if they paid the farmers more than 90 cents a bushel at this time it would create such an effective demand against our production that it would divert a certain amount of goods from the war effort into channels of consumption. The

Wheat Board Act

government should be in the best position to know whether that argument is sound. Nevertheless, even if that statement be correct, the farmers still are entitled to a parity price. You could either reduce the prices of all commodities down to the level of wheat, or on the other hand you could increase the price of wheat so that it would be in line with the prices of other commodities. If there is a danger that by increasing the price of wheat we might bring about inflation in this country, then I would suggest to the government that the most logical way to take care of that question, in order that the farmer shall receive a parity price, would be to make up the difference between 90 cents a bushel and the parity price by an issue to the farmer of war savings certificates maturing after the war, so that such war savings certificates could not be used for present day consumption. This would provide a sinking fund to take care of any increase in a farmer's debts.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: What would the parity price be?


Victor Quelch: I would say the parity price would be a price to the farmer commensurate with the price he pays for other commodities.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: What would it be?


Victor Quelch: According to the Searle index, I believe it would be $1.20 a bushel.


Mr. LEADER:: I understand it is $1.47.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: How do you figure it out?


Victor Quelch: It all depends upon what parity is based on. If parity is based on the 1913-14 level it will be different from the 1926 level. I d'o not believe the farmer would quarrel if we were to take the price of $1.20 a bushel, a price which has been stated by many organizations as a necessary one. The establishment of a parity price could easily be found out by reference to records in the bureau of statistics.
The minister has repeatedly stressed the point that a higher price for wheat does not help the man who does not raise wheat owing to a crop failure. Unfortunately the minister insists, I will not say deliberately-I do not know-upon confusing two entirely different problems, namely, the problem of a distressed industry and that of a distressed area. These are separate problems, and if the minister tries to deal with them as one he will bring greater confusion that we have had in the past.
The first of these, namely, a distressed industry-in this instance wheat growing-can be met only by paying the wheat growers a price based on the average cost of production. Some hon. members say, "What is the cost
[Mr. Quelch.l
of raising wheat when you get only two bushels to an acre?" Well, any hon. member may try to offer an absurd argument, but when he uses an argument of that kind I suggest he is making himself absurd, not the argument. In such circumstances the cost of production would be based upon the average yield. If any land consistently produced wheat at a very low yield, it would naturally have to be taken out of production. Such a price would be based upon the average. As I said to the hon. member who interrupted me a moment ago, the price to the farmer should be commensurate with the price he pays for other commodities.
It is not necessary for me to quote statistics to prove these facts. So many statistics have already been put on record that if one were to attempt to read them it would make him dizzy. What will be the result if we fail to pay the farmer a price based upon the cost of production? We know that in the past fifteen years or so farmers have certainly had to accept prices much below that, with the result that a very large percentage of agriculture is to-day in a state of bankruptcy. We have built up tremendous debts. If we are going to continue to pay the farmer a price which is still below the cost of production, not only will he not be able to pay the debts he incurred in the past, but he will still further increase his current debts.
A few months ago I listened to a broadcast by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in which he urged farmers to put their farms on a sound basis and to pay off the debts they had incurred in the past. The wheat growers of Canada will not be in a position to do that unless they receive a price at least equivalent to the cost of production. And, mind you, that will meet only current costs; even that price will not make it possible for them to pay their past debts.
The minister has suggested that the bonus increases the price of wheat by 30 cents a bushel. That sounds all right if you _ can make people believe it; but we know it is a nonsensical argument, because only one of the three bonuses can in any shape or form be regarded as an increase in the price of wheat. The Prairie Farm Assistance Act merely takes care of low yield. After the amendment now on the order paper is passed a farmer will be able to get a bonus only if he raises less than eight bushels to the acre. In Alberta the average yield is eighteen bushels per acre. So that the majority of farmers will not benefit under that bonus and therefore will not receive any increase in price.

Wheat Board Act
Next we have the wheat acreage reduction plan, which merely compensates the farmer for lost acreage. In the district in which I reside the land is of gumbo quality, and many of the farmers crop their land every year. Someone may say that that is wheat mining, that the land can only stand that for a limited number of years. Nevertheless that is the practice on that gumbo land, and they get good crops nearly every year. If they take a certain amount of land out of production to get the bonus, that bonus does not begin to compensate them for the loss in production of wheat, and it cannot possibly be considered as an increase in the price of all the wheat they raise.
The only bonus which in any shape or form may be considered as an increase in price for wheat, is the bonus of 75 cents, and that amounts to only a few cents a bushel. I insist therefore that the only way to take care of a distressed industry is by giving it a parity price. No bonus as paid to-day will take care of that situation.
I should like now to deal with distressed areas. The most logical way to deal with distressed areas would be by some form of crop insurance. It is true that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is a step in that direction. Hon. members in this group have consistently supported that measure, although we tried to amend it in certain respects. The fact remains however that the principle of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act has always had our support. It is a very long way, however, from being satisfactory, and will still be unsatisfactory even if the amendment now before the agriculture committee is adopted.
For example, the Prairie Farm Assistance Act does not guarantee to the farmer, who may pay into that fund for twenty years, that if he has a crop failure he will get a single cent of compensation. That condition arises because the settlement is not on the individual basis, but rather on a township basis. The minister objects to the individual basis on the ground that it would in effect be subsidizing inefficiency. I believe that could, easily be taken care of if we had a sound form of administration. Thoughout the west committee men should be elected by the farmers in each district to take care of the regulations under this measure. Unfortunately the men who are sent around as inspectors to-day apparently are appointed chiefly on the grounds of their political faith. I believe that is a fair statement; I know it is certainly true in my part of the country. About the only qualification a man has to have in order to be an inspector is to be a good Liberal, and to my mind that has been
one of the chief weaknesses of the policies of the Minister of Agriculture in the past. Everything has been regarded by him from a political angle. Every opportunity has been taken to build up a political organization instead of developing a policy which would be of great value to the nation. I am not surprised that the prairie farm assistance organization has bogged down in Alberta- and it certainly has bogged down. Every hon. member from that province is receiving numbers of letters from farmers who say that in their localities there are still many who have not received their payments. The result of having this type of inspector has been the building up of a great deal of antagonism between the farmers and the inspectors, where a healthy spirit of cooperation should exist.
I know the minister is not pleased when we make comparisons between what is being done in Canada and in other countries. He upbraided the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) when he referred to the policy of the AAA. I should like however to quote from an address made by Mr. Evans, the administrator, before the national AAA conference at Washington in 1941. I suggest to the minister that instead of objecting to statements of this kind he should seek to find in them anything that is good in the administrations of other countries and see if it could not be helpful in solving the problems of this country. By way of drawing a comparison between the administration in the United States and the administration in this country, I quote from page 2 of this report as follows:
Now, what are our assets? First, we have an administrative organization that deals directly and personally with more than six million farm families. It is an effective organization whose steadily increasing efficiency demonstrates on a grand scale that you can have democracy and efficiency too.
He puts that as the first asset under the AAA, this democratic organization.
Second, we have the goodwill and respect of the bulk of farmers and of a considerable portion of the leaders of the people. True, we have made some enemies but we have made more friends. Strong friends and strong enemies are a mark of strength. Third, with the assistance of AAA and cooperating agencies, farmers are the best informed large group in America on national and international affairs. Fourth, we have the first large-scale example of a working economic democracy in the world. By economic democracy, I mean the right and the means whereby the individual has an opportunity to share in decisions which affect his economic welfare.
I am not suggesting that we have this condition in the west as the result of the policy
Wheat Board Act

of the Minister of Agriculture; all we have is a large political organization. On page 6 of the pamphlet in which the speech of Mr. Evans, the administrator of the AAA, is printed under date of January 29, 1942, appears the following:
In every county and community, our programme is run by farmer committee men elected by their neighbours. From the ranks of these
130,000	committee men, our state committees are appointed by the secretary of agriculture. Many of the men in administrative, policy forming positions in our department of agriculture are farmers who have come up through the ranks of our farm programme in these past eight or nine years.
For the nation, this investment in farm democracy is already paying dividends. Our whole farm production is now being geared to meet the increased needs of war-food for freedom, we call it-for ourselves and our allies.
Since last spring we have been operating on a basis of selective production.
Last April the secretary of agriculture called for an immediate expansion in hogs, dairy products, poultry, eggs and certain vegetables to meet our rising needs at home and for shipment to Great Britain. Later other commodities, such as soybeans and peanuts for oil, were added. Certain provisions of our programme were modified to encourage these increases. 130,000 AAA farmer committee men went to work to secure the needed production.
Another weakness of the Prairie Farm Assistance Aot is the fact that the returns to the farmer are altogether too low. Suppose we were to pay the farmer $1 for his wheat and then institute a system of crop insurance; if it were upon a blanket basis the farmer would not object in the least to paying as much as 5 per cent instead of the 1 per cent he pays at present in order to have a real crop insurance scheme.- The Minister of Agriculture summarily dismisses the idea of crop insurance by saying that it would be ultra vires of the dominion. He knows that if the government of this country were really in favour of instituting a form of crop insurance they could overcome any constitutional difficulty. This is what happened in the case of unemployment insurance. They could cooperate with the provinces in order to get the necessary amendments put through.
I think it would be well to place on Hansard a brief summary of the crop insurance plan in operation to-day in the United States. This appeared in the Calgary Herald in February- I have forgotten ithe exact date. It reads as follows:
1.	Farmers may insure either 50 or 75 per cent of their average yield against unavoidable hazards (not against neglect).
2.	Insurance is written in terms of bushels. If a grower suffers loss he is entitled to receive from the reserve an indemnity which in terms of bushels is sufficient to bring his yield up to the insured amount.

3.	Average yield is determined separately for each farm on the basis of its actual or approved yield history during the nine year base period covering 1930-38.
4.	Premium rate is calculated separately for each farm.
5.	County AAA committees calculated insurable yields and premium rates for all wheat farms.
6.	Premium may he paid in warehouse receipts, cash or by executing an advance against future payments to be earned under AAA programmes.
7.	To obtain insurance the grower fills out an application containing the information as to his intended plantings and pays the amount of wheat specified for premiums.
Of course if such a programme were adopted in Canada wheat could be turned over to the farmer to indemnify him for his loss, and that wheat would be turned in under his quota as set by the wheat board. I do hope the government will carefully consider this matter of crop insurance. The antagonism that exists in eastern Canada would be largely overcome if we could introduce some form of contributory crop insurance. I am not suggesting for one minute that you could obtain from the farmers enough to finance the plan, but you would at least have a plan under which every farmer who suffers loss would get some form of compensation, without any increase in cost to the federal treasury.
In closing I should like to make a few remarks about our general agricultural policy. For a number of years we have urged in this house that a long-term programme should be adopted, based upon international cooperation instead of international competition. We know that international competition can lead to one thing and one thing only, that is, international Motion which leads to war. Furthermore, we must realize that it is useless for Canada to act alone. Last year Canada was able to bring about a substantial reduction in wheat production, but what happened? The other three major exporting nations increased their surpluses, so that in so far as the world surplus was concerned we were no beter off. This should be done on an international basis.
I remember the Minister of Agriculture telling the United Farmers of Alberta in January of last year that they should not increase their production of hogs, and yet within six months of that time we were told that we might have to ration our bacon and pork products.


Mr. GARDINER:: France fell in the
meantime.


Victor Quelch: There is always an excuse; the minister is always able to give an excuse for his policy.

Wheat Board Act


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not an excuse; it is a fact.


Victor Quelch: I suggest to the minister
that if it had not been for her financial policy, France would not have fallen. That might not not have happened if they had completed the Maginot line.


James Garfield Gardiner: I had nothing to do
with that.


Victor Quelch: It is right in line with the
policy maintained in this country, and the minister is a member of the government. If those in charge of the policies put into force from 1935 to 1939 had been the paid servants of Germany they could not have implemented a policy that would have been of greater benefit to that country.
To get back to my argument, a few years ago the farmers were urged to increase the weight of their turkeys, and about a year later they were actually penalized so much per pound for having their turkeys over weight. In the United States they have gone to even greater extremes. Perhaps the minister will like my criticizing the United States, since I have been praising them just now. He said that the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) should go out and praise this policy. I would say that our great mistake has been that instead of trying to increase the purchasing power of our people up to a point where it would create an effective demand for the production of the country, we have always tried to reduce our production to meet an inadequate buying power.
To summarize the whole policy of this government in respect to agriculture I am going to place on Hansard a little ode. I am not guilty of this sort of thing as a rule; in fact, I have never done it before, but I want to read it because it summarizes so well the policy both of this government and that of the United States. It is from the Saturday Evening Post, and is by Ogden Nash.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: And
dedicated to* the Minister of Agriculture.


Victor Quelch: Yes, dedicated to the
Minister of Agriculture. Here it is:
Higgledy piggledy, my black hen,
She lays eggs for gentlemen,
Gentlemen come every day
To count what my black hen doth lay,
If perchance she lays too many,
They fine my hen a pretty penny;
If perchance she fails to lay,
The gentlemen a bonus pay.
Mumbledy pumbledy, my red cow, She's co-operating now,
At first she didn't understand
That milk production must be planned;
She didn't understand at first,
She either had to plan or burst,
But now the government reports She's giving pints instead of quarts.
Fiddle-de-dee, my next-door neighbours, They are giggling at their labours. First they plant the tiny seed,
Then they water, then they weed,
Then they hoe and prune and lop, Then they raise a record crop,
Then they laugh their sides asunder, And plow the whole kaboodle under.
Abracadabra, thus we learn
The more you create, the less you earn,
The less you earn, the more you're given, The less you lead, the more you're driven The more destroyed, the more they feed, The more you pay, the more they need,
The more you earn, the less you keep,
And now I lay me down to sleep.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this debate on wheat is a hardy annual. Ever since I can remember, it has been one of the most important topics that has been before the house and dealt with bj' parliament. I must say that the legislation brought down in this bill, No. 13, is the most attenuated form of legislation dealing with wheat that I have ever seen. I shall have something to say about that a little later, when I come to refer to the orders in council which were passed about the time the minister moved the second reading of this bill.
It is a matter of some satisfaction to me to know that the policy of establishing a wheat board laid down and put into effect in 1935 by the government of which I was a member is, in its broad aspects, the basis of the policy under which the present government has been operating since this war began. And this notwithstanding the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite in 1935, when, afraid to make a frontal attack, they under the leadership and direction of the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), then the financial critic of the opposition, made every kind of flank attack it was possible to make. What followed is a matter of history. I referred in the speech which I made on the first day of August, 1940, on the second reading of the bill then before the house to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, to the disasters which followed the ineptitude of government policy, especially in relation to the handling of the 1938-39 wheat crop, when the treasury and the farmers of Canada suffered severe loss, and to the fire sale of good Canadian wheat held at the instance of the govern-
Wheat Board Act

ment, when we sustained a loss of millions of dollars which might and should have been avoided.
Time is a great healer, and in the position we occupy to-day it has brought about some vindication of the position taken in 1935. I desire only at this time to refer to the advice I then gave the government, that "not one kernel of this wheat should be destroyed. It may be needed by suffering humanity before this war is over."
In his speech on the second reading of this bill the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) emphasized the difficulties encountered over a period of ten years by the dominion government in dealing with this problem. This proves that the problem is not primarily a war problem but one of long Standing. He laid down the principle that it was possible to decide upon each year's programme only after weighing all factors capable of measurement or accurate appraisal. This means that the government believes it is not possible to lay down a wheat policy for the duration of the war. From that view I respectfully dissent.
It seems to me that if we are to know where we are going, if our wheat producers are to plan intelligently, instead of awaiting anxiously each year an announcement of government policy, the government should if possible lay down a policy visualizing the war period, with no very material changes as regards marketing abroad in sight. This in order that the wheat producers, the persons most affected materially, may be in a position to know what they can count on, what they can do, and then can plan accordingly-that is, if they are to continue producing wheat, even with production reduced. We now know all the factors except the volume of the new crop each year, and the duration of the war.
Just at this point and in this connection, there would appear to me to be one fundamental consideration. During the period of the war the purchase of 2S0 million bushels annually would appear to be an economic necessity if the farmers of the west are not to be compelled to go on relief. If in any year the surplus on hand at the end of the crop year falls below the amount of 400 million bushels, additional wheat could be bought to bring the surplus up to that figure. But any quantity over and above the amount of 280 million bushels should be produced only at the risk of the producer and without obligation on the part of the board to purchase.
Frankly I think the minister will find that the farmer is not satisfied with the price of 90 cents f.o.b. Fort William. It is a compro-

mise. The price structure thus established is not to be confused with grants under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, which are in an entirely different category and made on a different principle. The established price does not bear any relation to the grants under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act except in one respect, that is, the gross income of the prairie farmer.
Before entering upon a general discussion of the bill I should like to make some reference to the speech of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) on the tenth instant, arising out of the amendment to the bill proposed by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) and now before the house.
The minister, with his usual adroitness, attempted to show that in every line of major agricultural production except wheat there exists to-day parity of prices. That may be true in part, but if so, it is only of very recent occurrence and was not true either in whole or even in part a year ago. It was not true in April, 1941, when the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) moved his resolution for parity of prices on a motion of the Minister of Finance to go into supply. On that occasion every member of this house supporting the Liberal party voted against the principle of parity prices, a principle which the minister now seeks to convince the house is the policy of this government. But with respect to wheat, the minister had no case, and admitted it. In fact, he said there was no parity but that the price would be brought up to parity as soon as financial conditions warranted. Having regard to the way in which the government has wasted money on certain activities-one and a quarter million dollars for the plebiscite, and others I could mention-it occurs to me that the minister's plea for delay was entirely beside the mark.
The minister is a past master at special pleading. His defence against the amendment was in effect what we old common law lawyers call a plea of confession and avoidance. He admits the allegation in the declaration and then seeks to avoid the consequences by suggesting that we wait and see what will happen another session. It was clever, but to me it was not convincing. The minister made much of the assistance rendered to the western farmer under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and sought to convey the impression that the grants under that act were in effect an additional price for wheat to the producer. I do not so interpret the principle of that act. It is in my view in essence a relief measure. We have not opposed that principle, but we

Wheat Board Act
have endeavoured to show that the cost of administration is abnormally high, that the staff constitutes a huge political machine, and in its incidence it is inequitable.
I suggest to the minister that the true principle upon which it should operate is that individual necessity resulting from loss of crop, compensated for by the act, should be cared for on the basis of each individual need rather than by blanket legislation administered by a political machine. The result has been that considerable payments have been made to individuals who should be carrying themselves instead of drawing upon public funds needed for war purposes. I am informed that this legislation gives public money to some individual farmers who are in a position to carry on out of their own resources. The same applies in some instances to the provisions of last year's grants for summer-fallow, under which some large farm operators have been paid for following farming practices which good husbandry requires that they should do anyway and which they are well able to do.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) predicated his remarks on five major factors which he said had to be considered. He itemized these on March 9 on page 1120 of Hansard. Some of them are of major importance and some are not. He dealt with the carryover, the well-being of the economy of the prairie provinces as well as of Canada as a whole, the extent to which the dominion government could act in respect of the wheat problem, without detracting from our immediate objectives in respect of the war -this is always a cloak of government policy- and then export markets, and so on. There is a further major consideration to which the minister did not refer, and it is this: that in arriving at a decision to raise the initial price from 70 to 90 cents, regard had to be given to the policy of the government with respect to the maintenance of the price ceiling structure.
That you cannot have your cake and eat it too is a trite saying, but the principle is involved in this matter. I can imagine the controversy in the cabinet between those who wanted to maintain the price ceiling structure on, say, bread, and those who, for various reasons, both economic and political, advocated a higher price for wheat. In this connection may I refer to an article sent out by the Star syndicate early this month to certain newspapers across Canada., in which the following appears:
On the one hand Hon. J. G. Gardiner and the block of 15 Liberal Saskatchewan members have been exerting pressure on the government which savors of an ultimatum. It is known that the Saskatchewan members have discussed
crossing the floor of the Commons to the opposition benches and that word of this probability has been communicated to the cabinet.
On the other hand, determined to maintain the price ceiling, Donald Gordon, chairman of the wartime prices board, is standing firmly against any boost in price of wheat just now. There has been talk of Mr. Gardiner resigning unless something is done, and of Mr. Gordon relinquishing his post if the prairie demand is met.
I shall not comment further.
It should be distinctly understood that a policy of a parity price for wheat should be for the duration of the war only and for a reasonable time thereafter. When that time comes, the whole policy should be thoroughly reviewed and overhauled. This country, an agricultural country, cannot go on indefinitely with a bonus policy. It is uneconomic and unsound, and, in the minds of many thoughtful agriculturists, would be doing a distinct disservice to agriculture itself.
To-day there are many forms of agriculture which are receiving no assistance whatever. I instance the potato industry in my own province, which has not received any assistance and Which has passed through a very trying time in recent years.
The picture painted by the minister of our carryover is not too bright. As at February 1, according to information which I have from the Monthly Wheat Review, the visible supply available for export was 535 million bushels. What is the estimate of export from now till the end of the crop year? Twenty million bushels per month? This is very doubtful in view of the submarine menace. The Canadian carryover may reach 450 million bushels. Certainly it will not be less than 400 million bushels. The United States carryover is estimated at not less than 600 million bushels, and it may be more. The United States and Canada together will have at least 1,050 million bushels between them, and perhaps much more. The Argentine and Australia have a carryover of from 300 million to 400 million bushels, or a grand total of say 1,400 million bushels as a minimum.
I suggest to the house and to the country that that is not an attractive outlook for the immediate future having regard to the severe restrictions on export and lack of available markets. Notwithstanding all this I think it is the part of wisdom that Canada should continue to produce wheat in such quantities as will ensure a reservoir of food for domestic purposes, for use by the people of Britain and against the time which will surely come when it will be required for the starving peoples of Europe, provided of course-and I put in this proviso-that the surplus in this country should1 not exceed that now on hand.
Wheat Board Act

In this connection may I ask the Minister of Agriculture and his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce if they and the government have been exploring the possibility of contributing to a general international reservoir of food supplies? This question was raised recently by the Vice-President of the United States, Mr. Henry A. Wallace, himself an authority, and it is well he did so; for a general reservoir of foodstuffs is going to be required in this war-ridden world, and in such a reservoir there is no one commodity of more general or better use than wheat.
In considering this question of carryover it must be borne in mind that both the United States and Canada will, by August next, have new harvests on their hands; and that is an important factor. The western farmer is prepared to reduce his wheat acreage provided he is paid an economic price for his products. But with reduced production he must have an economic return for what he does produce.
I suggest further that it is sound economic policy that the western farmer should not produce more than can be marketed for export and domestic consumption. But if he is to be kept on the land he must be paid a price that will permit him to maintain himself, and 90 cents, with reduced production and with quota restrictions, would appear to me to be too low. And mark this: the farmer's costs have been going up and will go up all the time, price ceiling or no price ceiling, and the labour shortage at the next harvest will again increase his costs.
We in this house should also realize that the real wheat area in western Canada is not suitable for mixed farming-at least I have come to that conclusion after having seen it -and that there are large areas in the west which must depend on wheat and wheat alone.
I am prepared to accept that position; I think Canada should accept it. To me it appears almost wicked to reduce production of first class foodstuffs when it is known that so many millions are starving and will starve before this long war is over.
These are two points of view. But we must be realistic. We know that our production cannot be delivered to these starving millions. We must also be realistic, knowing that the war has not been the cause of these carryovers. We had them long before the war; they are attributable in part to pre-war economic policies of continental Europe and in part to the ineptitude of this government in handling the problem in the years immediately preceding the war. Even if peace had prevailed we should have had an enormous surplus of wheat in Canada. The war did not cause the wheat problem of 1938 or 1939; we had it then because of the policy of this tMr. R. B. Hanson,]
country at that time, or rather the lack of any realistic policy. Therefore I think we should decide to carry the surplus now in sight, but should not permit it to increase beyond its present or anticipated level; and we should have some control of production and a higher price for what is needed for home use and export.
When the wheat board was set up in 1935 the initial price was fixed by the Bennett government at 87i cents a bushel f.o.b. Fort William. We are only now approaching that price; and that was at a time when the cost of production was much less than it is to-day. The 1942 crop may be below normal, and we may be able to afford to take some chances on a decrease rather than have an increase above our present load of carryover. The Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) referred to that possibility yesterday, judging from moisture conditions in the west last fall. That may be. We may be able to gamble something on that. But this country should decide to produce only sufficient for domestic use plus a reasonable amount for export, which the minister and the government have placed at 280 million bushels, if I understand it correctly. In any event this year's crop should not exceed 300 million bushels; that would appear to be ample and more than ample.
Here I pause to ask the minister, in connection with the export trade, whether he is aware that the United Kingdom are taking steps to increase production on their own soil this year, and whether he is aware, as of course he must be, that the government of the United Kingdom is taking steps to decrease the consumption of wheat flour? These are matters which cannot be ignored.
I pass now to another subject. We should, not visualize a policy of production of wheat in order that it may be fed to hogs, because barley and oats are a cheaper crop and a more satisfactory feed. In passing I should like to raise another question which I believe is giving some concern in certain quarters.
I ask the ministers, what has been done by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce about conserving seed barley and seed oats? It has been reported to me that a dominion government representative visited the prairie provinces at least three months ago to inquire into the position of seed barley and oats; it is understood that these seeds are scarce, and nothing appears to have been done about it. Perhaps the ministers will enlighten us on that point.
I offer this suggestion. The acreage of these feed grains should be increased to

Wheat Board Act
offset the reduction in wheat acreage. The policy enunciated by the Minister of Agriculture would appear to encompass that policy. The only solution from the standpoint of the western farmer therefore seems to be to reduce the wheat acreage materially and increase the acreage of oats and barley. This involves the payment to the wheat farmer of a sufficiently high price to give him a fair return, and it is represented to me that at least $1 at the country elevators would not be any more than ample.
Encourage increased acreage of barley and oats, and build up farm stocks of these feeds in order to increase, within reasonable limits, hog and dairy production. These, as well as wheat, are the foods that the millions suffering and dying from malnutrition will want as soon as possible after the sea lanes are opened. People in starving Europe cannot live on starch alone. They have to have other foods as well.
The weakness of the present policy is that it is not based on any long term plan. It is a piecemeal policy. That seeems to have been the position ever since the war began. If you visualize the 1940 policy, the 1941 policy and now this 1942 policy you will see it is and has been merely a piecemeal policy, not based on any general principle but designed to meet only a temporary situation and to yield, grudgingly though it may be, to the demands of the western wheat farmer. My understanding is that the government's firm policy was to fix the price at 70 cents plus a bonus, and that, as I understand it, would have been in conformity with the price ceiling policy.
The wheat farmer, I am told, does not like the bonus. He looks upon it as a handout or charity, and as he is a self-respecting man no one can blame him. He wants, and rightly so, something like a parity price for his product. He wants to be treated as nearly as may be on the same principle as labour and industry are being treated by the government during this war. But, I ask you, is he? I think the answer is obvious. There is ample evidence in the proceedings of this parliament alone that the government's policy was a low initial price plus a bonus.
How can the government pay the farmer $1 or even 90 cents for wheat and maintain the price ceiling? I put that question to the minister. The answer would appear to be that it cannot be done without either raising the price of bread or handing out a bonus to someone on the way down, either the miller or the baker. Apparently the government, being on the horns of a
44561-S8
dilemma, has chosen the latter course. When the Prime Minister announced the price ceiling policy last autumn with such a flourish of trumpets it was stated definitely that it would be maintained at all costs. The price ceiling was announced at a time when the price level was uneven, especially so with respect to wheat and certain other farm products.
I know it was so with respect to the farm products of New Brunswick, potatoes and hay. A ceiling was put on hay based on the price between a certain date in September and a certain date in October, just after the new crop had come in, when every year so far as I can remember hay is at its lowest peak. Was that fair to the hay farmers of the Saint John valley? No attempt was made to arrive at a fair and uniform price structure before the plan was put into effect. This left so many inequalities that every month since the Prime Minister made his announcement there have been alterations in the ceiling, generally upward.
What does this mean? It means that the whole scheme has been a system of trial and error, not based on any principle. It was announced as a means of preventing inflation. Well and good; but its effect has been to freeze wages, with the cost of living bonus a sop to labour. The people who had to suffer most were the primary producers, and in particular the producers of foodstuffs, of whom the chief was the wheat farmer. He has been the chief sufferer.
I raise this question at this point: Was any consideration given to the price of wheat when the ceiling price policy was put into effect last autumn; and if not, why not?


James Garfield Gardiner: The Prime Minister said so, in his statement.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, then, what consideration was given to it? They did not fix a fair even price. In the struggle to prevent inflation, in the attempt to freeze wages, why was not consideration given in setting up this national price plan to fixing a parity price for wheat, or something approaching a parity price? It could have been done much more easily then than now. Had it been done at that time I am convinced that the western farmer would have had $1 wheat, and there would have been no great storm over it in eastern Canada, either. It would have been relatively easy to do it then, and the consequent adjustments could have been made without any great disturbance. But the mechanics of the situation have been reversed, in an effort to get what the western farmer thinks is only justice,
REVIftEB EDITION
Wheat Board Act

having regard to the position of the wage-earners and industrialists of Canada. That was one reason why the Saskatchewan farmers came to Ottawa early this session and presented their case. I have never understood, Mr. Speaker, the criticism that has been directed from some quarters against those gentlemen coming down to Ottawa on that pilgrimage. As I view it, their whole future is at stake, and surely it is their right to carry their grievances to the foot of the throne, like any other subject.
It must be borne in mind that while the price of 90 cents for wheat announced by the minister represents a floor, it is in effect a ceiling too. The farmers of western Canada should not be led to expect very much spread between this floor and a ceiling; in my view there is no spread at all. You cannot operate a national price structure such as we are attempting to operate in Canada, and leave certain important commodities, such as wheat, to run wild. If there is much likelihood of an upward trend in the open market, what will happen? The grain exchange will have to be closed, as it was in the last war. This statement, of course, is predicated upon the assumption that a rigid price structure is to prevail.
Now, presumptuous as it may seem, I have a word to say to all the farmers of Canada, and it is this: that in this war period they should1 avail themselves of the opportunity to inform themselves fully with respect to a national price plan and what its effect is and will be upon them. I assert that they are now pinned under such a plan. The basis and objective of that plan at the moment is to help beat Hitler. But if we are to have a planned economy after the war; if we are to have a national plan fixing prices, such as our friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation are urging should be put into effect after the war, is it not likely that among the problems, all much less urgent than the war, the most pressing and urgent would be those of employment in large centres and problems arising out of the pressure of organized labour, concentrated industries and other like situations; and would not the farmers of Canada generally find themselves out on a limb, as the wheat farmers of the west find themselves to-day? There is some food for thought in these questions for those who are considering a planned economy after this war, and I offer them on the theory and in the hope that they will provoke thought and discussion in this house and elsewhere.
If we are to maintain the economic unity of Canada we must not only be sympathetic to the position of the western wheat farmer;

we must be practical and realistic, and help him. He has made a wonderful contribution to the upbuilding of Canada in the good days of other years; I have always recognized that since I have known anything about the situation. And he will, I feel sure, if given the opportunity, continue to build up and strengthen the economy of this nation. I believe he has the will to do, and I have spoken with many farmers; but in these trying times he must be assisted. The question is one of ways and means. Eastern Canada, industrial Canada, has much to gain by supporting him, and conversely much to lose if he fails. I believe eastern Canada will take the long view and will support him.
In this connection it is very interesting to observe the reaction of eastern Canada to the increased initial price announced by the government. I am going to give only one citation, though I could give many. There are people in this house, some of my hon. friends to the left, and I have heard it from hon. gentlemen opposite as well, who in speaking of the Montreal Gazette commonly credit that journal with being the mouthpiece of the so-called big interests of Canada. In a leading editorial in its issue of March 11, under the caption "More Help for the West" the Gazette had this to say, and I am going to ask hon. gentlemen to listen:
The new measures adopted by the government for the benefit of western agriculture must not be judged from any narrow point of view. If production in the prairie provinces-better balanced due to this and earlier legislation- means a greater national war contribution, that fact alone will go far in justifying steps which under normal conditions might be open to serious criticism. There can be no doubt now that agriculture, not in the Canadian west only but in every part of North America, has an important part to play in feeding allied nations overseas which are no longer in a position to meet their own requirements. This was stressed Monday night by President Roosevelt, VicePresident Wallace and Secretary of Agriculture Claude Wickard, speaking on the anniversary of the national farm programme. Mr. Wickard said then that from accumulated stocks under this programme the United States had been able to send as much as 1,200,000 long tons of food under lend-lease in the period between last spring and February 1, this year, foods without which "it is unlikely that Britain could have withstood the battering which she has received at the hands of the enemy."
And a little further on:
It was axiomatic in peace time that good times in the west meant good times everywhere in Canada. The eastern industrial areas benefited directly from any enlarged western purchasing power and the benefit reached into all business and professional fields.
That does not look like antagonism. It is an evidence of enlightened opinion in the east,

Wheat Board Act
137a
and I commend it to those who are always harping on the alleged attitude of eastern Canada toward western agricultural problems, and who for some ulterior motive endeavour to set east against west and west against east. Let us have an end of that.
It has been emphasized all through western Canada, as well as in the east, that when the Saskatchewan delegation came east there was no compromise which would be acceptable and that what they urged was the minimum with which they would be satisfied and could carry on. It is now quite plain that what is offered is a compromise between two conflicting views. The government was confronted on the one hand with these demands for increased price, and on the other with the necessity of maintaining its own policy of price ceilings, and after much travail and change of policy this compromise emerged. Like most compromises, it is not likely to please anyone-or, at least, very few. It is better than a fixed low price plus a bonus, but it falls short of what is required.
Unquestionably the government had decided on a policy of a fixed price of 70 cents, or thereabouts, plus a bonus. This was indicated by the resolution as first placed on the order paper. But this met with such opposition that it was changed, after what must have been an ultimatum to the government. The change of policy resulted in a compromise.
The principle of maintaining the price ceiling is almost sacred to the Prime Minister and his government. To try to find a formula which would give the wheat growers more money and at the same time not violate that sacred principle has no doubt been difficult, and the result is exactly what was expected by intelligent onlookers. We have a compromise which will not please anybody.
I should like to emphasize the idea that whatever loss is incurred in connection with the raising of the initial price of wheat should be considered a contribution of the Canadian people. The additional difference between 70-cent wheat and a parity price for wheat is a loss which heretofore has been imposed on the wheat producer. That should not be.
If we are to concede the principle of a parity price for wheat, as may be inferred from the speech of the Minister of Agriculture-when the time comes-then it should be contributed by all the people of Canada and not by the producers themselves, or by any limited class of our population, unless, of course, it can be demonstrated-and this is an overriding proviso-that the spread between the cost of the ingredient and labour on the one hand and the price of bread on the other is so great that it may be absorbed 44561-88i
in that quarter. The committee on agriculture, to which the bill is to be referred, should examine those costs and let the people know just what the spread is; and if there is a disparity, it should recommend measures to correct the position.
We shall support the amendment because it is in conformity with the principles we espoused a year ago and which the government rejected. We support it on the theory of war necessity.
This bill and its companion bills 12 and 14 had their first reading on the 6th of March and following days.
On March 5 the governor in council, while parliament was in session and while the bills were in the resolution stage, passed P.C. 1636, under the authority of the War Measures Act, prohibiting the removal of flax from any elevator or mill in Canada without the authority of the wheat board. This was an emergency measure. I do not criticize it, because I deem it a proper use of the power vested in the executive. It had to be done promptly. But listen to this: On the 9th of March, the very day the minister moved the second reading of Bill No. 13, there were passed on his recommendation four orders in council, P.C. 1800, 1801, 1802 and 1803. These orders were laid on the table only yesterday. They give the widest possible powers to the wheat board, over and above those contained in the Canadian Wheat Board Act itself-powers never contemplated by the act; powers which in most instances should be the subject of legislation, if required, and which should have been incorporated in the bill at present before the house. These measures are not merely administrative. I have read them carefully; they are in part legislative enactments. I protest against this procedure. Once more parliament and this House of Commons is treated with contempt.
How different was the position in 1935 when the legislation was set up. The present Minister of National Defence, then the mouthpiece for the grain exchange and the other big interests from Winnipeg-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh yes, we saw them here; I know what went on- being unwilling to strike at the principle of the measure, or being fearful of the results of opposition to the principle, demanded that the bill go to a select committee, and then insisted that certain substantive portions of the measure should be inserted in the measure itself. That was quite proper and was quite properly agreed to, and that was done. What
Wheat Board Act

is the position to-day? Here we have a bill of two short sections effecting a change of two words in the act-that is all; read it for yourself-while by order in council the minister is enacting additional measures and giving to the board vastly increased powers behind the back of parliament while in actual session. That is not straining the position; it is the truth. What a travesty on parliamentary government! There can be no excuse for this; it is a flouting of parliament.
I shall not enter into a detailed discussion of these orders in council; it would take too long. But I ask hon. members to read them. They are numbers 1800, 1801, 1802 and 1803 passed on March 9, and laid on the table only yesterday. Anyone may see them. I ask the members of the standing committee on agriculture to examine them with care. I know it will be said that the powers are limited to a year, and a year only from the first day of August next. Well, whoever thought that we could not limit the operative period of legislation in a bill introduced in parliament? The answer that they are temporary measures is a stupid answer; it is not an answer at all. It does not alter the principle for which I am contending. We can enact for a year, if we wish; and there was no need of haste, because they do not come into effect until August 1 next.
The powers of the wheat board are now to be almost unlimited; and what do we know of the operations of this board? We do know they are a government agency operating a huge business, but the light of day is not let in on their operations. We do know they are piling up a huge liability for this country without any control or say by the people's representatives.
If the house will bear with me I propose for a few moments to analyse in detail some of the operations of the board. The Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, was in the most explicit terms restricted to the buying of wheat from producers only; to pay producers in cash, and to hold the producer's warehouse receipt until an outright sale of the wheat was made. That was fairly simple and very logical. The whole intention of the act was to get the wheat into consumption channels, to the exporters and millers, and it was to do so through established open market trading facilities. It was to sell to real merchandisers, and the wheat was to be sold outright. When a sale was made it was not to be made to a warehouseman. If the board were to hold the producer's wheat beyond fifteen days, the board would pay storage until such time as a sale was made, but once the sale was made the board was to be clear of all further commitments and all storage and other like charges
'Hr. R. B. Hanson.]
were to be received from the merchant who had bought and owned the grain. I refer hon. members in particular to subsection (b) of section 7 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
Let me give the house and the country an example of a buying and selling transaction by the board, as I think all of us understood the function of the board at the time the act was passed. I am told that to operate a country elevator costs about $1,200 a year. This includes operating costs, repairs, upkeep, et cetera. In normal times elevators at country points do not earn storage, and terminal elevators east of lake Superior had, in the past, hardly counted on storage in any substantial way. The terminal elevator earnings were predicated on the handling of grain in large volume. In point of fact, to obtain volume they frequently waived storage charges or fixed them at small rates of one-eighth to one-fourth of a cent per bushel. The country elevator man who receives the grain direct from the farmer, having quite limited possibilities of turnover, is paid a substantial handling charge, I believe of 2! cents per bushel.
As the act was intended to operate, the board's transaction would take this form. It would appoint a local elevator to receive the farmer's wheat on its behalf, pay the farmer the fixed price and hold the warehouse receipt as the agent of the board. If a sale were not made within fifteen days, the board would then become responsible for storage until such time as a sale was made. Once a sale was made, however, the board had nothing further to do with that particular quantity of wheat. The merchant or the miller who bought it was to be responsible for all subsequent charges and had to provide his own price insurance as well. I am sure that the term "price insurance" is well understood by the western members. This merchant provided his price insurance by making a sale of the wheat deliverable at the next futures closing date and at a price sufficiently increased to cover his commission and expenses to that advanced date.
At this point I should like to emphasize that it was just such transactions as these which demonstrated the usefulness of the grain exchange. If anyone wants to elaborate on that, let him read the Stamp report. Skill and resourcefulness on the part of the man on the trading floor was what these merchandisers had to count on in order to make a profit; instead of being in the red, at the time when the grain exchange was on its own, so to speak, and before it became a mere shadow of the Canadian wheat board, as I shall describe it later to be. I am one who believes that the Winnipeg grain exchange served a useful function in normal times, and I still believe that it can

Wheat Board Act
serve a useful function if it is left in a position to operate in such a way that resourcefulness and alertness count, where the living of the man on the floor depends upon his skill rather than upon his relationship to the board or to the government that directs the board's policy.
Let me give you now an example of how this board operated under the chairmanship of Mr. Murray, and how it still operates. I ask hon. gentlemen to be good enough to follow me through this intricate transaction. In the first transaction, that is, the buying of the producer's wheat, there is no substantial difference, but it is in the taking of the next step that the act has been violated and the board permitted to operate illegally. I have no doubt about the justification for that statement.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Illegal?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am sure that what the board is now doing is illegal. It is against the whole spirit of the act and I believe that if it were submitted to the courts of justice it would be found to be against the letter of the act. When the board now makes a sale of the producer's wheat, instead of making it to a merchandiser who will be responsible for the wheat which he buys, the board buys back the wheat for delivery to the board at the next futures closing date. In reality it is not a sale at all. I would not even call it a wash sale. Generally it is made to an elevator company and since the spreads between one futures closing date and another are fixed and well understood, it is a mere matter of bookkeeping so far as these operations are concerned. There is no change in the position of the wheat, no risk is involved, no money passes and no skill is required for the transaction.


An hon. MEMBER:: Commissions.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am coming to the question of commissions quite soon. Let me emphasize this feature of the present board's modus operandi. Let us assume that the farmer has sold a quantity of wheat to the board's agent, the country elevator, in September, 1939. On the same day as the board sold that wheat, it bought it back from the supposed merchandiser- bought it back for delivery to the board in December, the next futures closing date. At this point three commissions have been paid, the first to the elevator man by the farmer, a second when the board makes the sale and a third when it buys it back. We are all aware that there are four dates for closing outstanding contracts on the Winnipeg grain exchange. These are April, July, October and December and during every year the board carries these future contracts it pays eight
commissions. Get that, please. If it carries the contracts for three years it pays twenty-four commissions. Believe that, if you will. It is this load of interest, insurance, storage charges and commissions that is driving the price of wheat down to unconscionable low levels in Canada, and these commissions are paid for transactions which are mere bookkeeping transactions between the board and the elevator companies.
I know that an opinion has been filed to the effect that such a procedure is permissible under the section of the act that enjoins the board to use the facilities of the trade. If you want to see the justification, just read subsections (i) and (j) of section 8 of . the act. That does not bear out the theory under which they are operating, it simply lays down the principle that they are to use the facilities of the trade. It is nothing more than that and it does not enable them to do what they are doing. I say with the greatest possible, respect that I disagree with the gentleman who gave that opinion. I say, further, that the action of the board in buying back these contracts is a violation of the letter and the spirit of the act on the part of the board and on the part of the government that acquiesces in such a practice.
I have in front of me the report of the Canadian wheat board for the crop year 1939-40. Exhibit "D" to the report covers grain operations on the 1938 crop account from August 1, 193S, to July 31, 1940, a period of two years. I quote the following item:
Delivered through the clearing association against long futures contracts held by the board, at prevailing market prices.
4,842,000	bushels, then valued at $2,359,135.48 -wheat, I take it, that was delivered to the board, not by producers but by others from whom the board bought for future delivery. Clearly this does not represent a purchase from producers and is thus an illegal transaction, contrary to the terms of the act.
I believe, further, that this practice is the root of all the evil that has recently crept into the board's operations. Most of the statistics I shall use are taken from the 1939-40 report and are in respect of the 1938 crop account. Corresponding statistics for the 1939 and 1940 crop accounts can be found in the report for 1940-41, but I shall not use them because I do not wish to give toe many statistics.
Furthermore, at page 32 of the report first referred to I see in exhibit "C" a statement of grain operations, western division, for the crop year ended July 31, 1940, as follows:
Futures contracts-exchanged against cash wheat sales.
Wheat Board Act


Mr. CRERAR:: What year was tnat?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am dealing with exhibit "D" to the 1939-40 report. If the minister will read my remarks afterwards he will follow me easily.' This is intricate and I do not want to be interrupted more than is necessary. I will give that again.
Profit on sales of futures contracts acquired in exchange against cash wheat sales.
in the amount of 277,576,000 bushels. Now I put this question to the government, to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to the Minister of Agriculture, and to his colleague who sits in front of him (Mr. Crerar): Does that mean that the board bought back for future delivery this amount, 277,576,000 bushels of the 297J million cash wheat that it sold, and that the 15 million dollars represents margins arbitrarily fixed by the board between cash and futures prices? If that is what it means, it is an arbitrary $15,000,000 set up. That makes a deficit of $39,814,161.45. Then there follows this remarkable paragraph of details:
Add:	Carrying costs, . interest, administrative and general
expenses, etc.
Carrying charges:
Carrying charges on wheat stored in country elevators..	$6,386,756 14
Storage on wheat stored in terminal elevators	 2,271,506 85
Then note this gem:
Transfer of futures to deferred months	 7,035,707 50	$15,693,970 49
The items so far given make a total of $15,693,970.49. Remember, there was a deficit above referred to of $39,814,161.45. I continue with this table of details:
Interest and bank charges	
Additional freight on wheat shipped to Fort William/Port
Arthur from points tributary to Vancouver	 $1,530,323 55
Less: Freight recovered on shipments to Churchill		59,824 64
Handling, stop-off and diversion charges on wheat at
interior terminals	
Drying, reconditioning charges and losses in transit....
Adjustment of grades with agents	
Brokerage and clearing association charges	
Administrative and general expenses

[Mr. R. B. Hanson.1

Wheat Board Act
These items add up to the tidy sum of $21,246,926.79, and that added to the $39,814,161.45 brings the deficit up to $61,061,OSS.24.
There was another item of expense, I think, in connection with advertising overseas, totalling $221,241.31, which brought the total deficit to $61,282,329.55.
The plain fact is that the board was doing this bookkeeping and it was doing nothing else. There was no trading. The board bought the wheat at a fixed price, it exchanged its cash wheat for futures contracts and then continued to exchange its futures contracts at every closing date falling four times a year, and since every such switch of contracts represents a sale and a purchase it calls for two commissions, or eight commissions a year. By this practice the board maintains the elevator companies in such unexampled luxury that their incentive is to hold, not to sell the wheat. What incentive is there for these elevator companies to sell this wheat? In point of fact no one has an interest in selling, and Canadian wheat as a selling proposition is left waiting for Bungay, Drefus & Company to buy. Why should they not wait? What provident farmer would want to sell his chickens if the revenue covered overhead and made a substantial profit as well?
I have in my hand a report of the earnings of some of these elevator companies in the years 1939-40, and 1940-41, taken from the Financial Times of February 14, 1941. I am not going over all these figures or all the companies. I have selected four, including the one that the Minister of Mines and Resources is connected with, or at least is a shareholder in, the United Grain Growers. Listen to these figures-they will bear out what I said about who is making a profit out of wheat.
Take the case of the Federal Grain Company, Limited. In 1940-41 its financial report showed gross earnings of $S25,953, and the year before $355,893. The net earnings for 1940-41 were $123,281, and for 1939-40 there was a deficit of $4,628.
Toronto Elevators Limited. Their gross earnings in 1940-41 amounted to $522,111 and in 1939-40, $310,702. Their net earnings in 1940A1 were $242,131 and in 1939-40, $138,912.
Take our friend the United Grain Growers. In 1940-41 their gross earnings amounted to $1,249,161-they were no slouchers-and in 1939-40 they amounted to $646,602-they had nearly doubled. Their net earnings in 1940-41 amounted to $374,241 as against only $5,662 the year before.
Let us take next the Western Grain Company, Limited. Their gross earnings in 1940-41 amounted to $625,463 and in 1939-40, $38,625.
In 1940-41 their net earnings amounted to $149,123 as against a deficit of $243,336 the year before.
That tells a story.


An hon. MEMBER:: A hold-up.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have not called it a hold-up. It was done, so far as I know, in a perfectly legal manner by agreement. The storage charge is fixed at one-forty-fifth of a cent a bushel per day, by this government, or by the board through the acquiesence of this government.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is as low as it has ever been under any government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is less than it used to be, but the argument is that it ought to be much less.


James Garfield Gardiner: Your government had it the same once.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I daresay we did; I do not remember. But I will say that these are the only people who are making any money, and I am sure the minister will agree. The farmer is not making money, the wheat board is not making money, and certainly the Canadian people are not making money out of it. We are paying for it.
I suggest that it is the demoralizing effect of these practices which is particularly bad-the concealed method of paying storage charges in instalments under such headings as "switching of futures" and "switching of hedges." The rates and amounts should be definitely shown as storage charges instead of being concealed by a perpetual marking down of prices. If the purpose of the act were followed, the board, once it made a sale of wheat, would have nothing further to do with it. That is what it ought to be doing, that and nothing else. But the present board, under the guise of using the existing facilities of open market trading, has succeeded in nullifying its operations as well as rendering useless a great open market organization. It has made the large elevator companies subjects of public relief on a colossal scale. It appears to me that Mr. Murray, the Chairman of the board-


James Garfield Gardiner: He is not the chairman of the board.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Listen to me. I know he is not chairman. Why does the minister interrupt me? Why does he not listen until the sentence is finished?


James Garfield Gardiner: Why don't you get the facts straight?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am still straight. My back is as straight as yours and
Wheat Board Act

so is my head. It appears to me that Mr. Murray, the chairman of the board, succeeding Mr. McFarland, deliberately set out to kill the board by making it operate in this way, but the long-range effect is not proving to be what he expected. He did succeed in suspending its operations for a couple of years, but his successors under Mr. Mclvor are now succeeding in transforming it into a great octopus that has almost completely swallowed up the open market facilities of the Winnipeg grain exchange, without providing any actual marketing agency in its place.
I take exhibit "B" of the report-


James Garfield Gardiner: May I say one thing? I do not think my hon. friend wants to misrepresent the position of Mr. Murray. His name was the only one used at the beginning and at the end of all these recitals of transactions, but the transactions were not carried out under Mr. Murray at all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I made that clear.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was not made clear.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He was in at the inception after the change of government.


James Garfield Gardiner: He had nothing to do with these transactions.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He went out, but he was in on the fire sale. However, he was just the agent of the government. They made the policy. I see by exhibit "B" of this report that the total deficit on the operations for the 1938 crop account was $61,282,329,55. This was the year that the board operated under an 80-cent price and this was the year that the loss was occasioned by statements made simultaneously by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the then Minister of Trade and Commerce, Mr. Euler, at the time of the announcement of the 80-cent price. I do not ask hon. members to take my word for it. I shall read what I believe will be accepted as an authoritative commentary-the Economic Journal published in London by the Royal Economic Society and read by economists everywhere. In the June 1939 supplement, Memorandum 79, at page 14 under the caption "The World Wheat Situation", there appears the following: The disparity between exportable surpluses and importers' requirements which became apparent at the beginning of this season was bound to cause severe pressure on prices. But other causes have been at work to produce the precipitate decline which has taken place. Early in August, 1938, the Canadian government fixed a minimum price to farmers of 80 cents 
per bushel, and undertook to pay a subsidy to producers in the western provinces equal to the difference between the minimum price and the market price. At the same time, Mr. Mackenzie King declared that, "Notwithstanding the internal price of 80 cents per bushel, the Canadian wheat board will continue its work of encouraging the use of Canadian wheat, which will at all times be competitive on the world's markets."
He was declaring government policy.
Winnipeg prices were then running at about 85 cents for spot wheat and about 75 cents for October futures. With the announcement of the government's policy the market broke, and futures in spot wheat began to tumble down. By the first week of September Winnipeg spot and futures prices were below 60 cents, the drop in spot thus being greater than in futures. Now the general level of commodity prices declined only very moderately during this period. There was special -weakness in wheat, and among the various wheats special weakness in Canadian wheat, American prices fell by less than half the proportion shown by Canadian. Indeed Canadian No. 1 northern, which is normally at a premium owing to its superior quality, actually fell to a discount under some of the other leading wheats. Winnipeg prices fell below Chicago prices for the first time since in 1937 the United States became once more a net exporter of wheat.
The rapid decline in Canadian prices had clearly been precipitated by the government's announcement. The Canadian government had announced its intention to sell wheat at a loss and without limit. With an exportable surplus of perhaps 250 million bushels in its hands, nearly one-half of world import requirements was to be put on the market under weak selling conditions. Further, the plan was such that producers would be induced to rush delivery and so put a large part of this wheat on the market in the very early months of the season. It was therefore a natural reaction for holders of stocks elsewhere to reduce them and for purchasers to reduce forward commitments to a minimum.
The Canadian plan was not slow to cause reactions in other countries. The United States government quickly decided that it was necessary to ensure the export of 100 million bushels per annum, even, if necessary, by dumping. That this decision was solely a reaction to the Canadian plan is shown by the fact that in 1937-38 the United States had succeeded in exporting more than 100 million bushels and w-as at the time exporting at a considerably greater rate. Before the end of August the premiers' conference in Australia recommended commonwealth and state action to fix an internal price at 4/8 per bushel; and in Argentina the president was empowered to fix such domestic and export prices for the new crop as he considered to be in the interests of the country. Meanwhile some of the minor exporters of the world, notably Roumania, raised their export bounties; while the principal European importers, with the exception of the United Kingdom, imposed further taxes on wheat, or raised its price directly, or, in some cases prohibited imports without special licence. The Canadian government had thus rapidly induced government action on behalf of producers in both exporting and importing countries, and the combined effect of the actions

Wheat Board Act
of all the governments involved was to reduce prices by more than a quarter within the first few weeks of the season.
The decline in prices has hardly induced a comparable change in quantities moving into consumption. It is true that during the first two months shipments were about 20 per cent greater than those of the corresponding period in the previous year, to some extent owing to war fears, though they were still about 15 per cent less than the 1933-37 average. But in the six months October to March shipments were only about 15 per cent greater than in the previous year and 5 per cent less than the 1933-37 average; and this in spite of the fact that there has been some stocking of wheat by European governments, probably on a considerable scale, in order to meet a war situation.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Who is the author of the ' article?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I will send it over to the minister and he can read it. I do not know the author. I have read from Memorandum No. 79, London and Cambridge Economic Service's Report on Current Economic Conditions, June, 1939, published by the Royal Economic Society.
The Prime Minister, as hon. members who were here in a previous decade will recall, once made a notable speech that went down in history as the five-cent speech. The statement he made on the occasion of fixing the 80-cent wheat price proved to be no five-cent speech. It was probably the most expensive statement made by any statesman of the British empire in recent years. Hon. members may ask what is going to happen to the price if the board does not buy back these futures contracts. It has always been realized that the treasury of Canada could not be put behind unlimited production of wheat, and when the last Conservative government got behind Mr. McFarland's stabilization operations they always realized that acreage reduction had to be faced. This government has faced it indirectly by enforcing quotas. I suggest that the first thing for the government to do is to call upon the present board to operate according to the terms of the act, and as the act intended, and to buy no more of these futures contracts. If this farce is continued, it will practically put this country out of the wheat exporting business and impose upon the taxpayers a load that they will be in no mood to carry.
I want now to deal with another matter, which is a by-product of this illegal method of operation. In exhibit "D" to which I referred in the 1939-40 report there is an item called "brokerage and clearing association charges", amounting to $389,236.78. In exhibit "E" of the 1940-41 report covering the 1939 crop to July 31, 1941, the corresponding amount is $546,013.54. I should like to know
what these items mean. I have reason to believe that the Canadian wheat board, with the knowledge and consent of the government, is dispensing very large amounts of compensation to those who, partly because of the war, and partly because of the wheat board's operations, are deprived of opportunities to earn brokerage charges in normal open market trading, and that large annual amounts are paid to individuals who do nothing, or next to nothing, to earn them. I am not satisfied to let this bill go through without there being an opportunity of examining the officials of the wheat board. As a matter of fact I should like to see an independent audit made of their books, but in any event there should be an opportunity to examine the members and officials of the board and to put to them some such questions as these:
1.	How many bushels of wheat has the board purchased directly from producers from July 31, 1938, to date?
2.	How much wheat so purchased was actually sold by the board?
3.	How much of the wheat sold by the board did the board contract to buy back for future delivery from the grain trade?
4.	What amount of such futures contracts is it now carrying?
If you get that figure you will, I think, be astonished. I have no means of ascertaining exactly what it is, but I shall be astonished if it is not a very large sum.
I want the government and the wheat board to give the committee on agriculture and colonization the complete break-down of storage, insurance, interest, brokerage and commissions, and I wish to know on what principle the board operates in paying out brokerage and clearing association charges.
I apologize for taking so much time, but the subject matter is important. As members of parliament we cannot face national problems from any sectional point of view. The marketing of our surplus wheat by availing ourselves of every opportunity to find markets at a price that is remunerative to the farmer is a national problem. I think we must admit that the government's record as a marketer of wheat leaves much to be desired.
The time has come when we should attempt to find a fresh viewpoint. We should examine fearlessly the defects of the present methods, and if a new course-even if a drastic change- is suggested to us by our experience, we should take that course firmly and fearlessly, having regard to the interests of Canada as a whole.


Mr. J. G. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to follow my hon. friend the leader of the opposition in his discussion with
Wheat Board Act

regard to the wheat board. I am satisfied that when all the facts for which he asks are obtained he will find that the board has carried on the wheat business of Canada in a proper and economical manner.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is the hon. member announcing that we shall get the facts? Is he speaking for the wheat board and the government?


John Gordon Ross: I have nothing to do with the wheat board, but I believe my hon. friend can get any information that is necessary.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So we should.


John Gordon Ross: In my hon. friend's remarks with regard to wheat and the policy of the government he mentioned certain orders in council. Of course I have not been able to see those orders in council as yet; but if they had not been passed at that time, I think my hon. friend would have been the first man in this house to rise in his place and condemn the government for not having passed them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They do not go into effect until August 1.


John Gordon Ross: They must have had to do with speculation in wheat; they must have had to do with the floor prices which were set at that time on barley, oats and flax. Those must have been the orders in council, though I have not seen them; and of course they were put through in order that these grains could be handled properly, without speculation by anybody in Canada. Such speculation must be stopped immediately when the government announces a new policy.
Then the hon. gentleman referred to the ceiling on wheat. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made the very first announcement in regard to price ceilings in Canada he excepted wheat from those ceilings. From a reading of that speech, which I believe was made on October 18 last, though I am not certain of the date, it will be seen that the Prime Minister stated that wheat was in a different position from that of other commodities, and that the great amount of wheat which was held in Canada should be looked upon as a national asset. The leader of the opposition also mentioned a speech made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) some time ago, which he said indicated that the minister was not in favour of parity at that time. I think if the speech delivered by the Minister of Agriculture is read, it will be seen that he stated he was

endeavouring to get parity for all farm products. Then my hon. friend went on to state that apparently there had been trouble between the Minister of Agriculture and the government and between the chairman of the price board and the government, and that as a result one or other of these gentlemen was going to quit. Well, he does not seem to have very good information on that point, because they are both still in their jobs and carrying on very efficiently.
Then my hon. friend went on to predict what would be the carryover in wheat. I always feel sorry for anyone who tries to do that. It has been attempted many times by many people, but I have yet to see anyone in the world, or certainly in Canada, who could accurately judge the carryover of wheat throughout the world twelve months ahead of time. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) endeavoured to do that last year, but when he rose to speak this year he admitted that he had been wrong in his estimate. That was bound to happen, because no one can ever make a proper estimate of carryovers for years ahead. The leader of the opposition went on to state that the world carryover to-day was about fourteen or fifteen hundred' million bushels over and above world requirements. I can remember that in 1935 this was the exact amount of wheat the world was supposed to have as a carryover, beyond its requirements for the coming year. Yet less than a year from that time all the wheat was gone. Wheat rose until it reached the price of $1.31 a bushel, in spite of the fact that just one year before there was supposed to be in the world a carryover of 1,400,000,000 bushels of wheat more than was required.
The hon. gentleman also stated that we were in trouble in regard to wheat for some years before the war, and that there were large carryovers. Apparently the hon. gentleman did not check his figures very well. There was a tremendous carryover when this government came into office in 1935, but that carryover disappeared within the next year. By August 1, 1938, there was less wheat carried over in Canada than there had been for many years. On August 1, 1938, our carryover amounted to only some 23,000,000 bushels.


Mr. PERLEY:: With a large profit made on the previous carryover.


John Gordon Ross: Yes, after what hon. gentlemen opposite called a fire sale. In 1938 we had a big crop, but by the time that crop was harvested war was expected throughout the world. The carryover in

Wheat Board Act
Canada to-day is due entirely to the war, and nothing else. Most of that carryover was piled up in 1939 and 1940. Then my hon. friend mentioned that this government should be negotiating with Washington over this matter; he said that someone had made some statement in regard to reserves of wheat during and after the war, and that this government should be taking some action in this regard. Perhaps my hon. friend has not been following the wheat business very carefully. Negotiations have been going on for quite a long time between 'Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia and the Argentine in regard to that very question. The matter has been receiving serious consideration by this government for some time past, and it will be given proper consideration.
The other day the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) made the statement thait when I was speaking I turned a somersault in my ideas with regard to wheat. I did not interrupt the hon. gentleman while he was speaking, but he endeavoured to leave the impression that I had stated in- this house that 70 cents was a proper price for wheat.
I have never made that statement; but my hon. friend has. Speaking on April 25, 1934, and referring to a speech which had been made by Mr. Vallance, at that time a member of this house, my hon. friend said as reported at page 2544 of Hansard:
Which would be the better position-to be able to sell for a reasonable price, say 60 to 70 cents per bushel . . .
My statement was that I thought a proper price for wheat, in comparison with other commodities in this country, -would be SI .20 a bushel; and when we speak of parity prices I believe that if our bureau of statistics were asked to set a parity price for wheat compared to other products, it would be found that it would be right around that figure of SI.20.
A few moments ago, in speaking of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, the leader of the opposition made the statement that the men employed for checking under that act formed a large political organization, and cost this country a great deal of money. Well, if they were a political organization they must have been a good one, because in the three years of operation of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act all work in connection with it was carried out, and a sum amounting to $33,000,000 was paid to farmers throughout western Canada. The total cost of administration of the act was $1,500,000. That is a pretty low percentage for the work done.
I have seen these men in action. I have seen the way the work has been carried on
in the offices of the prairie farm assistance branch, and I wish to tell the house that those men have worked, and worked hard- night and day-through that busy season. They have worked to midnight and after, time after time, and have done a remarkably good job. Their task was a difficult one, and the figures show that they did it at a most economical cost to the government.
Speaking in the house the other day the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) was interrupted on more than one occasion by hon. members in the righthand corner of the house. They were intimating to him that he could not get more done for farmers in western Canada because he had to stay within the party, had to have party loyalty and- was more or less under the government whip. These are the insinuations made not only here but in the country. I tell my hon. friends that the reason why many things have been done for the farmers of the west in the last five or six years is that on this side of the house are members from western Canada who get the sympathetic ear of hon. members from all parts of Canada. We are able to explain to those members what our problems are and they, like the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Rickard) who spoke this afternoon, and other hon. members from Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces, have listened to what we have to say and have agreed to go further to help the people in western Canada than they would have done had it not been for the efforts of members of the Liberal party from the west.
Let me say this to my hon. friends. No number of amendments they may move, no number of speeches criticizing the government and government policy, are going to help western Canada a great deal, if the sympathetic ear of hon. members from other parts of Canada is not gained by Liberal members from the west in the house.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is
not saying much for them, then.


John Gordon Ross: My hon. friends were not so much in favour of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, when it was introduced to this house. Go back to the speeches you made at that time; go back to the criticism you made then. Go back to the 80-cent wheat you wanted, and then the 70 cents under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.


Mr. COLDWELL:: We wanted both.


John Gordon Ross: Oh, you wanted both?
Wheat Board Act


Leslie Gordon Bell: Yes, why not?


Ernest Edward Perley: You all voted for it.


John Gordon Ross: Hon. members
on this side of the house backed the bill, all the way through-


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: For 60-cent
wheat.


John Gordon Ross: -and had that act put through, one which has proved to be the best that has ever been put through the House of Commons for the benefit of the wheat growers of western Canada. My hon. friends won't deny that?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is not
what the farmers were promised in 1940.


Ernest Edward Perley: The member for Qu'Appelle supported it; I help you sometimes.


John Gordon Ross: Since 1940 the farmers have learned that so far as they are concerned this is the best piece of legislation that has ever 'been put through the house. I interrupted the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he was speaking the other day about the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and the price of wheat in his own constituency. I pointed out to him that the farmers in his constituency had probably got more money in the last year from the Prairie Farm Assistance Act than they had got from the sale of their wheat. I believe if the records for that constituency were checked up, it would be found that not only was I right, but that I was right by a long way.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is a guess.


John Gordon Ross: No, it is not.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Well, give us the figures.


John Gordon Ross: I have not checked them over.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Give us the figures.


John Gordon Ross: I have not the figures here. Nevertheless, you can get them if you wish, and take your own time to figure it out.


An hon. MEMBER:: So it is a guess?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have the information here. It is right.


John Gordon Ross: I thought I was right; I do not usually make statements in the house that are not right. The changes in policy this year, as brought down by the government, have been accepted by hon. mem-
bers in the government and followers of the government in the house, and for that reason they will finally pass the house as they are. No number of speeches made by hon. members can change that position. They did not^ even know what was going to happen until it came down in the house.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Then what is the use of going through the farce of referring this bill to the committee, if -not a line or a word is going to be altered?


John Gordon Ross: If my hon. friends can get the committee on agriculture to change its policy, and can get hon. members on this side of the house to agree to the change- hon. members not from one part of the country but from all parts of Canada-then of course it will be changed.


Leslie Gordon Bell: That is good.


John Gordon Ross: But they know
they won't.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And so do you. Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):	And they know
that the policy brought down is a good policy. They know that there are many representatives from different parts of the country who would not agree to go any further, and that it was hard work on the part of many hon. members in the house which succeeded in getting for western Canada what we got this year- and with no help from my hon. friends in the corner.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That still is
not saying that it is justice.


John Gordon Ross: Once in a while I do interrupt my hon. friends, I know, but I do not keep it up all the time.
We are now considering an amendment moved by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), and apparently agreed to by all his party in the house. Let me say that there is a very real party loyalty in that party. That is so even out in the country. I can remember an occasion in Saskatchewan-I think I am right in this-where one member of the party came to a convention, and because that party who came to that convention could not agree with the policy, the lady was turned out, espoused another party and is now sitting in the house. This is what we find at page 1190 of Hansard, when the hon. member for Weyburn was speaking:
I therefore move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright): "That all the words after 'that' be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
'This bill be not now read a second time but be it resolved that the disregarding by this parliament of the modest representations made by western agriculture-' "

Wheat Board Act


Charles Edward Johnston: Weren't
they modest?


John Gordon Ross: " '-for a parity price for all agricultural products and an initial wheat payment of at least $1 per bushel for No. 1 northern basis Fort William is contrary to the peace, order and good government of Canada'."
No, it is not. It is a very clever way to try to get in an amendment. If you will follow my hon. friend's remarks down further, you will see that he speaks of national unity, of the economic conditions in western Canada and of the treatment given to producers in that part of the country. He finishes this particular paragraph by saying:
. . . there you have national disunity, the type of national disunity which will split this country asunder.
We are asked to vote on an amendment which says that if we disregard the representations in regard to a parity price on wheat and $1 a bushel instead of 90 cents, made by certain agriculturists of Canada, some one will make a move against peace, order and good government in this country.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is not
what it says.


John Gordon Ross: That is exactly
what it says. I want to tell my hon. friend that there are no more loyal people in Canada than those in the province of Saskatchewan.
1 want to tell him that that delegation which came down here from Saskatchewan 400 strong did not come here with mutiny in their hearts. They did not come here resolved to revolt if they did not get what they asked for. I will admit that what they asked for was fair and reasonable, and I will admit also that they were probably disappointed in not getting $1 a bushel for wheat, in not getting parity prices at this time. But no one can rise in his place in this house and say that in time of war because what they asked for was not given to them they are ready to make a move against the government of this country.


Leslie Gordon Bell: No one says that they
will.


John Gordon Ross: That is the substance of the amendment moved by my hon. friend.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Sir Wilfrid Laurier moved an amendment in exactly the same terms in 1917.


John Gordon Ross: That was moved in connection with the taking of the franchise away from people in this country, the taking away from them of constitutional government that had been fought for time and time again.
Blood had been shed before and blood will be shed again if this is taken away from the people of this country. Let me tell you that you cannot buy the loyalty of the farmer in western Canada, nor will he sell it for 10 cents a bushel or any other figure. The farmer in western Canada may be disappointed that he is not getting parity prices-


Charles Edward Johnston: Let us quit playing politics.


John Gordon Ross: That is exactly
what you are doing with this amendment.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I must request hon. members not to interrupt.


John Gordon Ross: The farmer of
western Canada will do his job throughout this war whether or not he is treated fairly by the rest of the people of this country. He will do it anyway. The farmer of western Canada has been asked this year to produce other things besides wheat. He has been asked to produce barley and oats in abundance for feed in order that we may be able to produce what is needed by the allies. Let me tell my hon. friend that the western farmer will do it. We have asked him to produce flax in abundance this year. The western farmer will do this not because the price will bring him in any great amount of money but because we and our allies need it. Anything that he is asked to do to help the war effort will be done by the western farmer.


An hon. MEMBER:: And any other farmer.


John Gordon Ross: Yes, and any other farmer. As I have said before in this house, the farmer wants to pull his full weight in this war. I have heard hon. members of the opposition state that they intend to vote for this amendment. I have no hesitation in saying that I do not intend to vote for it. This amendment is not a vote of want of confidence in the government.


An hon. MEMBER:: You will never get to be Minister of Agriculture that way.


John Gordon Ross: Let me say that we have the best Minister of Agriculture sitting right here that we have ever had in this House of Commons.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Better than some of the aspirants anyway.


John Gordon Ross: This amendment, if carried, would not be a vote of want of confidence in the government, nor would it be a vote of want of confidence in parliament. I want everyone in this house to understand exactly what they are voting for. Every man who votes for this amendment is voting want
Wheat Board Act

of confidence in the farmers of Saskatchewan, my own people. I certainly will never vote for that, and I do not want to see any member of the Liberal party or any other party who has confidence in the farmers of western Canada vote for this amendment.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that we have listened with a great deal of interest to all the speeches which have been made this afternoon on these agricultural bills in general, and perhaps the amendment in particular. I think we all recognize that the government are wrestling with many problems, and next to the war agriculture is one of the greatest problems with which they have to wrestle. I think the reason why this wrestling goes on in such a strenuous way is due partly to the fault of the government. It seems to me that the reason for this wrestling is the fact that the government sees this agricultural problem as essentially a money problem. I realize that the moment anyone in this corner suggests that any problem is a money problem, there arises in the minds of many the thought that it is natural for us to say that because we hold to a certain monetary philosophy. I am quite certain that if the government would readjust, or shall I say, reform their money policy, they could then solve their problems, particularly the agricultural problems. I think we have one piece of evidence of this in the minister's own statement on March 10, as reported on page 1211 of Hansard, where he says:
We are taking every last dollar out of the treasury of Canada to deal with these problems which we feel it is safe to take at this present time.
In other words, we can deal with the problem only in so far as the treasury will permit. It never seems to dawn upon the minister or the government that the treasury should' be made to solve the problem instead of the problem awaiting and being entirely dependent upon the treasury. We realize that since the government are pursuing certain policies within the realm of a certain restricted monetary philosophy, they have to go on in their stumbling way from year to year. We realize, therefore that they must be always facing problems instead of solving them.
We realize that the agricultural problem is a problem, and it does seem to me that the problem arises by reason of the fact that agriculture is a primary industry. Somehow or another primary industries never seem to be able to work out an actuarially or scientifically sound price structure for the industry, whatever it may be, while secondary industries, on the other hand, seem to be able to collaborate one with another to work out a scientific price

structure which will guarantee to them a certain profit. Might I illustrate by taking, for example, the automobile industry?
The automotive industry, manufacturing automobiles, tractors, machinery and so forth, calls in its experts, and whether it be a new car model or some feature that has to be put into a certain machine which they are producing, the cost of everything is figured out and goes into the price structure of the article in question. It makes no difference what it is; it may be paint on the automobile or tractor; it may be every little last nut and bolt which are required in the production of a machine; it may be the various taxes which the industry has to pay; it may be depreciation charges, interest on loans, or a hundred and one other things. All these are written into the price structure of that article. The price is arrived at, including dividends and profits, and then a price tag is attached to that particular article. When the consumer comes along, he does not ask, "What will you take for that car?" He always asks, "How much are you asking for it?" There is a price tag on that article and the automotive industry simply says to the consumer, "Take it or leave it. If you do not take it at our price, leave it."
I have never yet heard of a car or tractor or anything of that kind being sold at a bargain price because there was overproduction in the industry.
But what happens when it comes to the primary industry of agriculture? Agriculture has no scientific way of writing into the price of its production all that should go into it. When we talk of cost of production, we must take into account everything that is involved in farming. But that is never done. The farmers have never got together and done it, and it never seems to have dawned on any government or on any official body that they have any need to help agriculture in that matter. The farmer does not say, "I shall have to charge so much for my wheat this year because I find that my buildings need to be painted." But that is exactly what the automobile industry does. The automobile industry writes into the price of its products depreciation on the factory and on all capital equipment. The farmer never does that. Somehow or another he cannot. The very existence of things as they are does not seem to permit him to do it. The agricultural industry does not come to the markets and say, "Here is the price tag on our wheat; here is the price tag on our butter; here is the price tag on our hogs-and the price is so much." The farmer never comes to market and says, "This is my price; take it or leave it." No; world buyers say to the farmer,

Privilege-Mr. Ralston
"We will give you this price, take it or leave it." Therefore, Mr. Speaker, when the farmer comes to buy, he has to take it or leave it; and when he comes to sell, he has to take it or leave it. That is the position, and I have never yet been able to discover where any government with the responsibilities and problems of agriculture upon its shoulders has ever tried to solve that problem.


James Garfield Gardiner: They cannot control the rain and sunshine.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to mark down that remark of the Minister of Agriculture, and if you will call it six o'clock,
I will deal with it when we resume at eight.



PRIVILEGE-MR. RALSTON REFERENCE TO STATEMENT OF THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION IN DEBATE THIS DAY

Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. My attention has just been called to a reference made to me by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) at page 1372 of Hansard, this afternoon. The report of his remarks reads as follows:
Mr. Hanson:	.	. . How different was the
position in 1935 when the legislation was set up. The present Minister of National Defence, then the mouthpiece for the grain exchange and the other big interests from Winnipeg-
Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre):	Order.
Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury):	Oh yes, we
saw them here; I know what went on being unwilling to strike at the principle of the measure, or being fearful of the results of opposition to the principle, demanded that the bill go to a select committee, and then insisted that certain substantive portions of the measure should be inserted in the measure itself. That was quite proper and was quite properly agreed to, and that was done.
I want to say that the reference to me as the mouthpiece for the grain exchange and other big interests has not the slightest vestige of foundation in fact. It is unequivocally false. I also want to state that I have called the leader of the opposition and told him I was going to refer to this before six o'clock, and he has not seen fit to be here. I want to say further that I was not in any way, directly or indirectly, connected with the Winnipeg grain exchange, or any member thereof, or with any other big interests in Winnipeg, and I give the most direct contradiction to the implication and insinuation and the reference made to me in the passage I have just read.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacKinnon (Edmonton West) for the second reading of Bill No. 13, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, and the amendment	thereto of Mr. Douglas
(Weyburn).
Ernest George Hansell: Before the dinner recess I was dealing with a matter which I think is far too often overlooked, namely the scientific price structure as it has applied to secondary production or secondary industries, that is, the manufacturing industries, and the entire lack of anything like a scientific price structure with regard to the primary industries, mainly agriculture.	Just before I concluded my
remarks and while I was on that subject, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) interjected what I thought was an extremely unfortunate observation. He said that the government had no control over the rain and sunshine. I say that was an unfortunate remark because it revealed the very thing that we in this corner of the house have been telling the government and the country for a good many years. The minister made a terrible admission. I would suggest that by that remark he is placing a premium upon Divine Providence. Even though Providence has smiled upon us and has given unto us an abundance of all that the' good earth can produce, it seems the government's attitude is that Providence has created for us mortal beings a tremendous problem. It seems to me the minister's remark would almost suggest that the Almighty should step down here occasionally and consult with the Minister of Agriculture and the government as to just when He should turn on the tap and open the windows to let the sunshine in. Of course that is not going to happen.


Charles Edward Johnston: It might be a good thing if it did, though.


Ernest George Hansell: The hon. member for Bow River says it might be a good thing if it did happen. I will tell him what would happen if the Almighty stepped down. We would find the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King)-


Charles Edward Johnston: In a bad spot.


Ernest George Hansell: -attempting to go into-


An hon. MEMBER:: A plebiscite.
13S6
Wheat Board Act


Ernest George Hansell: -an argument with the Almighty as to whether it was right or not, and then suggesting that it be put to the country by way of a plebiscite.


Mr. MacINNIS:: They might make Him a dollar-a-year-man.


Ernest George Hansell: Does it not appear to members of this house and to the people of this country that we have come to a pretty pass when the blessings of Divine Providence have presented us with a problem. I can understand the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) having a problem on his hands when there is a shortage of rubber. I can understand the government having a problem because there might be a shortage of something or another. If our people were starving because there was a shortage of foodstuffs, then I would say indeed that that was a problem. But when we are presented with a problem by reason of the outpouring of blessings from the bountiful hand of the Creator, then I say things have come to a pretty pass.
I would say that the whole fiscal attitude of the government is one of attempting to control within the framework of the present financial system all that we have to do, whether relating to agriculture or to anything else, and I would add, to the war. Of course, we are human beings, not worms; but would the worm starve because the apple was too big? I read somewhere once-I do not know where; it does not matter-that the people of the United States were a nation of playboys. When I hear ministers of governments talking in such a strain as I have mentioned, I must say I believe that as Canadians- we are a nation of screwballs.


Angus MacInnis: What is a screwball?


Ernest George Hansell: I say to this house, through you, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the situation. Not so long ago, maybe in the fall of 1940,
I believe the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) had a problem on his hands. Our foreign markets were gone. That was the excuse. It was the excuse the Minister of Agriculture made this afternoon in reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch): France has fallen and our market there is gone. The Minister of Trade and Commerce knew that a year or so ago, and knew that the 1940 crop coming on would give a tremendous surplus. He called in, and I think rightly, representatives of the various grain companies and farm organizations of western Canada. They trooped here, and he laid his cards on the table and said to these men: "Now, gentlemen, what have you to suggest?" I think that was the proper thing

to do. What did they suggest? They were unanimous in saying that at least the 1940 wheat crop should be financed. What was the next step? The minister called in the financial representatives-I may be speaking a bit figuratively now-and he said to them, "Gentlemen, how about it?" The gentlemen said "no", doffed their hats and walked out. The Minister of Trade and Commerce turned to the agriculturists and the grain men and said, "There you are, gentlemen. You see. I am sorry, but I cannot do anything. Those who are in charge of our financial system have spoken."
What should he have done? What' should the Prime Minister of this country have done? He should have called in those bankers, those men who are in charge of the money economy of the country, and, putting his cards on the table, he should have said to them: "Gentlemen, this parliament has delegated1 to you the right to issue and control the currency and credit of this nation. You will control it to reflect the physical facts and physical desires of our people or we will go into the banking business." But he did not do that. Oh, no. The men of finance had the last word to say. May I add, is there anything wrong with our having plenty of everything? If the government are pursuing a policy of being restricted and circumscribed by the present financial system, what they are doing in the several bills which they bring down year after year is about the best that we can expect. But I again ask, is there anything wrong about having an abundance of everything-vast stores of grain, of wool-of which commodity we are now becoming very short-of sugar, canned goods, oil or any other commodities? The natural answer is that there cannot be anything wrong with that. Yet, although this is physically possible, merely because the government will not change their financial policy they are met with a problem, and we have to pay people not to produce. This is an alarming condition, and it has come to a pretty pass that we have a government in power which continually harps upon this supposed difficulty, a government which remains within the confines of this restricted system, and which brushes aside as of no account suggested solutions that are offered by other groups.
This afternoon the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) dealt in similar vein with the problem. He spent some time in discussing world carryovers, assuming that because the world has a carryover of grain the Minister of Agriculture is presented with a problem. To me it is the strangest thing that we have to be troubled because we have so much.

Wheat Board Act
The hon. member mentioned, I think unfortunately, that while these bills were to go to the committee on agriculture they would not be changed. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) challenged the statement. It is unfortunate that it was made. Is this parliament to be placed in the position of knowing before bills go to committees that they are to be railroaded through by the pressure of a Liberal majority? What are they sent to committees for? I would have supposed that when these bills go to the committee on agriculture it will have scope enough to go into the problem of agriculture. I personally deplore, as I believe all hon. members should, that there is no Hansard report of the sittings of that committee.


An hon. MEMBER:: They will not let us have one.


Ernest George Hansell: They will not let us. Why? The Liberal majority on that committee says in effect, "No, we must not have on the record what you men want to say. It is going to cost a little; it is going to take a little paper and ink."


Victor Quelch: Somebody is going to be placed on the spot.


Ernest George Hansell: That is the trouble. As the hon. member for Acadia has just said, somebody is going to be placed on the spot. I say that it is deplorable; when we send bills to a committee, that committee should have the right to deal adequately with every phase of the measure.


Charles Edward Johnston: With a record kept.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, with a record kept.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw played a good deal on the loyalty and patriotism of the western farmer. Who is questioning it? The hon. member himself the other day made a startling remark in this connection; he seems to have completely changed his attitude. On page 1136 of Hansard I read these words:
As a western representative I must say this, that I will not accept nor will the people of western Canada accept any economy for western Canada based .on 90-eent wheat at Fort William, or anything near that figure, for the duration of the war
This afternoon he turned around and deplored the amendment because it called upon the government to grant the wishes of the delegation of four hundred.


Angus MacInnis: Talk is cheap.


Ernest George Hansell: As my hon. friend says, he had to say something, so he said that the western farmer is a very patriotic individual.


Charles Edward Johnston: Therefore he can starve to death!


Ernest George Hansell: The farmers are very patriotic, therefore they must accept as inevitable what the government decides to do, even though it is not enough. Let me ask, will the manufacturing industry do that? As we have pointed out time and again, the manufacturers would not accept a contract unless they could get their 10 per cent profit, even though their wages bill and salaries and directors' fees were written into the cost. Not so with the farmer. We do not contract with the farmer; he has to take it or leave it.
I wish to compliment the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) upon the speech he made this afternoon. In my opinion he has no need to be ashamed of the way in which he has led the official opposition this session. I do not know that I agree with everything he said. Perhaps I am not familiar enough with the details of the business administration of the wheat board. He should be; he was Minister of Trade and Commerce once upon a time. But I agree with him when he deplores the fact that we have a government with no long-range view. Every year they are late in announcing the policy for that year relative to agriculture. What is worse, when the government do come down, in the dying hours of the session, or when the farmer is anxious to get along with his spring work and put in his seed, they make an announcement of policy but they do not bring down their regulations. The result is that farmers do as they think the government want them to do, only to discover afterwards that the regulations have had to be changed, with the consequence that the condition of some of the farmers is not as well at the last as it was at the first.
I wish that we could be certain, when the Minister of Agriculture brings down a bill, that he has the entire picture in his mind. However, if the government is going to muddle through under a system of restriction -and this sort of thing is the best we can expect of them-I suppose we shall have to be satisfied.
I say to the minister that while the details and ramifications of his department may be many, the administration of agriculture in this countiy during the past year has been a shameful record for any government. I live in a diversified constituency, part of which is a rich grain growing area, and I know something of the problems of those farmers. Regulations are passed and then changed. I have a little pamphlet here which I think all hon. members will recognize when I exhibit it. This pamphlet is called, "A Plan to Reduce Wheat Acreage
Wheat Board Act

and Make More Money Available for Necessary War Supplies." It is the same old story of restriction; grow less wheat and help win the war. This pamphlet was printed under the authority of Hon. J. G. Gardiner, Minister of Agriculture, and was intended to outline the regulations governing the wheat acreage reduction plan. Many farmers obtained copies of this booklet, and read them over. Sometimes these things are not simplified enough. I often wonder whether the government employs lawyers to draw up these bills because lawyers know how to confuse the mind by the use of technical and legal terms. However, the farmers got hold of this pamphlet and, after reading it through, thought they understood what the government had decided. The farmers, too, want to win the war, so they decided to grow less wheat. But after this pamphlet was issued, other regulations came out, changing these; then after a while other changes were made, so that the farmer was simply bamboozled and did not know what he was supposed to do.
The same situation exists in regard to administration. This afternoon the hon. member for Acadia referred to the vast number of appointments that had been made, most of which appear to be political appointments. Certainly they were not appointments of men who knew the problems of the farmers. These inspectors have been instructed to go round and tell the farmers certain things. The farmers accept those explanations in good faith, only to find later on that the inspectors had no right to make those statements, or that their statements were wrong, or that in the meantime the regulations were changed. Time after time we have seen that happen, so that when the fall comes round the farmer does not get his cheque, or he does not get as much as he should, or, if he is fortunate, he receives a letter saying this or that was wrong, and he is absolutely confused.
I have an illustration in point; and I think the minister knows all about it. In certain parts of my constituency, as in others, we have what is known as a soil drifting area. The custom among farmers there is not to summer-fallow quite as much as in other districts, because of that soil drifting; they let their land stand idle. When the inspectors came round; the farmers said, "What are we going to do? We usually let this land lie idle, and if we turn it over and summer-fallow it, perhaps it will drift." The inspectors are told to instruct the farmers that if it is their custom to let the soil lie idle and rest for a year, they will receive the bonus just the same. So those farmers carried on as usual and let the land rest. The fall of the year came round, and 
what happened? The minister popped up and said, "Oh, yes; maybe we will pay them, but we will not pay them until the summer-fallow is done." That will be next spring, when the farmer puts in his grain. So the farmer who allowed his land to stand idle is left with his store bill running up, his doctor's bill to pay, and everything else. There he is, as the saying is, left holding the bag.
That is breaking faith with the farmer. I was through a certain part of my constituency before coming to Ottawa; and as late as January, if you please, those farmers had not received their cheques, though they had taken the word of the inspectors or those administering the act. Only to-day I received a letter from the department, in reply to a letter I wrote complaining that a certain man had not received his bonus although six months had elapsed. The reply of the department was, "Well, there is a certain discrepancy in the figures, and therefore we are instructing our supervisor to visit this man." It took them six months before they instructed their supervisor to visit this man, who had to carry on as best he could during the winter. There is something wrong with the administration of the act when this sort of thing happens. I do not like to focus all the blame on certain officials, even though those officials may be political appointees, but one can hardly avoid doing so. Something is wrong somewhere. So I say to the minister: When he brings down a bill or outlines the policy of the government, can we not get a complete picture of it? Cannot regulations be such that the farmers will understand them and, when the time comes, receive payment for the work done? It is not keeping faith with agriculture when the government says to the farmer, "We have a problem, and if you will cooperate we will do so and so." The farmer cooperates; then the government dickers and fiddles over this or that thing and the farmer is'left down at the heels, worn at the cuffs, with store bills, doctors' bills and all sorts of other bills mounting up. I had men come to me with tears in their eyes because they were still waiting for their bonuses, as late as the middle of January. That is not right; it is not fair, and there is something wrong in the minister's department if that sort of thing cannot be remedied.
I see that my time is gone, Mr. Speaker. All I can add is this, that if the government will not act in such a way as to dispose of the problem instead of simply tinkering with it, then I suppose the farmers of this country will have to accept the inevitable and go stumbling on.

Wheat Board Act


Ernest Edward Perley: Following the statements of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) on second reading of these bills, I covered the situation in a general way, as I thought, and made one or two suggestions. I now desire to state my position with respect to the amendment, and at the outset I should like to say that I do not think it should be considered as a vote of want of confidence. I do not think that should be stressed the way it has been by many of the speakers on the government side. The Minister of Agriculture said it was not a vote of want of confidence in the government, but he stressed that it might be considered a want of confidence in parliament. I cannot go that far. I think this matter should not be considered politically, either, because I believe members of parliament should be free to express ourselves in this house. A speech from this side of the house or from the group in the far comer should not be considered a political speech. I believe a great many hon. members realize their responsibility and are anxious to make some contribution and to offer some help. So far as I am concerned, that is the position I desire to take. I believe, if we all feel we can do something to help solve this problem so as to bring about a state wherein the farmer will receive a better deal or, if you like, receive parity, we ought to do what we can in that direction.
Some pretty warm speeches have been delivered in this debate, even from the government side. We have heard criticism of the government from its supporters, and we have heard replies. I think it may be said, however, that we are all working for a parity. That is a word which has been used often, but I believe it is not well understood even yet. What we want is a situation wherein prices for farm products will compare favourably with the prices the producer has to pay for his implements of production and for the commodities used in production. I might say at this point that if prices could be placed on a parity, and if there is a continuation of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, which is a form of insurance-and when the measure comes back in final form from the committee I believe it will be worth while-there can be no doubt that we shall get along pretty well.
Since Bill No. 13 has reached its present stage, four orders in council have been passed. This afternoon my leader made reference to these orders in council-and might I add that I believe he ought to be commended for his admirable speech to-day. In his speech he covered the whole situation, going back three
or four years, dealing with the operations of the wheat board and setting out the facts in satisfactory fashion. I believe he has made the position clear, and it is not necessary for me to-night to refer to the operations of the board to any extent. What he has said needs not be repeated.
I contend, as did the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) this afternoon, that these orders in council should be embodied in the bill. They should be part of the bill, and should be offered as legislation. If they are not, then we ought to have a statement from the minister as to how many more orders in council of this kind we may expect. As I have said, four have been passed already, and there is no limit to what we may have. But these four are of such importance that they should be in the bill. I suggest to the minister that he ought to allow the committee to embody some of these orders in council in the bill, so that we may know exactly where we stand.
This afternoon the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) made one or two confessions. He confessed that he now stands for a parity price; that is what he wants. He suggested, too, that Liberal members from the west were capable of reading the riot act, so to speak, to the government, and getting almost what they want. Some of their speeches, however, would indicate that they are not getting what they want. They have all supported the principle of a parity price, an increased price; but I venture to say that within the next hour or so they will not vote for that parity or that increased price. That is my complaint. We are accused of acting politically; we are told that the amendment is a vote of want of confidence; and yet when hon. members opposite come to vote, they will not vote as they have indicated in the speeches they have made.
I believe it is unnecessary for me to make detailed, reference to those speeches. The Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) endeavoured to answer the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader), but I thought his endeavour fell far short of an adequate answer. There are many questions the minister left unsolved, and many charges made by the hon. member for Portage [DOT]la Prairie are still unanswered.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw and the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) have honoured me to the extent of referring to some speeches I have made in the house. Before I take my seat to-night I shall make one or two further suggestions, and possibly three or four years from now they may quote me again. There was another hon. member
Wheat Board Act

who referred to me. I will not say who it was. When I came to look through the pages of Hansard I could not find his name, and so I did not think it was necessary to take even thirty-five seconds to answer his thirty-five minutes' speech in which he attacked me.
The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) has made two splendid speeches, and I hope he will follow some of the principles he has enunciated. He of course supports the bill, and does not support the amendment. He has placed on record certain tables to show that the bonus system is the best. My reply to him would be this, that there are 290,000 farmers in the west, and one could prepare a table which would make it appear that 100,000 of them might be better off with the bonus. I might say I had prepared three tables, one of which dealt with half-section farmers, and another with farmers on a section and a half. I could work out those figures to show that so far as the small farms are concerned the bonus might not work out quite as well as it does for the large farms. As I have said, however, that does not prove anything. One could cite dozens of cases, draw tables to show that the bonus would work out better for this man or that man, but that would be no criterion. It does not prove that the bonus does not interfere with the general farming principles or policy of operation in western Canada.
I would ask the government and the board what they will do this fall if the farmers follow out the suggested system of increasing the production of coarse grains. What will they do this fall if we should happen to have
150.000.	000 bushels more of oats and 30,000,000 or 40,000,000 more bushels of barley?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have an agreement with the United States that we shall send it there.


Ernest Edward Perley: Not all?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are growing soya beans.


Ernest Edward Perley: I have the coarse grains report for last year, and it shows that out of a production of 220,000,000 bushels of oats only
30.000.	000 bushels came to the market.


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall not speak again, but I suggest that the United States have asked us to produce as much coarse grains as we can as part of a general policy to have more oils produced on this continent. They have undertaken to transfer some of their grain acreage to soya beans, and have asked us to undertake to send any surplus we have to the United States.
tMr. Perley.)


Ernest Edward Perley: That is fine. Will the minister guarantee that if we produce 150,000,000 more bushels of oats next fall-which might quite easily happen-that the United States market will absorb them all?


James Garfield Gardiner: They may or may not next year.


Ernest Edward Perley: I think I know the farmer pretty well. He is only human, and if he can get 45 cents a bushel for his oats and has a yield of 50 to 100 bushels to the acre- in the northern sections they will have 75 to SO bushels-he will not feel disposed to feed his oats to hogs; he will market them. Whether they are exported to the United States or not, there will be a great flow of oats and barley to the market. I doubt if the United States will take as much as the minister indicates they will. You are going to have your elevator space plugged with coarse grains and wheat.
How about the storage of oats and barley? They command the same rate per bushel and they take practically the same space. I think it will be readily agreed that the farmers will be encouraged to bring their oats to the market rather than to try to store them on the farm under present conditions, unless the government provides for storage or assists in storing on the farm. The small farmer who grows 1,500 or 2,000 bushels additional will have to provide storage unless he is able to take them to market. If the grain exchange continues to function as it is now doing, will it not encourage the marketing of oats and barley and thus encourage the filling up of space that might be required for wheat if we have a large and normal crop?
You can figure it out on a capital investment basis of dollars and cents. Ninety-cent wheat commands 8 cents a year storage. Two bushels of oats would be worth about the same and they would command 16 cents a year storage. Taking the capital investment as far as the elevator is concerned you will see why they will encourage the bringing in of oats and barley. The investment would be much smaller, only about half for wheat, and they would be paid double the storage. This point has not been stressed as yet. I think it is an important one; it is something that will have to be considered.
I suggest that the wheat board should take over everything; it should control storage and other matters to a greater degree than is set out in the orders in council. With government control many of the abuses and injustices to which I have referred before in this house would be eliminated. There are abuses that might have been referred to and enlarged upon the other day by the Minister of Mines

Wheat Board Act
and Resources when he referred to mixing. He said he had had forty years of experience in the grain business and evidently he knows all about mixing. That is one of the first things you find out about when you go into a country elevator. If we had full control, we could do away with some of these injustices.
The first one to which I would refer is undergrading. With this great crop of coarse grains that we expect will be coming to market this fall the government should pay special attention to undergrading. Many oats will grade No. 1 feed instead of 2 C.W. We also have unfair grading of wheat and mixing. The annexes that are being built alongside interior elevators permit of a great deal of mixing. I know what is going to happen. A farmer will bring in No. 1 northern or No. 2 northern wheat. There will be no space for it, and they will take it as No. 3 or No. 4. The same thing will apply to oats. There should be an investigation into this racket that has been perpetrated on the farmers of western Canada in the last three or four seasons in particular. There should be an adjustment of the unjust service charges that are made. Storage charges should not be permitted for storage in boxcars.
At the present time there is only one buyer and only one seller. According to the report for the crop year 1940-41, to which the leader of the opposition referred at great length this afternoon, it will cost this country $60,000,000 to carry this crop next year, taking into account the influx of coarse grains that we expect. As I say, there is only one buyer. I am going to offer a suggestion. I know the hon. member for Rosthern will support me in this, and the hon. member for Dauphin may quote me three or four years from now. I suggest that with the situation as we have it, with this surplus and carryover, with this cost of carrying, parliament should amend the Finance Act so that on the security of the grain in the possession of the board currency could be issued in an adequate volume to finance the board's operations properly, and no interest charges would accrue at any time. We should have the head of the Bank of Canada before the committee in order that we might get some information with respect to the possibilities of doing this. This wheat is practically as good as gold. The government will be in this business for a number of years, and some way should be found to carry it more cheaply, especially when, on the minister's own statement, it is costing us $50,000,000 or $60,000,000 a year.
As was said this afternoon by the leader of the opposition, this bill does not conform to the wheat board act of 1935. Paragraph (b)
of section 3 of that act empowers the board to buy only from the producers of wheat, from no other organization. In the order in council is a clause empowering them to buy wheat from anybody other than producers. We are to start with this new price on August 1. What situation are we going to have? I contend that that price of 90 cents on August 1 is a minimum price and a maximum price. If that is so, then there is no need for the exchange. I do not think there is much need for it at the present time.
I have before me the following report which appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune of March 14:
Winnipeg wheat futures opened at unchanged price levels in exceedingly dull trading.
They state that there was practically no trading from the first gong until the close. Things appear to be very quiet there now. The exporter cannot raise this 90-cent price, or at least the government has not told us how they can do it. The British cereals import committee buy large quantities, three, four and six months at a time. They set the prices for these amounts at least. Therefore there can be no increase in the price. There will be no demand which would raise the price because under the present set-up nothing but speculation can raise the price. Where are you going to have outside speculation when you have a situation as we have it now, the government taking on 400 million bushels of a surplus and so on?
I ask again: what will the board do with all the oats and barley that will probably come on the market this fall? The Minister of Agriculture has endeavoured to answer this. Apart from the United States market, it would appear that there will be no export to Great Britain. I have before me the parliamentary debates of the British House of Commons of Wednesday, February 4, 1942, and I should like to quote the remarks of Major Lloyd George, as follows:
I am aware of the difficulty which is being experienced in certain areas in Scotland in disposing of feeding oats, and steps have already been taken to relieve the position. A considerable quantity of Scottish feeding oats purchased by the ministry is being moved to localities where they are required for consumption or where storage accommodation is available. I would remind my hon. friend that increased prices have been provided for growers who are able and willing to hold their oats in stack until March or later.
That is the situation over there. Apparently they have more oats than they require.
I have another quotation to the effect that there is going to be an increase in the price of wheat to encourage production in Britain, but I shall not take the time to read it.
Wheat Board Act

I wish now to refer for a moment to one or two speeches which have been made from the other side of the house in an endeavour to show that the government of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was responsible for the very low price of wheat in 1932. I recall the low price of that period, but I say that the government of that day cannot be blamed for it. I have here the budget speech delivered by the Hon. Charles Dunning on May 1, 1930. Some hon. members may have seen this little summary of the Dunning budget, containing his picture. In that May day budget speech he reported that our sales of export wheat were down $243,000,000 and that our sales of export flour were down $20,000,000 from the previous year. He also stated that the price of No. 1 northern at Fort William had dropped in 1929-30 from $1.55 to 82 cents. Who was responsible for that drop? If the Liberal government will take the responsibility for the drop in 1929-30, when wheat went down 73 cents a bushel, I would be willing for the Bennett government to take the responsibility for the drop from 80 to 40 cents in the first two years it was in office.
I shall not deal further with the question of parity prices. That is nothing new because the principle was adopted in the Conservative party platform prior to the last election. It was adopted in January, 1940. I have a copy of the speech made by the Hon. Robert Manion in western Canada in which he said that he was in favour of a fair parity price for the farmer and that if his party were returned to power he would provide for storage on the farm and set a fair price comparable with the price the British farmer received. So a parity price is nothing new. It was part of the policy of the Conservative party at that time.
The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) in his address the other night made several splendid suggestions which I trust the minister will be prepared to have considered and adopted when this measure goes before the committee.
I have already made reference to various orders in council, and I wish to refer briefly now to one in particular, P.C. 1803, which was passed since this bill was placed on the order paper for second reading. This order in council gives the wheat board very wide powers. Section 2, dealing with the regulations-and here is where the order in council does not conform to the act as it was prior to this proposed amendment-provides that the board may buy wheat from persons other than producers "at such prices as the board deems fair and just." So the board is there given power to go outside the producers and buy at any

price that seems fair and just. We may therefore expect another order in council with respect to price.
Another section of the order in council gives the wheat board power to enter into ordinary commercial banking arrangements on its own credit. I do not know that I object to that, but it does confer very wide powers upon the board.
Another section provides that any losses arising from the board's operations:
. . . shall be paid from and out of unappropriated moneys of the consolidated revenue fund and any profits shall accrue to that fund.
So no profits from the board's operations can go to the farmer. That is definitely stated in section 3 (c) of the order in council.
There is another section of the order in council which I shall read. Section 7 provides:
7.	These regulations shall be deemed to have become operative on March 5. 1942, and shall expire on August 1, 1943, subject to the provisions of section 19 of the Interpretation Act which are made applicable hereto as if these regulations were revoked on said latter date.
So there is no question that the 90-cent price is to prevail throughout the whole year, and that is something that should be considered.
In conclusion, I want to make this suggestion to the minister. I shall not review the report of the wheat board which was so ably covered by my leader this afternoon, but I do think it is important that the committee to which this bill goes should be given very wide powers. We require a good deal of information. We have had no inquiry into the grain trade since the committee of 1936 sat to inquire into Mr. Murray's operations. The reports of the board, while they go into detail, do not cover the situation in such a way that the ordinary man can understand it. I think it was a mistake to have this bill go to the agriculture committee. With all due respect to members of the house, they do not know as much about wheat as I should like them to know. I am not saying that disparagingly at all, because I, for instance, know nothing about fish.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: There are lots in the house.


Ernest Edward Perley: There are lots of fish-eaters here. But I do not believe there are twenty members of the house who can intelligently follow through the various transactions in wheat from the time it is sold on the grain exchange until its delivery in Liverpool, simply because they are not familiar with the different transactions. I do not think the agriculture committee is the proper committee to which to send this bill. I think we should have a committee set up of eleven or thirteen members with power to call witnesses and take

Wheat Board Act
evidence so that we may have a thorough investigation into the whole operations of the board and of the grain trade, and that we may get the information that we require. A verbatim report of the evidence and proceedings of the committee should be taken and the report printed.
We have not received any information from the minister. 1 asked him last year if he had any further report to make, and he said no.
I asked him if he would give us interim reports. The act itself provides for weekly reports, but we have never had one in two years, and the consequence is that hon. members have not received the information they require. Again I say, with all respect to the members of the committee, that the agriculture committee is not the proper committee to which to send this bill. That is borne out,
1 think, by what happened this morning at the committee, where one man started to talk about eggs. If we are not careful we may be talking about eggs on this bill before it gets through the agriculture committee.
Before this bill is referred, I should like the minister to say that whatever committee is chosen it will be given the fullest power to call and examine witnesses and take a verbatim report of the evidence and have its report printed. I would ask the minister, further, if he will be prepared to accept by way of amendments any reasonable suggestions to improve the bill which may be made in the committee and which do not involve any extra charge upon consolidated revenue. I think the minister should be fair enough to do that.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Mr. Speaker, this debate has already been rather prolonged and I do not intend to take much time. In fact I had not intended to speak at all; but since from the government side of the house the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has spoken twice, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) twice, and the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) twice, and others have made long speeches, I feel that we are relieved from any prior understanding we had that this bill should go to the committee as rapidly as possible, and therefore I propose to say a few words to-night.
From the government side of the house we have been criticized for having moved an amendment to the second reading of the bill. We did so in order to get a free vote of this house. It was moved in such a manner as not to imply a want of confidence in the government, and it was moved in the language,
modified to meet our occasion, of one of the greatest parliamentary leaders this country has ever seen. I refer to Sir Wilfrid Laurier.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Always from the other side of the house, when the name of that great Canadian is mentioned, there is some applause.
I suggest that Sir Wilfrid Laurier ought to be no longer regarded as the special possession of the Liberal party, but that he ought to be regarded as common to all the people of Canada. This is not a vote of want of confidence, and my Liberal friends from Saskatchewan, including the Minister of Agriculture, should welcome the opportunity to place themselves on record, in a vote in this house, on the policy which they promulgated in that province as long ago as 1934. I am not going to refer at length to the leaflets which were scattered by hundreds of thousands over that province in 1934 when the Minister of Agriculture was seeking election as premier of the province: Dollar wheat will pay your taxes; dollar wheat will educate your family; dollar wheat will buy new clothes; dollar wheat will maintain the church, and so on and so forth. Now in a free vote of this house, the gentlemen who advocated that policy, and won the election on that policy in 1934, have the first opportunity which has been accorded them in all these years to vote for that policy without endangering the government in any particular whatsoever. I say, therefore, that they should support this amendment and we should have a record of those who are in favour of giving to the western producers that dollar wheat which was promised so long ago.
If I may go on without friendly as well as unfriendly interruptions, I say that there was no way of referring this bill 'back to the committee on the third reading and incorporating in such a reference the demands of the farmers of the province from which I come, made to this parliament and to this government both by resolution and by delegation. On the third reading of this bill we could not do what we have done in this amendment-refer to the dollar price or to the parity price-because it would have been ruled out of order. The second reading of a bill decides the principle of the bill. This was the place to record our disapproval of the government's policy and our desire in relation to a policy which we should like to have seen adopted. We are not playing politics in this regard.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Oh, no. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) the other day put us squarely on the spot in this house.
Wheat Board Act

He turned to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) and complained that the hon. gentleman had not shown his opposition to the plebiscite bill on the second reading. The Prime Minister said that the principle of the plebiscite bill had been adopted unanimously by this house because no one had moved an amendment or voted against it on the second reading.


Georges Parent: Order. The hon. member may not refer to a previous debate in this session.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I am 'not quoting from any previous debate, Mr. Speaker. I believe I may refer to the debate without quoting.


Georges Parent: The hon. member is using the arguments advanced in that debate.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I am not quoting, but I will endeavour to abide by your ruling, Mr. Speaker. It was stated, no matter by whom, that, because the second reading of the bill was not challenged, the house unanimously adopted the principle of that bill. I do not propose, we do not propose, that we should be placed1 in that position in connection with this particular matter which so vitally concerns the constituents whom we represent in this house.
This is not a matter of political strategy. It is an attempt to solidify those in this house who believe that $1 a bushel for wheat is the absolute minimum, and we wish to do so in a free vote that may be taken in this house on a problem of vital concern to western agriculture. We. have been bearing a great deal about parity prices, although a few years ago when we of this group used to speak of parity prices we were often asked what we meant. The term has now become well known. Parity prices are essential to the welfare of agriculture, and western agriculture particularly. The wheat farmers of western Canada to-day are in large measure carrying the nation's load of food, which it has quite properly been stated from time to time in this house, may be one of the most effective weapons of victory, and we contend that this nation ought to carry that load if it is regarded as a great national asset and something that will assist us in winning a future victory.
I agree with all those who have said to-day and on other occasions that the grain exchange should be closed and that speculation in all food products should be entirely eliminated. The revelations made this afternoon by the leader of the opposition, of the transfers of cash wheat to futures and futures to cash wheat, and so on and so forth, are matters which ought to be investigated anew by a com-

mittee, and I support those who have asked the government to grant such a committee to inquire into the whole system of wheat marketing in this country. But I would say this to the leader of the opposition. He warned us this afternoon of some dangers in connection with what he called planned economy after the war. I make this prediction, that all the civilized nations, when this war is over, will be called upon to do more and more of economic planning. This will mean that the various types of producers in those countries and communities will have to receive for their products prices which are commensurate with the toil involved in raising those products. The only intelligent alternative to planned economy is complete freedom of trade. If the manufacturing interests and everybody else concerned will completely wipe out all the tariff walls which they have built round this country, I am sure that the agricultural producer will be quite prepared to take his chance with everybody else.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: What about the industrial workers?


Leslie Gordon Bell: But so long as tariffs
and quotas remain, so long as "trades" are negotiated between nations, so long will there have to be some forms of economic planning, and those forms may ultimately lead to relief from trade restrictions, indeed, in reality, to a greater freedom of trade than the world has ever known.


Mr. MAYHEW:: Does the hon. member want to put Canadian labour on the same basis as Japanese labour?


Leslie Gordon Bell: No. I have not said that under present conditions I am in favour of complete and absolute free trade.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You voted for a free trade policy, though.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I look to the day-


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Don't limit your remarks to the manufacturers.


Leslie Gordon Bell: and I believe it is not so far off, when the Japanese, the Chinese, the Hindu, the Burmese, the natives of Africa, will be raised to the economic and social level of the white races, and when they, too, may join with the rest of us in enjoying a higher form of economic and social life than any of us have yet known.


An hon. MEMBER:: That will be in heaven.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: That might be after the fifth world war.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Perhaps it will not be in my lifetime or yours. In the meantime we

Wheat Board Act
shall have to resort to other methods to maintain our standards of life; I readily grant that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. GILLIS:: And we are doing it.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I was just referring to the suggestion of the leader of the opposition that a planned economy should be looked upon with some suspicion by the farmer.
We also heard it said that there were those interested in these problems who were setting east against west and west against east. This is not a western problem alone; it is a problem which concerns every part of Canada. As far as we from western Canada are concerned, we have no desire to set east against west or west against east. Our problems are, in different forms, common to all the nation, and we shall have to solve them as a nation and in cooperation with one another.
I said that the grain exchange should be eliminated. I was in England last autumn, and I confess that I tried to find out why the grain exchange was still operating and that I did not succeed. But I did find out that the present British Minister of Agriculture is as anxious as are the Canadian farmers that there should be as speedily as possible a conference, attended by representatives from both the producing and the consuming countries, and particularly Great Britain and the overseas dominions, at which an agricultural policy could be worked out which would prevent, both now and after the war, the primary producer from being penalized and ruined by continuous low prices. I say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) and the government to-night that I hope every effort will be made to organize such a conference, in cooperation with the British Minister of Agriculture, and others interested, in Great Britain.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask the hon. member if he found out what price they in Britain are in favour of for wheat in that period?


Leslie Gordon Bell: I did not find out what that price was.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Well, that, to me, is a rather unfortunate remark, because it carries the connotation that that price was very low.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not "very low".


Leslie Gordon Bell: And I am going to say this, that if this commonwealth of nations is
going to exist in the future, it can exist only on fair dealing and justice between all parts of it.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You are predicating that on what the minister said-which we don't know anything about.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I wonder whether this hon. member will be just a little quiet. We will ask the minister to tell us the price at another time.


Georges Parent: I would call the attention of the house to the fact that the hon. member is entitled to proceed with his speech without interruption, and I ask that the hon. member who has just interrupted him will observe the rule.


Leslie Gordon Bell: As I said, I do not know what the price was. I should like the minister to tell the house. All I can say is that if there are in Great Britain certain people-and I know there are, because I got, not the price, but a disappointing reaction on one occasion- who think they can maintain good relations between Britain and the great overseas dominions by driving the overseas producers down to the level of peasantry, this great commonwealth will not continue to exist. Make no mistake about that. But, fortunately, I know that there are very many more in powerful places in Great Britain who think exactly the opposite, who believe that the producer overseas should not be driven down to the level of peasantry, and those people, I may add, are likely to be in the ascendancy when this war is over.
I should like to say a word about the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. We were twitted by the hon. member for Rosthem (Mr. Tucker) because we were not debating it. It had gone to a committee. But let me say that right from the outset we not only supported the principle of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act but advocated a broadening of its provisions. We have always hoped that this measure would develop into a real form of crop insurance, and that that crop insurance would be, like other forms of insurance, on an individual basis. We should like to have seen the Prairie Farm Assistance Act further extended, not restricted, this year.
Some attempt has been made in this house to confuse the entire issue by talking about the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and wheat prices at the same time. The two things are entirely different. The price of wheat is the problem of a depressed industry; the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is the problem of a distressed area, two different problems altogether, which should be considered distinctly and apart. The wheat price should be a reasonable price,

Wheat Board Act

as a matter of justice to a depressed industry, depressed because of uncontrollable conditions as far as the farmer is concerned-by war now, and in past days by government policy, such as the imposition of tariffs, which made him sell his produce in the open free market of the world and buy his supplies in a completely protected and closed market. The Prairie Farm Assistance Act deals with a depressed area, due to crop failure, drought, grasshoppers and the other plagues with which the western producer has been cursed.
Again, may I say, to some extent this was caused by faulty national policies; land settlement policies, organized by railways and governments, opening up land which never should have been opened to the plough, and of course aggravated by low prices in the few good crop years that we experienced. I am not going into that to-night. I am just going to say that so long as we fail to face the problem of the marginal and sub-marginal lands

of which there is not as great an area as many people think-and deal with it, perhaps in some instances by larger irrigation policies than were instituted under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act with some success, or by resettlement so that the people now occupying those lands may be humanely moved to places where they can make a living, so long must we continue to use and expand the present crop failure bonus system. As I have said, I should like to see it so expanded that payments would be on the basis of the individual farm.
Thus the two problems, the problem of the distressed industry and the problem of the depressed area, are distinct. The first, the distressed industry, can be dealt with under a decent parity price. This is realized by a very large number of people in western Canada.
In Saskatchewan alone, approximately 185,000 people signed the petition in favour of an initial payment of $1, looking to parity prices in the future. These 185,000 contributed their mites to send more than 400 representative farmers to meet this government and members of this house. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that when I saw those people here I was proud of them. A finer group of men, the railways told us, had never been transported across Canada; and their presentation here was something that did both them and the people who sent them the greatest credit.
They want $1 as an initial payment. That does not approach the parity price. It does not give them, according to the records of our own experimental farms and our universities, even the cost of production. Then they hope that during the year improved conditions may enable payments to be made to bring the final
[Mr. Coldwell.)
payment up to parity. But let me say this to the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Gregory), who spoke last night, and to others who have said the same thing, that there seems to be a misunderstanding on the part of some hon. members as to the present wheat situation and the possibility of a parity payment. Under our wheat board act as it now stands, if the government takes 280,000,000 bushels of wheat this year at 90 cents, no matter how high the price may rise beyond that, there will be no further payment on those 280,000,000 bushels this year, because, according to the wheat board act, the new wheat cannot be sold unless and until the other wheat, called the carryover, has first been sold and complete settlement made with the farmers.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not in accordance with the act; it is in accordance with the practice under administration.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Then I will put it in
that way, according to the practice under the administration.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Which is it, the act or the administration?


Leslie Gordon Bell: The minister says the
administration. Let me add this. Hon. members may have noticed that the western grain growers have been asking for some time that the carryover as of August 1 next, we will say, should be regarded as a reserve, and that the new crop up to 280,000,000 bushels should be sold and paid for within the crop year. So let us not be under any illusions; under the present policy what was suggested the other evening by the hon. member for The Battle-fords is impossible of attainment unless the government policy be altered.
Industry is guaranteed the cost of its production. Agriculture must be guaranteed at least the cost of production for its products. We know that ruin faces the wheat area of western Canada under present conditions and under the present set-up. We need only look at the population figures as revealed by the recent census to see that, taking into account the natural increase Saskatchewan should have had, our population is from 150,000 to 175,000 less than it should have been. That, I believe, is the best indication there could be of the depressed and distressed condition of the western prairies. Those figures speak more eloquently than I possibly could speak in that connection.
We have said that we are fighting for a better world. I know from my experience in Britain last autumn that the British people do believe they are fighting for a better world. That is the reason why Sir Stafford Cripps

Wheat Board Act
occupies the position which he holds to-day. That is the reason why Doctor William Temple, longtime member of the Labour party, until recently Archbishop of York, has been elevated to the see of Canterbury. Those happenings are significant of things to come in Great Britain, and that is what maintains much of the morale there. We, too, have to consider the morale of our own people. One way of maintaining it is to guarantee to our aged a decent livelihood; to our workers, decent conditions, and to our farmers, prices that will enable them to lift up their heads in the community.
So I say, Mr. Speaker, that on every count members of parliament who have agriculture at heart, particularly members of parliament representing western constituencies, on this free vote-which is not a want of confidence vote-have an opportunity in deciding the principle of this bill to place themselves on record as being in favour of the modest request of the western farmers for an initial price of $1 a bushel and payments thereafter, we hope, that will approximate a parity level for this important commodity,


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take five or six minutes to speak on the amendment of the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas). The leader of the Cooperative Co'mmonwealth Federation party (Mr. Coldwell) has said that we are fighting for a better world. Well, those who are fighting for a better world are getting $1.30 a day, while we sit in this house and talk about what should be done for parity, when there is parity for some and not for others. Hon. gentlemen to my left and opposite have referred to the grain trade; they have said that it is a north and south industry, not an east and west industry going to the markets of the world. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Weyburn reads:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"This bill be not now read a second time but be it resolved that the disregarding by this parliament . .


Leslie Gordon Bell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The hon. member has already spoken on the amendment. His speech appears in Hansard for March 12, beginning at page 1248. It was a forty-minute speech.


Thomas Langton Church: I am speaking on the amendment of the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas).


Georges Parent: May I ask the hon. member this question: Has he already spoken on the amendment?


Thomas Langton Church: I spoke on the motion, not on the amendment. I never spoke on the amendment, and I just wish to say three or four words about the amendment-not on the motion.


James Garfield Gardiner: The amendment was moved on Tuesday, March 10, a week ago to-day. The hon. member spoke on Thursday and, as has been pointed out, his speech is reported at page 1248, beginning with the words:
The motion for the second reading of Bills 12, 13 and 14, and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) . . .
And so on.


Thomas Langton Church: I referred to the amendment; that is all. I did not speak on it


Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word before the vote is taken, and in doing so I would add my request to the government that an opportunity be permitted whereby witnesses may come before the committee to which this bill will be sent. We never tire of describing the importance of the wheat industry to the economy of Canada. It is very evident that both within and without the house there is a body of opinion most sincerely held that the policies and practices followed by those who market the wheat are not all that they should be. It appears to me most desirable, therefore, that the government should grant this request.
I would draw this simile to what happened when the wheat board bill was before the house in 1935. On that occasion there was a most insistent demand from supporters of the then opposition, who now sit on the government benches, that witnesses should be heard before the committee which examined that measure. The government of the day gave way. The bill became an act, and that act is the one under which we now operate. When it is contended that the business of marketing, which is carried out under that act, is open to question, it is surely desirable for the government to give way to that request. I would draw its attention to the fact that since that opinion held so widely in Canada is one which should be examined into, with witnesses before the committee, it appears to me it will go out through the country as a matter of deep regret that the government refuses to grant this request.
139S
Wheal Board Act


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the request made by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling)-


Grote Stirling: Made first by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson).


James Angus MacKinnon: - and by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) to the effect that wide latitude be given the committee on agriculture with respect to the calling of witnesses, and hearing a large number of people, I would point out that I am not a member of the committee on agriculture, and I understand that the power to call witnesses is in the hands of that committee. The committee will regulate as to the procedure to be followed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
no undertaking.


James Angus MacKinnon: I think that consistent with time and proper economy the widest possible latitude should be given the committee to get out all the information it desires. I shall be very glad to have on hand members of the wheat board and members of the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada and, so far as other witnesses are concerned, where there is no heavy expense involved I think it would be quite in order to have them on hand. I shall be glad to do that, and shall be glad so to suggest to the committee.
But, Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the remarks made a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar when he spoke about revelations made this afternoon by the leader of the opposition. In 1936 I was a member of the special committee on agriculture, and heard what I understand to be exactly the same line of suggestion or charges, if I may use that word, as were made in the house this afternoon. At that time I was particularly interested in the two men who led the battle in getting out as much information as possible. I refer to the then member for West Calgary, Mr. Bennett-now Viscount Bennett-and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. I was particularly interested in what I considered to be the splendid manner in which they sought to get from the witnesses all possible information. The evidence of that committee is printed in full and is available, and I believe it deals with exactly the same subjects as were introduced this afternoon by the leader of the opposition.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But that committee sat under another chairman.


James Angus MacKinnon: I shall, however, ask the committee on agriculture to which this bill is referred that, consistent with time and reasonable economy, the widest possible opportunity be given members of the committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister go further? I have no doubt what he has said would be quite satisfactory to members of the committee; but will he have the evidence printed? It seems to me that is very important, too.


James Garfield Gardiner: The committee decides that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But the committee refused to do it on the other bills.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; they did not refuse. It was finally agreed that it would not be done with respect to the two, but this was left for decision.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the
question is still open, all right.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed with the vote on the main motion for the second reading of this bill, I sincerely believe, because of the differences of opinion expressed in this house by hon. members representing the eastern and western parts of Canada, that the Canadian people should be consulted by way of a referendum on the question of national importance raised by this measure. I admit that the wheat producers of the prairie provinces are living through difficult times,
but the eastern farmers are also experiencing hardships just as serious, and I have often exposed their plight to this house. On the one hand, the wheat grown by the western farmers is selling at a very low price; on the other, the farmers and consumers in the east are paying very high prices for wheat flour and bread. Farmers can obtain the by-products of western wheat, such as bran, only upon conditions which resemble robbery. In Canada the trusts are exploiting both the consumer and the farmer. What is the government doing to stop these abuses?


Mr. CLEAVER:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of order. The hon. member is reading his speech.


Georges Parent: Order. Objection has
been taken that the hon. member is reading his speech.


Liguori Lacombe: I am not reading my
speech, Mr. Speaker; I am only referring to my notes. When I read a speech I am obliged to use glasses.


Georges Parent: I accept the statement of the hon. member.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. On March 3 the hon. member spoke to the main motion before the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) had been moved. Therefore, since he has already spoken on the main motion I submit that he is out of order.


Georges Parent: I have just received the record, which shows that the hon. member spoke on the main motion, at page 1183 of Hansard, before the amendment was moved. Therefore, he is out of order.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker, I submit that I never spoke on the main motion or on the amendment. I am now moving an amendment which reads as follows-


Georges Parent: Order. At page 1183 of
Hansard the hon. member is reported as having spoken on the main motion prior to the moving of the amendment by the hon. member for Weyburn, and the hon. member is therefore not entitled to speak again on the main motion.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker, I move the following amendment.


Georges Parent: Order. The amendment was moved at page 1190 of Hansard, subsequently to the speech made by the hon. member on ' the main motion. The hon. member is therefore not in order in speaking now on the main motion.
War Appropriation


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker, if I have spoken on the main motion, that does not prevent me from moving an amendment now?


Georges Parent: The hon. member has already spoken on the main motion and is not entitled to speak on it again.


Liguori Lacombe: I shall not speak but move an amendment.


Georges Parent: The hon. member is not entitled to speak now.


Liguori Lacombe: I appeal from your decision, Mr. Speaker.


Georges Parent: Five members must rise for an appeal to the house. The question is on the main motion.
Main motion (Mr. MacKinnon, Edmonton West) agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.



WAR APPROPRIATION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide, inter alia,
1.	That sums not exceeding $2,000,000,000 be granted to his majesty towards defraying any expenses or making any advances or loans that may be incurred or granted by or under the authority of the governor in council during the year ending March 31, 1943, for-
(a)	the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada;
(b)	the conduct of naval, military and air operations in or beyond Canada;
(e) promoting the continuance of trade, industry and business communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against war risk or in any other manner whatsoever; and
(d) the carrying out of any measures deemed necessary or advisable by the governor in council in consequence of the existence of a state of war.
2.	That the governor in council be empowered to raise by way of loan under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act. 1931, such sum or sums of money, not exceeding in the whole the sum of $2,000,000,000 as may be required for the purpose of defraying such expenses or making such advances or loans, the principal and interest of any such loan to be a charge upon and payable out of the consolidated revenue fund.
3.	That the governor in council be empowered to reexpend, advance or loan moneys that may be received by way of refund or repayment of advances, loans or expenditure under the war appropriation acts of 1939 (second session), 1940, 1941 and 1942.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee thereon (Mr. Vien) in the chair.
fMr. Speaker.]
Mr. ILSLEY:: This is an important resolution, and at this stage I should like to make a brief statement with respect to the subject matter. There are so many other matters that must be advanced before the Easter recess that it is not my expectation that we shall be able to debate this resolution at all, or at least to any extent, before the Easter adjournment, but it is important for the purposes of interim supply that it be placed before the committee of the whole as is being done to-night. If the committee thinks fit, I suggest that I make a statement on the resolution and that then the committee report progress and we go on to some other measure which it is important should be introduced and dealt with before the Easter recess. The debate on this resolution in committee of the whole will, I assume, take days and perhaps weeks, because this is the occasion when the members of the House of Commons have their opportunity of asking the government what disposition was made of the money that was voted last year, why we require so much money this year, and what is to be done with the money that is to be voted. It is not a matter which I would expect to be dealt with quickly. My suggestion is, if I may repeat, that I make a statement on the subject tonight. Then someone might move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, and we could go on with other financial matters.
This resolution seeks permission to introduce a measure which will provide the major appropriation for our war expenditures during the new fiscal year which begins on April 1. If the resolution passes, it will be followed by a bill which, when enacted, will become the War Appropriation Act, 1942. The bill will be in substantially the same form as the appropriation acts of 1939, 1940 and 1941, except that the amount requested will be vastly' greater, reflecting the ever-growing scale of Canada's war effort. But even the $2,000,000,000 requested by this resolution will fall far short of representing the total sum which will be required during the next fiscal year to finance Canada's war expenditures.
As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) explained to the house some weeks ago, our total war expenditures for next year are estimated at approximately $3,000,000,000, roughly about six times the total expenditures of this government in the pre-war years. Hon. members may ask how the remaining $1,000,000,000 will be provided1. As the speech from the throne indicated, it is our intention to ask parliament to approve the making of a free and unconditional gift of $1,000,000,000 worth of foodstuffs, raw materials, munitions and

War Appropriation
other war supplies, to the United Kingdom. In other words, instead of the indirect assistance to Britain, which we have been giving in the past, in order to enable her to finance her enormous purchases in Canada, we propose in future to provide these war supplies to Britain as a direct part of Canada's war effort, up to the amount of $1,000,000,000. It is therefore my intention to move later-I hope to-morrow -a companion resolution now on the order paper, which will seek authority to introduce another appropriation bill, which will be called the War Appropriation (United Kingdom financing) bill. This latter bill will provide, among other things, for an appropriation of $1,000,000,000 for this purpose.
It is true that the appropriations to be authorized by this second measure will not relate exclusively to the fiscal year 1942-43. It will provide continuing statutory authority not related to any one fiscal year. It is my hope that it will be passed promptly and that the appropriation it will provide will become operative during the present fiscal year and will cover expenditures incurred during, say the present month as well as during the remaining months of 1942 and for some time in 1943.
When the War Appropriation (United Kingdom financing) bill is before the house I shall attempt to explain more fully how the $1,000,000,000 appropriation is to be divided between this year and next year. I thought, however, it was necessary for me at this time to make this brief reference in order that the house might understand why we are asking at this time, in the present resolution, for only $2,000,000,000, although we have estimated that our war expenditures will run to about $3,000,000,000 during the coming fiscal year.
If I may now return to the resolution which I have moved, I would point out that the main war appropriation bill which the resolution precedes will, as last year, contain three essential features. First, it will ask for a vote of credit for war purposes, but this time, as I have said, for $2,000,000,000. Second, it will ask for a grant of borrowing authority; in other words, the bill, if passed, will enable the government to borrow funds to pay for any of the expenditures covered by the vote of credit if such borrowings are proved to be necessary. Third, as was the case with last year's bill, the new bill will confer power on the government to act as the agent of any British or allied government and, in this capacity, to incur temporarily obligations or costs which are recoverable from the government concerned. One of the few changes in
this year's bill is to extend this power to cover obligations or costs temporarily incurred by a crown corporation such as War Supplies Limited, while acting as agent of the British or an allied government.
The first of these three features, namely the grant or vote of credit, is, of course, the most important aspect of the bill. To enable the house to discuss the magnitude of the vote requested, I shall first give some data and estimates as to our direct war expenditures during the current fiscal year. Hon. members will recall that when I spoke on the corresponding resolution of last year I said that the government had decided to ask parliament for an initial war appropriation of $1,300,000,000, although the war programme, as then outlined, would involve, according to the estimates of the departments, a total estimated expenditure in excess of that sum by perhaps $150,000 000. I explained some of the difficulties involved in making any advance precise estimates or rather forecasts of the probable cost of a full year's war effort, and I stated that if the departmental estimates were in fact realized, it would be necessary to come back to parliament for' a supplementary appropriation toward the end of the fiscal year.
As every one knows, the monthly expenditures on war have been rising rapidly, and I expect that within a few days I shall have to introduce a supplementary appropriation for the current fiscal year for an amount of probably $135,000,000 to carry us through to the end of this month and to take care of outlays during April relating to expenditures made during the present fiscal year ending this month.
The latest estimate, which was made some days ago, and is still subject to revision, is that total direct war expenditures for the current year will reach about $1,431,000,000. This total may be broken down approximately as follows:
Army	
Navy	
Air force, Air training plan
(Canada's share)	
Air force, home war defence
and overseas	
Munitions and supply	
Other departments

139.000.	000
258.000.	000
156.000.	000
252.000.	000
111.000.	000
Total	$1,431,000,000
This amount, it will be noted, is very close to the total of the estimates made by the departments last spring. As the house may recall, it contrasts with total direct war
War Appropriation

expenditures of $778,000,000 (including $26,000,000 of advances and loans charged to active assets) for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1941, and with total war expenditures of $118,000,000 in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1940.
The estimate I have just given of our war expenditures for the current fiscal year does not, of course, include the indirect assistance which we have given to the United Kingdom, and concerning which I expect to give the figures when I am dealing with the companion resolution now on the order paper.
But even excluding this substantial indirect assistance, the total represents an amount to be spent on a single year's war effort which to all of us in 1939 would have seemed incredible. For the new fiscal year, the corresponding figure for what has in the past been called our direct war effort will be nearly 50 per cent larger. As last year, we have aimed at a war programme which will represent the country's utmost capacity, the maximum which we can carry out with the physical and economic resources at our disposal. That capacity, it must be remembered, increases each year the war goes on, as existing plants are expanded and new plants are constructed to produce war equipment and supplies, as labour is trained and administrative skills are developed, as civilian expenditures are more and more restricted, and as our economy generally is more and more converted into a war economy.
I am free to say that the estimates submitted by the service departments, the Department of Munitions and Supply, and the various other departments engaged in war work, total up to a higher figure than the $2,000,000,000 which we have decided to ask parliament to authorize at this time. I need not, however, labour again the great difficulties of making precise forecasts so far in advance of actual expenditures, and particularly in a time as uncertain as the present; and of course it is always possible to come back to parliament for a supplementary appropriation if before the end of the new fiscal year it should prove that the actual expenditures are likely to exceed the vote for which we are now asking.
When the bill is before the house, detailed estimates can be given of the proposed expenditures by the various departments, but perhaps at this time I should give the house a break-down by the main categories of expenditures. Using the same classifications as I used a few minutes ago, for the probable
[Mr. Ilsley.l
expenditures for the current year, the estimates of the departments may be summarized in round figures as follows:
National defence:
Army services	 $997,000,000
Naval services		259,000,000
Air services		585,000,000
Sundry	 21,000,000

Munitions and Supply	 355,000,000


Leslie Gordon Bell: May I make a suggestion to the minister? Discussion could be greatly expedited if this appropriation were gone into, broken down, departmentalized, and the ministers would deal with one particular phase of things at one time. Last year we wandered all over.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We tried to systematize it last year. We shall try it again this year-try very hard-because the hon. gentleman's suggestion is certainly in accord with the wishes of the government. We are most anxious to keep the discussion in a particular period limited strictly to one particular department.
But let me finish what I was going to say about what it will be necessary for us to do before the Easter recess. I mentioned one-sixth of the main estimates, the non-war estimates, the interim supply.
The second measure I am going to suggest will be one-quarter of the $2,000,000,000 by way of interim supply. That will be $500,000,000, which I am told by my officers will be necessary if there is going to be any substantial delay in the voting of the $2,000,000,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That will
require a bill, also.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It will require a bill also.
That will be the second. Third, I shall have to ask the house to vote a small supplementary appropriation for the non-war estimates of last year. I have not spoken to my hon. friend
<4561-90
about that; I did not think about it at the time, but it is a very small supplementary appropriation.


Leslie Gordon Bell: What does the minister call "small"?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It would be for a few million dollars only. That is the third bill. The fourth bill I shall have to try to get through parliament before the recess is the supplementary war appropriation bill, which I did mention, and which will be a bill for $135,000,000. Those four measures I hope will not take any time. I hope they will go through quickly, because so far as I know there is nothing that could be said on those that cannot be said on the measure which is now before the house, and I am willing to give any undertaking that hon. members will not be prejudiced by letting those bills go through quickly.
In addition to those four bills-the two interim supply bills and the two supplementary appropriation bills-as I have said there will also be the important bill dealing with the $1,000,000,000 worth of foodstuffs and so forth that we are contributing to the war effort. I should like to-morrow to introduce the resolution relating to that, if I can, and I would expect it to be fully debated. I am not inviting a long debate on it, but I am not asking that it be put right through without debate, because that would not be fair to the house. I am giving the house now what I expect to happen in reference to those financial measures. We may not again get at the measure now under consideration before Easter, because the other measures may take up the time. If there is an opportunity to get at it again, we shall go on in committee and discuss it as we did last year, only trying to make the discussion more systematic, as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has suggested.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should
like to say just a word in relation to these matters. Yesterday the minister spoke to me with regard to six different orders of business to be considered before the Easter adjournment, and to-night he has mentioned most of them, together with an additional one. I think I should give some explanation to my colleagues with respect to the position we are in to-night. If hon. gentlemen will look at Hansard for last evening, they will see that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud), in moving the adjournment of the house, specified that to-day we would take either Bill No. 5 or the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Pensions and National Health

War Appropriation

(Mr. Mackenzie) with respect to the settlement of land by veterans of the present war; that then the debate on wheat would be resumed, and that if we got through with that, we should go on and take up Bill No. 2. The minister went on to say:
It will not be possible to-morrow to take up any of the resolutions standing in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley).
It now turns out that the Minister of Finance, who I understood was to leave the city did not leave, and he wants this motion to go into committee to be put through for a technical reason, as it was explained to me. That reason is that after going into committee on this $2,000,000,000 war appropriation resolution he proposes, before the Easter adjournment, to ask for an interim appropriation bill covering 25 per cent of this amount, and it would not be possible to have that interim appropriation bill put through unless the resolution reached the committee stage. I do not understand the reason for that, but I am assuming it is a correct Statement of the position, and it was on that understanding that I consented to what has been done to-night. Otherwise there would have been discussion, or perhaps otherwise the minister would not have moved this resolution to-night. But I would not want the minister to go on with any further money bills or resolutions or appropriations to-night, because we have had absolutely no notice of any intention to do so.
The minister has made it quite clear that any hon. member who wishes to make a speech during the resolution stage may do so on the interim supply bill appropriate to the $2,000,000,000 war measure, and that I think will take care of the position of certain hon. members who desire to speak during the resolution stage of this $2,000,000,000 bill.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If the hon. gentleman will permit me, I did not intend to suggest that speeches should be made on the interim supply bill. I suggested that speeches be made on this resolution in committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; that is not good enough, and I will tell the minister why. Hon. gentlemen who have speeches to make in connection with this $2,000,000,000 appropriation are not entitled to speak in accordance with arrangements made by the whips when the Speaker is not in the chair. When the house is in committee of the whole, with the deputy speaker in the chair, it is a case of whoever can catch the chairman's eye. Hon. members know it is catch-as-catch-can then, and it is a discommoding procedure. Therefore I think we must reserve the right to hon. members who

want to make a speech on this war appropriation measure to do so before the 25 per cent is finally voted, and they must have the right to do that with the Speaker in the chair. There is an important distinction, and I think on reflection hon. members will realize what it is. That is what we would desire to do, and what I thought could be done as a result of what the minister stated. We understood there would be an interim appropriation bill, on which occasion any hon. member who desired to do so could make a speech, before the Easter recess. I suggest that this would help clear the air, and that hon. gentlemen who thought they were going to speak on the resolution but who have not been permitted to do so because of a desire to expedite the minister's position should be given an opportunity to do as they wish, and I hope the minister will reciprocate to that extent.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not mind one bit, so long as I get through. I do not, however, for important reasons, want that $1,000,000,000 bill hanging over the Easter recess.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is on another footing altogether.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If there is time to get that bill through the house, get my other legislation in and get this interim supply through, I do not care how many speeches are made on it. But I do dread the possibility of arriving at Friday of next week with the bill relating to the $1,000,000,000 not through and the interim supply bill being fully debated.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I cannot control the procedure on the $1,000,000,000 bill. Any number of members may wish to speak on that, and the debate may go on for a month. I am, however, going to try to help expedite it; I said I would and I shall.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Would it be possible by agreement to expedite the committee stage, and if a full dress debate is to be held, then have it on the second reading of the bill? We could have an understanding to that effect; the Speaker would be in the chair, and at that time we could take up anything we might have wanted to take up on the resolution.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; then you are confined to the principle of the bill.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I can appreciate the position of the minister. We are only ten days away from the Easter recess, and I take it that the $1,000,000,000 resolution and bill are somewhat pressing.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, they are.

War Appropriation


Leslie Gordon Bell: The minister wishes to get that through first. If we begin to debate this I imagine we shall be debating it when we rise at Easter.


Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Chairman, there is an easy way to settle this matter. We could proceed with the resolution in committee; and when the time of the Easter adjournment comes, the house could agree to one-sixth of the amount, subject to the continuation of the discussion as soon as the house meets again. Every hon. member will admit that the discussion of this resolution is much more important than any debate or discussion on the plebiscite and, in my humble view, it should have come before the house much earlier, so that hon. members would have had an opportunity to discuss the whole matter.
This is not a time to make speeches and homilies; it is a question of knowing how money will be spent, and that is all. Here we are facing again the question of ministerial responsibility. At times we hear ministers say, "We have assumed a tremendous responsibility." I understand that in a time of war it is no fun, and the ministers have to make decisions. But those decisions are not the ministerial responsibility. Ministerial responsibility is the rendering of public accounts to the representatives of the people assembled in the House of Commons of Canada, whether they sit in the house or in committee.
Last year I remember well that I mentioned the way in which public accounts were rendered, and pointed out that I was scandalized by the condition of affairs. I could not conceive why it should be that the larger the expenditure, the tinier would be the public account, and I made representations to that effect. I remember well that at that sitting a Conservative member of high standing, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) came to me and told me I was absolutely right.


Mr. MacNICOL:: So you were.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you. And a day or two later the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) made exactly the same argument, in which he complained about the way in which the accounts were rendered. Then the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in front of the whole house promised me that this year there would be an improvement in the rendering of public accounts. Unfortunately no one has seen any improvement.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Worse.
44561-90}


Jean-François Pouliot: No improvement in the way in which public accounts have been rendered this year; they are not any better than they were last year. Hon. members know very well that there are departments which give positively no information regarding the details of expenditures of public moneys. There is not any account for one cent spent by many departments, except as they appear in the accounts of the auditor general. Further, sir, the Department of Finance is the one department in the government which does not render any account. The accounts are rendered by the auditor general, and we do not find in them any items of a less amount than $5,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think it is $35,000 now.


Jean-François Pouliot: Perhaps; that is much worse.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is why I said it was worse.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is much worse. There is not a single elector in Canada who is not entitled to full information concerning the rendering of public accounts.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Absolutely.


Jean-François Pouliot: Sometimes we hear complaints about the number of questions asked in the house by hon. members about the salaries paid to Mr. So-and-so, or the travelling expenses of Mr. So-and-so, or the living allowance of Mr. So-and-so, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. In former years it was easy to look into the public accounts, which were certified by an officer of the crown receiving $15,000 a year, who could be discharged only by joint vote of the Senate and the House of Commons. Those accounts were complete. Then, if an elector, no matter how humble, came to his member to obtain some information about this man, that man or the other man, after having a glance over the public accounts the member was in a position to inform his constituent without having to ask the government a question during a session.
I have had a glance at the Orders of the Day and Votes and Proceedings, and I have seen the numerous questions asked by my colleagues for information which was available in former years without making any request. Is it because we are at war that we have completely lost responsible government-the responsible government for which our ancestors in this country fought? Have we lost the responsible government for which William Lyon Mackenzie, the grandfather of my chief, the Prime Minister, suffered so much? We have statues all round this building, and I
War Appropriation

would draw the attention of hon. members particular!}' to the monument commemorating Lafontaine and Baldwin, the men who succeeded in obtaining responsible government for Canada.
Not only have we lost responsible government, but we have lost even the notion of responsible government. We are now asked to swallow a piece of legislation referring to the expenditure of the astronomical sum of $2,000,000,000. We are asked1 to spend it like a drop of water-not a glass of water, just a drop. It is pretty hard for us to do that, because the constituents of each hon. member, whether on this side of the house or on that side, will have their right not only to inquire of their members about public accounts, but to ask those members in their own offices, or where they may receive the people of their constituency, "Sir, I am coming to you for information. Will you please tell me how much has been spent for-" some work, or possibly a salary, or some other kind of expenditure. Will those constituents be satisfied if the member answers: "Wait until the next session, and if we have an opportunity before adjournment we shall try to get the information for you."
No; it is not a matter of making speeches; it is a matter of getting accurate and complete information. The discussion will be longer just because of the fact that the public accounts are shapeless. There is not a province in Canada, not a city, not a township, not a village, no matter how small, where public accounts like these would be accepted, where they would satisfy those who have the responsibility of government. I am not talking in a grouchy or harping way; I am saying this because I feel it is my public duty. I am ready to support the government to the limit, but I do not want this house to lose rights for which our ancestors paid so dearly.
When I refer to the house, I do not mean only when Mr. Speaker is in the chair; I am referring also to when we sit in committee of the whole. We should follow the great example and traditions at Westminster. They are at war in England just as we are. They do not feel that being at war makes it impossible to check expenditures. The committee of national economy sits daily under the roof of Westminster and every expenditure is checked. There is public control through the members of parliament-they have the House of Lords and we have the Senate-over every expenditure, no matter how small. Last year I was promised solemnly-the house was promised that there would be an improvement in the public accounts. But nothing has been
(Mr. Pouliot.j
done; they are worse than before. I do not speak as a bad Liberal; I speak as one who is a Liberal at heart.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You are speaking a lot of good sense to-night.


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend would listen to me all the time, he would say that quite often. We must follow what has been done at Westminster during the long centuries since magna charta. There has been ministerial responsibility for the rendering of complete accounts for each expenditure. That is the British tradition. It is not sufficient for anyone to wrap himself in the British flag and say that he is a good British citizen. The flag represents a great past and great ideals, but there is something important that should never be forgotten. I refer to the traditions which have been followed closely during the centuries, the traditions of true democracy. We must follow these real British traditions in this house if we are to remain a British House of Commons.
I do not intend to say much more to-night because I have said enough. I have expressed my very deep disappointment and r, for one, will not tolerate such legislation pasoing in a hurry. We shall have to take our time. I am ready to sacrifice the Easter adjournment and stay here in Ottawa in order to scrutinize these expenditures to the last cent. I have made other sacrifices and I am ready to make this one. I might take a Sunday in order to see my electors, but I am ready to sit here every day in the week except Sunday and work conscientiously as a member of parliament in order to keep the confidence of my people.
If the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) wishes to go to Vancouver, he can stay with us all week, take an aeroplane at night, spend the afternoon in Vancouver and be back with us the day after. But I am sure that he is ready to make the same sacrifice as I am, and I am sure that, all other hon. members are ready to do the same. Let us not be afraid to talk British common sense in times of war as well as in times of peace. The promise to which I have referred was made to the whole house because it was given at three o'clock on the orders of the day by no less a person than the right hon. the Prime Minister, my leader. That promise should not be forgotten. Moreover, that promise will be kept. I suggest that the public accounts which are unsatisfactory should be republished in as complete a form as they were during the last war. They are simply shapeless now. The smallest municipal council, the smallest school commission, would not

War Appropriation
accept accounts like that. How is it that we as members of parliament, representing 245 constituencies-244 now-should be expected to accept such shapeless accounts?
Let us not be afraid to use plain language to express our thoughts. My -language to-night has not been private; it has not even been feeble. I believe I have spoken clearly enough to be understood by everyone. This is no joke. We are ready to go the limit to support the government, but this passes the limit.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is beyond the limit.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is beyond the limit; the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) is absolutely right. This matter is serious. The victory -loan campaign is over and the loan has been oversubscribed, so it cannot be said that we would be handicapping its success by discussing these questions. Every one did his share to make the loan a success. As I told my constituents-I want Hansard to translate that as "eleeteurs"-on previous occasions, it was the right thing to subscribe to the victory loan, but I was coming to Ottawa to try to check expenditures so that there would be no waste.
What I said to my people in my constituency-and I want Hansard to translate the word "constituency" by "comte"-I repeat now because I have no two ways of expressing myself, one way in the House of Commons and a different way in Temiscouata. I use the same language in both places and it pays in the long run. I hope that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) will have an opportunity to think over this matter and, as night sometimes brings good counsel, that he may change his opinion. There might be an amicable, friendly discussion in the best possible spirit. But the most important thing is not the expression of views, however respectable they may be, by any member of parliament in this house. The most important thing is to know what is going on and how the money is spent.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You cannot find that out in the public accounts to-day.


Jean-François Pouliot: We shall have to get it from the committee in due course.


Mr. GREEN:: If the proposal made by the Minister of Finance is carried out, the effect will be that there will be no discussion of the war effort across the floor of this house until this house meets again on April 20. To me it is almost inconceivable that the house would agree to a step of that kind being taken. The resolution which is before us to-night, and which has come up although we were told it would not come up, gives us the
one chance of the whole session to discuss Canada's war effort thoroughly. There is no chance to do that on the bill which follows the resolution. The chance is on the resolution itself, and I for one do not propose to agree, if unanimous agreement is required, to any course that will result in deferring all the discussion of Canada's war effort until after April 20. We have been here already for nearly two months, and in that time there has been no real opportunity at all to discuss-Canada's war effort. With the enemy threatening us on our east coast and on our west coast this house has seen fit to talk for four weeks on the speech from the throne, then for several weeks on the plebiscite, then for many more days on wheat, as if there were no war raging in the world at all. That is setting a terrible example to the people of Canada. How can we ever expect to have our people put their backs into this war when this house carries on in that way? Then to have the government make this proposal to-night I think is an insult to the Canadian people. I suggest, I demand, that every minute from now until this house adjourns on the 27th of March be spent in discussing the war effort of this nation.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, I wish to
protest against this way of doing business. His majesty's forces are represented in this house by three ministers, one for the army, one for the navy, and one for the air force, and not one of these ministers is here to-night. I protest against voting $2,000,000,000 at 10 o'clock to-night. We spent in 1896 $36,000,000 for the total maintenance charges of Canada. Where are we in this war? Nobody knows where we are. We have nothing in the Pacific at all.
I say to the government, you have let Australia down. Before the war started you were dependent on pacifists. This resolution speaks for itself; but before the war, you not only threw away defence, but threw away your friends. The Minister of Finance now brings down a resolution-
-that sums not exceeding $2,000,000,000 be granted to his majesty towards defraying any expenses or making any advances or loans that may be incurred or granted by or under the authority of the governor in council during the year ending March 31, 1943.
All that $2,000,000,000 will not amount to 50 cents in beating Hitler. You let Australia down. You threw Australia to the wolves at the imperial conference in 1937 when Australia asked this dominion to give a large grant to the Singapore base, which would have resulted in safeguarding British Columbia and the Pacific. But this government at that conference refused to have anything to do with the
War Appropriation

Singapore base, and refused to adopt the Jellieoe report which would have given us adequate protection in the Pacific. You had a navy of three or four cruisers and a destroyer, boats which, added up, amounted to 9,240 tons, about the size of a good 10,000-ton tramp steamer to protect us in the Pacific. When we saw the war coming; when Hitler had invaded Czechoslovakia, when his armies had crossed the Rhine, which Mr. Baldwin said was our first line of defence, this government and hon. gentlemen opposite refused at that colonial conference of 1937 to go into an empire shipping scheme. They were told at that conference by New Zealand and Australia what the disasters might be to this dominion from the Pacific, and they refused to do a thing. They said: "We have no commitments, parliament must decide."
When you look -at the text of this resolution for $2,000,000,000, you see that it is for "the security, defence ... of Canada." What security or defence have we had in the past from a similar vote since the war broke out?


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. It is 11 o'clock.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am going to move in a
minute that the committee rise-


Thomas Langton Church: I move that the committee rise.


James Lorimer Ilsley: -report progress and ask
leave to sit again. But first let me say just one thing. Any statement that we are trying to preclude, or delay, or defer discussion of the war effort is entirely unwarranted, and I never was more surprised than I was when I heard the hon. member for Vancouver South make the statement he did to-night. All I am asking now-and I am putting all my cards on the table-is this: I am saying that for tremendously important reasons I want interim supply, the supplementary appropriations and the $1,000,000,000 bill passed. If the house will do that, they can take the rest of the time, so far as I am concerned, on this matter before the house. The house has some responsibility at a time like this-


Howard Charles Green: So has the government.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Discussion is important, but there are certain definite things that must be done, matters of great moment. I am simply asking the house to help me get those things done when they have to be done. Then they can take the rest of the time to discuss the war effort. No one is trying to shut off dis-cusssion or prevent any one from talking.


Thomas Langton Church: I rise to a point of order. A speaker cannot be interrupted, and the minister interrupted me when I was speaking.
[Mr. Church.}
The rules of the house are the same in committee as in the house. I move that the committee rise.


Thomas Vien: It is eleven o'clock. It has been moved by Mr. Ilsley that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, March 18, 1942