1922-06-14

Mr. W. F. KAY (Missisquoi) :: With the consent of the House I beg to move that the fifth report of the select standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization be concurred in.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Under rule 41, this
motion may be made only by unanimous consent. Is the House of opinion that the motion should be put?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


William Frederic Kay: Mr. Speaker, in rising to
move concurrence in the fifth report of the select standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization, I have only a few remarks to make. The question was first brought up on a memorandum presented to the Government by the Canadian Council of Agriculture, asking for the re-establishment of the Wheat Board of 1919. This memorandum was, on the 27th of March, referred to the select standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization. That committee proceeded to hear expert witnesses both for and against the re-establishment of the Wheat Board, amongst those witnesses being representatives of councils of agriculture, elevator companies, millers, grain dealers, the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, boards of trade, and also Messrs. Stewart and Riddell, members of the former Wheat Board. The committee also received telegrams, letters and petitions from various sources, both for and against the re-establishment of the board. The question of the constitutionality of the re-establishment of the Wheat Board having been raised, the matter was referred to the law officers of the Crown for
their opinion. Their opinion was laid on the Table of the House on the 19th of April last; it will be found in Hansard of that date. The recommendation of the committee for concurrent legislation by this Parliament and the provincial legislatures is based on procedure adopted in Australia. It was also suggested in the committee that if legislation were passed by this Parliament, it should be provided that any province taking advantage of a wheat board, should become responsible for any loss sustained by the board and should become possessed of any profits made therein. As the minutes of the proceedings of this committee contain all the evidence taken, and as these have been distributed amongst members of the House, who, I am sure, have read them all, I leave the matter for the consideration of the House.


Mr. MACLEAN (York) :: Will the hon. member explain briefly to the House just what the report of the committee is?


William Frederic Kay: The recommendation of the committee was presented to the House on the 26th of May. I can read it to the House, but it will be found in the Votes and Proceedings of that date. It reads:
The select standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization beg leave to present the following as their fifth report:
Tour Committee, having held twenty-two meetings and heard the evidence of nineteen witnesses and having given full consideration to the whole matter referred to them, beg leave to submit the following Resolution as a recommendation, viz.:-
1.	That it is desirable in the National Interests that the Government immediately create a National wheat marketing agency for the marketing of the wheat crop of .922.
2.	That this agency be given ah the powers of the Wheat Board of 1919 as are within the jurisdiction of Parliament to grant except as they include the direct marketing of flour and other mill products.
3.	That an act be passed based tn this resolution, to become effective by Proclamation, as soon as two or more of the provinces have conferred upon this agency such powers possessed by the Wheat Board of 1919 as come within provincial jurisdiction.
Your Committee also submit herewith the Minutes of their Proceedings and the Evidence taken by them.


Hewitt Bostock: Is the House ready for the question?


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition) :: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me incredible that the Government should permit this motion to be submitted to the House without any statement whatever of its position with regard thereto. Apparently, however, that was the state

Wheat Board

of mental paralysis the Government was in, and the House was about to vote on the resolution without any statement whatever.
The resolution that has just been read by the hon. member apparently constitutes the sole report of the Committee on Agriculture and Colonization on this question. The House will recall that some time ago, in the month of April, shortly after this question was submitted to the committee, on the occasion of an interim report requesting the submission to the Supreme Court of some question that had been raised as to jurisdiction, I took the opportunity of reviewing briefly the history of governmental handling of wheat, and, as regards such interim report, urged that the long delay involved in litigation was perilous-yes, fatal-to all wheat board prospects and was totally unnecessary. The House accepted the view I then presented and the matter of the determination of jurisdiction was left to the ordinary course, that is, reference to the law officers of the Crown. Such having been done, there appears to have been very little difficulty in determining where the line dividing jurisdictions lay. Indeed, there appears to have been on the part of the law officers of the federal government no pretence or claim that there was, under present conditions, the power to re-establish the board with its old compulsory features. Consequently, litigation would have been futile, because, even on the part of those contending for federal powers, there was no belief that those powers could be sustained.
The committee set to work to determine what should be recommended to Parliament, it having been decided that certain of the accompaniments and duties of the old board could not exist in a board constituted purely by this Parliament. They have taken a long while at the task; indeed, they have had something of a chequered career in coming to the point reached to-day. But now we have their recommendations. Why the matter should have been delayed so long it is hard for any one to comprehend who really wants a solution of the question. It is weeks since this decision was arrived at. Between this decision and a previous decision, there were one or two weeks intervening; and all the while time has been speeding, time that was exceedingly precious if there was to be the least prospect of action such as might be taken advantage of for the season of 1922. Hon. members should keep in mind that all that has apparently been under review in this committee is the question of handling of
IMr. Meighen.]
the crop of this year. That is all that is contemplated by the resolution which now constitutes the report. To take care of that crop, final action must be taken at least during the month of July. The original wheat board was established towards the end of July, 1919. Then we had none of the advantages of previous experience. We had a novel situation from every aspect, and it took us two or three weeks of consideration, such time being devoted to it as we were able to give to the subject, other matters intervening. Even then it was a little later in being established than would have been best, had it been possible to come to a decision earlier. But this year, knowing as we do that federal action alone is incompetent, that provincial action must follow, and that for that purpose, provincial legislatures must be called and must hold special sessions before they can act, as contemplated by the report of the committee, what is the excuse for waiting until the 14th day of June to bring before Parliament the recommendations of the committee, which involve all the subsequent proceedings that are indispensable before final action can be taken?
Even were this report just as it should be, even were we in a position now to decide, I question whether it would be possible for such final action as this report contemplates to be taken in time to be of any value whatever for the crop this year. It really would appear that the whole project of the Wheat Board has been submitted to a long, cruel process of strangulation and that now we are asked to give it the final and fatal turn. Let me read from the report:
1.	That it is desirable in the national interests that the Government immediately create a national wheat marketing agency for the marketing of the wheat crop of 1922.
2.	That this agency be given all the powers of the Wheat Board of 1919 as are within the jurisdiction of Parliament to grant, except as they include the direct marketing of flour and other mill products.
The agency is to be given all the powers within federal jurisdiction, except that one. I ask hon. members, of the legal profession particularly, to reflect for a moment whether that one is a federal power at all.
3.	That an act be passed based on this Resolution, to become effective by Proclamation, as soon as two or more of the provinces have conferred upon this agency such powers possessed by the Wheat Board of i!'19 as come within provincial jurisdiction.
When analyzed, what is that report? A wheat board is to be established, by

Wheat Board
legislation yet to be introduced, to take care of the crop of 1922, and that alone. That board is to be given all the powers conferred in 1919 upon the old board, whether by Order in Council or by subsequent statute. It is to have all the powers that are vested in the federal Parliament, save one, which is assumed to be a federal power. But the board, so constituted and empowered, shall sit silent and inactive and never come into real existence at all until at least two provinces meet in special session and do-what? Grant them such further powers as the provinces think wise? No; not at all but 

grant them all such powers within the provincial jurisdiction as the old board had. The only option left to the provinces is to confer upon the board all powers of provincial origin possessed by the old wheat board. Two provinces must do that, and after they have done it, it rests with the Government by proclamation to call this act into effect.
Now. was I too strong in my language when I stated that this is merely the last step of the tragedy in the long process of strangulation of the whole prospect of wheat board?
First of all, what is made necessary under this proposal? I do not think anyone suggests that Ontario would act; we must be practical. So far as the resolution goes, Ontario could, of course, so could Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island; but everyone knows that we have not those provinces in mind,-there is virtually no possibility of their considering the matter at all. Hardly anyone would suggest that Manitoba could. That province is now in the throes of an election, so how could a special session of the legislature be called now? There remain only two-Saskatchewan and Alberta; they might do so, for their people are doubtless very much interested in this project. Their people and ihe people of Manitoba are, I believe, sincerely desirous that we establish a wheat board as near the old Wheat Board as this Parliament can establish it. I think that is the prevailing opinion; whether we agree with its soundness or not.
Those provinces, then, might possibly induce their legislators to meet and pass this special legislation. But why should we make it a condition that they must not only give the board such powers as they think wise, but they must give it every power the old Wheat Board possessed in so far as those powers are compulsory-
185J
that is, provincial? The placing of that obligation upon them leaves them no discretion whatever, and reduces to a minimum the likehood that they ever would comply with these restrictions.	,
I want to inquire into the question from another angle. The provinces must grant the board, what powers? They must grant the following powers that have been held not to be within federal jurisdiction-I refer to the complusory powers:
To require each applicant for a license to give a bond in such form and in such amount as may be satisfactory to the board;
That is, a license to buy and sell wheat. So that, if Saskatchewan acts, she would impose those restraints and restrictions upon the whole wheat-buying and wheatselling structure of the province at a time when there were no such restraints and restrictions in Manitoba at all, probably none in Alberta, and certainly none in Ontario. Alberta would have to do the same and put the whole of the wheatbuying and wheat-selling instrumentality of that province under all those restraints when competitors in other provinces were not so restricted. It would be putting them in a position where they could not compete, and it would be putting them in a position where the system would be half compulsory and half voluntary and would not work at all.
Let me pass to another power:
To provide that no person, Arm or corporation other than the board, shall buy wheat, operate any elevator or warehouse where wheat is received, or handle wheat on commission or otherwise unless licensed by the board.
My remarks as to the previous power apply here. All those things they must impose upon their wheat-buying and wheat-selling agencies while other provinces have no such restraints, and while, indeed, other provinces will be operating under a different system altogether. But let us go a little further. They will be compelled to give the board this power:
To order any person holding wheat stored in any elevator or warehouse or on railway cars or Canadian boats to sell and dispose of the same to any purchaser named by the board on such terms as the board may direct, and any such order of the board shall pass to the purchaser the title in the wheat mentioned In any such order.
That is to say, there cannot be any buying and selling at all save by such person as the board names in those provinces.. The last power is:
To prohibit the export out of Canada-
Wheat Board


Mr. ROBB:: May I interrupt my right hon. friend? Does he argue in favour of a compulsory wheat board?


Arthur Meighen: What is my hon. friend afraid of?


James Alexander Robb: I am not afraid of anything; I would just like to follow my right hon. friend's ideas.


Arthur Meighen: I have not argued in favour of a compulsory wheat hoard. I will say what I am in favour of very shortly. Indeed, I have said it already; I said it in the campaign of last fall, but I was denounced by my political foes-some of whom, by the way, now appear to be my best friends on this subject. I have no curves to take on this subject or on any other. It is suggested that I might reply to my hon. friend in the classic words of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) of

Wheat Board
yesterday; he cannot shake his gory locks at me. I am trying to show the House that it cannot possibly accept this report as a definition of the policy of this Parliament. It would land us in a quagmire. Imagine a wheat board with power to handle the whole crop and to fix the prices at which it should be sold to the miller in Alberta or in Saskatchewan; to fix the prices of grain to those people and then to say to them: "Here is a market; charge just whatever you like; we won't let any flour in; we won't let any wheat in; you have a closed market here to yourselves." That is the position we are asked to put the Wheat Board in by this resolution. And that is the position they will be put in if we adopt the motion; because if you permit the importations into these provinces then you put it out of their power to operate altogether.
Take the position of the eastern miller-[DOT] for example the miller in Montreal. The miller who is alongside the stream of grain, who has it at his door all the time, passing by, does not need to put in a stock; he can get it at any time. The miller in Montreal, though, can do that only during the period of navigation. Through that period he must stock up; he must get his grain and have his supply for production of flour later. He gets it and he protects himself by a system of hedging. Now, under the old Wheat Board and under the Board of Grain Supervisors, that situation was taken care of in this way: the Wheat Board sold to the miller the wheat-sold it first at $2.30-and allowed him to lay in a supply at that price. They also fixed the price of the flour for sale in Canada; they had to do so. You cannot fix the price to the miller and give him his market and not fix the price of selling; if you do, you give him a virtual monopoly under which he can do what he likes. So they fixed the price and said: "Within Canada you sell at that price." And what did they say with regard to selling outside of Canada? They said: "We will sell beyond Canada ourselves, and the balance over and above what we let you sell for here, over and above the margin of profit we fix, goes into the pool, is reflected in the participation certificates, and returns to the producer." That was a fair arrangement. In that way they kept the prices down fairly well to the consumer in Canada and they secured the whole benefit for the producer; it did not go to the miller. If the price went up, then the wheat pool behind was simply expanded by that amount; if the price went down, then there could at
least be no sale beyond the price or the margin of profit fixed by the Wheat Board
itself.
What is going to result if this resolution goes through?


Mr. CRERAR:: Would my right hon. friend permit a question there, for information? In his opinion, has this Parliament the power to clothe any board or authority with the power to state the price at which the mills, say, of any of the provinces of Canada, shall sell their flour to their customers?


Arthur Meighen: That has already been decided by the Justice Department. I do not seek to impose my opinions as legal opinions on the House, but the Justice Department has held in the negative. The provinces could give that power. What this resolution contemplates is that two provinces shall in western Canada. They give these and all these compulsory powers to a board to be applied in Western Canada alone; in eastern Canada, the millers of which depend on that very wheat, there shall be no such powers at all. Such an arrangement simply will not work. For example, they would be compelled to sell at a certain price to the miller in Montreal. We will say that after that the wheat price goes up. Of course, the market here must be surrounded, bo the miller is going to get the whole advantage. If, however, the wheat goes down, and they have bought at a certain price dictated to them, why, the milling industry of Canada will be ruined. In a Word, you cannot operate a board half compulsory and half voluntary. You cannot give it all those powers, provincial and federal, those monopolistic powers that the old board had, and give it to them only in a part of Canada. You Cannot so geographically limit it, while in the rest of Canada, where the same industries are carried on, no such conditions exist at all. Surely -it is manifest to the House that no such system as that would work.
Under the conditions of 1919 the wheat board policy was the correct policy. I do not hear very many expressions of dissent at this time. I heard a great many at that time, but let those things pass; they are incidental to politics. Under those conditions, differing wholly from the conditions to-day, the wheat board policy was the right course to pursue, and it resulted in tremendous advantage, certainly to the people of western Canada, to the people of the whole of Canada. When hon. members recite, as one did yesterday in the House,
Wheat Board

that all that has ever been done for the West has been done by the enemies of hon. gentlemen here, I venture to suggest that by the wise handling of the crop of 1919 more was done for the farmers of western Canada than has ever been done by any government or by all governments together in this country.
Soane hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr. McMASTER:: A large statement.


Arthur Meighen: But very well received, 1 notice, by those who come from that part of Canada. Now, what were the conditions there? The United States had a closed market. The United States had a guaranteed price, and they had an embargo on grain going over. Europe, on the other hand, had virtually a closed buying agency. They were buying through one channel, and consequently, if they were not met by a similar situation at the selling end, then the selling end would have been helpless in the hands of the purchasing power. With the United States in that position, it was possible for us to operate this system. Europe is in no such situation to-day, neither is the United States. In the latter country, a free market exists, and with a free market in the United States you cannot, in my humble judgment, operate successfully a dosed market in Canada. I offer that opinion for whatever it is worth. I make no pretensions to such familiarity with the grain trade as would lend any excessive weight to the opinion I have just expressed, but let me say that it is buttressed by the judgment of many who have had very active and long experience in the grain trade of this country. And in Europe there is competitive buying.
There has been very serious complaint with regard to our wheat marketing system, our whole grain marketing system. I do not think all the complaints are justified; I do not think the grievance is nearly as large as it has been represented to be. But I believe there are substantial grievances, and I believe as well that in this year, 1922, that western country suffers more than any other part of Canada from the pains of deflated currency, from the effects of the premature deflation of the values of farm products and of manufactured and other goods. Such has been the experience in this and other countries of the world. Naturally this result would be particularly felt on the prairies. The West is so situated geographically that the task of overcoming its freight and transporta-

tion difficulties is the biggest of any wheat or grain-produding country in the world. It may not be as great as Rusia's to-day, but ordinarily it is the biggest mountain to get over in the way of transportation cost, just on account of its geography, that confronts any grain-growing country. Therefore, the West to-day is in the position, described, I think, though, in terms of some exaggeration by representatives from the West in this House. Nevertheless, they are in general right.
A rather serious position exists in western Canada just because of the two causes I have named. Therefore, it is the part of Parliament to render special assistance there, if special assistance can be rendered, to tide them over the present position, and Parliament should address itself to that task, and if to some extent the credit of this country is essential to do it, I do not think it will be the will of the majority of this House to withhold that credit for this purpose. If by the extension of federal facilities of credit and federal facilities of organization we can at least give a trial to another system of marketing, I for my part would like to see that system of marketing established. In that state of mind, and not unmindful as well, of the necessary restrictions in point of jurisdiction of the federal Parliament-in the state of mind I have described I stated last fall that if it was the wish of the western people, that should be done. I was prepared to commit myself to the establishment of a voluntary grain buying and grain selling system, or the establishment of a board by the federal Parliament, which board would have power to receive, to purchase, and to sell through its agency by the same system as the old wheat board, all grain committed to its charge in the year 1922. I also held out the hope that if that succeeded, if it proved feasible, it could be made the basis of a permanent system of marketing for that country. Undoubtedly it was to be in essence a voluntary system. It would not have the powers of the old board, and it would not have from some angles many of the advantages of the old board. That I well knew then; that I well know now; but I do not think in the light of conditions of to-day we could justify, even if the federal powers existed, the monopolization of the whole wheat handling of this country and virtually of the whole milling and flour disposal of this country.
It might be better and I would be prepared to do everything in my power to

Wheat Board
bring it about, that certain limited compulsory power be given. I do not think it would be of real value to have them given by two provinces alone. There might be certain compulsory powers, as to storage and disposition particularly, that could be given, and as to the giving of which this Government should not withhold its assent. Consequently, it seems to me the right course to take now is the course suggested there. I would be prepared to admit of some modification, of any modification that can be advanced in this House as feasible and of public advantage.
I suggest, then-I have not an amendment ready, but if the Government, particularly, has no opinions on this question I shall go to the trouble of getting an amendment and having it ready-I would suggest that we decide here and now on the establishment of a board upon the voluntary principle, and that we provide as well that if any province sees fit to repose in that board compulsory powers, the board can exercise those powers provided they are first reviewed by the federal government and receive its approval. I do not like Order in Council government. I never have.


Andrew Ross McMaster: By others.


Arthur Meighen: Hon. gentlemen are
a little slow in laughing because I expect they were thinking of some startling legislation introduced by them that is now ir committee of this House. But here we are in the place where if there is to be any co-operative action at all as between provincial legislatures and this House, this House can act by Order in Council and in no other way whatever. There is no other way in Which it can act; there is no opportunity to act otherwise. This is the only way it can be done. I therefore suggest that we decide upon the establishment of a board with the powers we are able to give it-we cannot do any more than that-and that if any province decides to give it more, then it be within the power of the Government of this country to review that additional power to ascertain if it will work in consonance with the whole grain handling system of this country, to inquire if it has been adopted by sufficient provinces to enable the board to operate to see that it is such that it does not impose undue responsibility federally; and, if in the wisdom of the Government it is a power that can properly be exercised, this government can empower
the board to exercise that power so provincially conferred.
When I have said that, let me impress this as well. What I propose is going the full length that this Parliament by any means whatever can go to meet the wishes of western Canada in regard to this Wheat Board. There is no step in the world that . we can take beyond that. There is nothing we can do beyond that.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Would the right hon. member be prepared to have this Government take action which would open the door to compulsory action by the provinces?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, so long as the
power of review is in the government of Canada. I know of no other way now to work this problem out. I would have it all done here if that could be done, but it cannot be done. The delay, the procrastination in this matter, has prevented it. We are now at the very end. We have either to stop and do nothing, we either have to kill the whole project by this resolution or some other means, or we must take the line I suggest. There is nothing else that can be done. That is why I suggest this course.
Let me repeat, my submission to the House is this, that we decide upon the establishment of a body with such powers as Parliament can give it, and that that body be enabled to exercise further powers such as can only be given by provincial legislation if in the opinion of the federal government such powers are right and proper and practically exercisable in connection with the functions of that body, if in the opinion of the Government it is wise that that body should have those additional powers beyond the powers vested in it by this House. Let me ask again, can any hon. member of this House suggest anything else, can any hon. member advance one single word or sentence that this Parliament can do to meet the wishes of his constituents, to meet the wishes, say, of western Canada beyond what I have suggested to-day? Beyond that we cannot go. Such is the extreme limit of our power. I know it places a wide discretion in the hands of the administration, but the exigency is such and the demand is such that I for one am ready to meet it, and, at some risk, to repose that measure of confidence for this time.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) :: The action the Government may take with respect to the report
Wheat Board

of the committee will necessarily depend on the action which the House takes in regard to the report. Should the committee's report be approved, the Government will immediately introduce a bill based on the report. The bill, I might say, has already been drafted. Naturally the Government wishes to have the benefit of the discussion in the House before bringing the bill down and submitting it for consideration here.
Speaking in a broad way, I might say of the scope of the bill that it creates a marketing agency endowed with such powers as it is within the jurisdiction of this Parliament to confer, with the further provision that as regards compulsory powers, these may be conferred on the board by provincial governments, which alone have jurisdiction in the matter of conferring such powers. I think that discussion on the subject matter involved might well be left over until the bill itself is presented to the House. What I have said will be sufficient to indicate the attitude of the Government on the report.


Arthur Meighen: We are now deciding on this report. Does the right hon. gentleman say that the Government's measure complies fully with the provisions of this report, that is to say for example, that its legislation only goes into effect when two provinces act, as this report enjoins they must act?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Government's proposed legislation is based upon this report; it complies with its recommendation. Of course, if this report is not accepted the Government will not proceed any further with its proposed legislation.


Arthur Meighen: That is the Government's policy?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the
Government's policy.


William Findlay Maclean: Does not the
proposed legislation involve the credit of the nation being put behind this wheat board so as to finance its operation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Government will assume responsibility for such agency as it creates. With respect to any additional liability that may grow out of additional powers conferred by the provinces, that is a matter for which the provincial legislatures will have to make provision.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: With a portion, at any rate, of the remarks of

my right hon. friend the leader of the Opbosition I agree-that portion of them which relates to the difficulties that have beer, encountered by the farmers of western Canada in the past year, and the need of this Parliament taking what action it can to relieve those conditions in the coming year. I do noc wish to follow at any great length the remarks made by my right hon. friend, but I do think that if the House were to accept his remarks at their full face value-which I think is very doubtful-the House would gather a wrong impression as to some aspects of this question. I regret the delay that has 'existed in connection with this report, although I must say this- that the Agriculture Committee that were hearing evidence in the matter desired to give the fullest opportunity possible to all who wished to make representations to it, and consequently the report was not in a position to be submitted to the House until the budget was brought down and the debate thereon was concluded. But while my right hon. friend regrets the delay and thinks that that will prevent suitable action being taken I cannot agree with him. I think that probably this Government, in a matter of this kind, can move as rapidly as did the government of my right hon. friend in 1919, and I recall this fact:	That while strong
representations had been made to the government in the early part of the summer of 1919 that action should then be taken looking to the creation of a board with compulsory powers for the handling of grain, that action was not taken by the government of the day until July 27 in that year. It was not until July 27 that an Order in Council was passed providing for the creation of a board, and endowing that board with all tfie powers that were necessary for its work. After that date the board met. It created its organization; it laid down its rules and regulations, and had everything in shape for the handling of grain when it started to move in the early part of September. I quite realize that on account of the legal position of the matter, as revealed in the opinion offered to the committee by the law officers of the Crown, that this Parliament has not the power to create a board endowed with the powers that the board created in 1919 exercised, so that it is necessary for co-ordinate legislation on the part of the provinces desiring to take it, in order that the agency created may function, as far as possible, along the lines of the wheat board of 1919. But if this

Wheat Board
Parliament now takes action along the lines indicated in the report that we have now under consideration, it will be quite competent for the provinces who desire to supplement that legislation to do so, and to have the whole thing in working effect weeks before this year's crop
4 p.m. starts to move, and whatever agency is created has the advantage of the experience gained by the previous board. It can utilize the regulations that the previous board had, it can adopt such of the orders that the previous board promulgated as it may think necessary; and I see no reason whatever why action along this line cannot be successfully taken.
My right hon. friend argues, with a good deal of force, that this recommendation provides that the provinces must pass supplemental legislation containing all the powers that the old Wheat Board had which this Parliament cannot give. I do not so interpret, necessarily, the resolution. The recommendation that the House is at present considering is a guide, or an indication, of the lines along which this legislation should proceed; and if it is necessary to vary slightly in that respect when the proposed bill is in committee why I certainly think this House is at complete liberty to take such action, and it is not bound in that respect in the castiron manner that my right hon. friend indicates.
The leader of the Opposition also states that the whole thing is impossible of operation because all the provinces in Canada may not take action. When this report was under consideration in the Agriculture Committee, the committee were fully seized of the fact that there were only three provinces in Canada to which this matter was of vital interest. That is, it is in the prairie provinces in western Canada where practically all the grain of this Dominion is produced. We know the situation that exists in the province of Manitoba. An election is pending, a new legislature will shortly-perhaps in the course of a month or two months-come into existence. Possibly there may he a new government. It is necessary for this government to get organized, and to have a session of the legislature before the supplemental power that is necesary on the part of the provinces can be passed by Manitoba. It was for that reason that the recommendation was placed in the report of the Agriculture Committee that as
soon as two provinces took action the matter could proceed, and the committee had very definitely in mind the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta when that recommendation was placed in the report.
Now it seems quite clear that what authority the federal government may lack to endow the agency with the powers possessed by the Wheat Board of 1919 rests in the provinces; and the whole purpose, the whole idea of this report-adopted after very careful thought and discussion in the Agriculture Committee

is that by mutual arrangement, by supplemental legislation on the part of the federal authority and the provinces, an agency can be created having, in the main, the powers enjoyed by the Wheat Board of 1919. It is quite true, as far as the compulsory features are concerned, that that will obtain only in the provinces that pass supplemental legislation. I am not a lawyer but I believe it is competent for a provincial legislature-say Saskatchewan or Alberta, or both of them working together -to pass legislation that will invest in a board the control of the wheat produced in those provinces. After all, what is the central idea back of a wheat marketing scheme such as proposed, such as has been asked for by the Council of Agriculture? It is this: To regulate the flow of wheat to the market so that 75 per cent of our crop is not dumped on the market in three months of the year. That is the purpose of this marketing agency. If such an agency is created it can store the wheat in elevator storage. If there is a surplus in Europe at any particular time, if the export demand is weak or absent, then such a board can regulate the flow of the grain to the market by holding it back until that demand again resumes. We have seen the experience in this connection in the sale of grain. I need only point to the conditions that obtained last autumn when our wheat went down steadily day by day, and week by week until it dropped from around $1.40 a bushel to around $1.02 a bushel.
When those heavy deliveries of wheat in the autumn months were over, and they had been absorbed, the market immediately came back again. Whether the hopes of those who wish for a wheat board are well founded or not, at any rate those hopes rest mainly on the fact that those disabilities can be overcome. Such a board as is created under the proposals of this report would, at any rate, as regards the
Wheat Board

two main wheat producing provinces of the West, be endowed with power to regulate the flow of grain to market. My right hon. friend brings up the difficulties that millers may be in. There may possibly be some practical difficulties in that respect. At the moment, I must confess that I see no reason why such a board could not sell to the millers anywhere in Canada such quantities as the millers might require. They can buy their wheat; they can make contracts for it with the board, and as regards preventing the importation of wheat and flour from the United States into Canada, what has that to do with the question in the provinces concerned? Supposing some person did import wheat from the United States into Alberta and Saskatchewan, immediately that wheat came into those provinces it could, under the legislation, come under the control of the board that was created.


Arthur Meighen: That is to say, that the Government of Canada would finance any wheat that was imported into Saskatchewan or Alberta from the United States, the same as it finances wheat for our own people.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My right hon. friend is not so dense as to think that is the point I am trying to make.


Arthur Meighen: I am trying to make it clear.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I understood my right hon. friend to argue that wheat would be imported from the United States into Canada, and that because it might be imported into Canada, this board could not efficiently function. That was the argument my right hon. friend made.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Well, I say to my right hon. friend that if such wheat is imported into Alberta or Saskatchewan, that wheat can immediately come under the control of the board that is created.


Arthur Meighen: Then the board will have to finance it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is all right. They have the wheat if they have to finance it.


Arthur Meighen: And the credit of the Government of Canada will be buying American wheat.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That was not the point
of my right hon. friend's argument at all.


Arthur Meighen: That is the result of it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In any case there is not the slightest possibility of that. Why on earth should wheat come in from the United States? The board which is created will have to sell its wheat and fix its price according to the markets of the world.


Arthur Meighen: Why was an embargo put on in 1919?


James Alexander Robb: The embargo was put on to prevent wheat from going out.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think the Wheat Board in 1919 would have functioned just as successfully if no embargo had been put on, and my right hon. friend knows that, if he has studied the markets in the United States, because, in 1919, the markets in Minneapolis were above the price the American farmer would get for his wheat if it were brought into Canada.


Arthur Meighen: It was stated that the Canadian farmer got an average price considerably higher than that which the American farmer received, and I should like the hon. gentleman to get an opinion from the Chairman of the Wheat Board to the effect that he could have functioned for one week without an embargo against importations of wheat.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I shall take the earliest opportunity I can to consult my friend Mr. Stewart, who was Chairman of the Wheat Board at that time; but if my right hon. friend can explain why an American farmer or dealer would send wheat into Canada at that time and take $2.23 a bushel advance on it while he could get $2.50 in Minneapolis, then he can explain the situation.


Arthur Meighen: Just for the reason that the Wheat Board themselves gave, that that advance, with the participation certificates, represented a very substantially higher average price to the Canadian producer than the American price. The American producer is just as anxious for a higher price as is ours.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is very true as it turned out in the final analysis.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, and as was expected to be got.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: But no one expected that in the early months of the crop year of 1919, or in the early months of 1920, and the best evidence of that is that scores and hundreds and probably thousands of Canadian farmers sold their participation certificates for two or three cents a bushel.

Wheat Board


Arthur Meighen: That was because of the campaign waged by enemies of the Wheat Board.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My right hon. friend is a little sensitive about the enemies of the Wheat Board. The fact of the matter was that the initial advance given by the Wheat Board in 1919 was away below the prevailing prices of Minneapolis, and farmers of western Canada had not the experience of the thing or the confidence in it that finally, they would realize the prices which they could have obtained had their grain gone to Minneapolis. That was the position.


Mr. STEVENS:: Did they realize those prices?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Of course, they realized the prices they got.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Where is my hon.
friend's argument of a moment ago that the reason they did not import was because prices were higher in the United States.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I would suggest to my hon. friends that they study the history of this thing; and if they study the history of it a little, they will not fall into such grievous errors as they are falling into now. The reason why the Wheat Board secured such a large final price for the crop of that year was due to conditions that arose months after the crop started to move.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Was it not an average price?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It was an average price.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is it not fair to take an average price for one's argument?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That has nothing to do with the point which I am discussing. I asserted that, practically from the beginning of January, 1920, until that crop was finally sold, the prices secured were very much greater than any member of the Wheat Board or any person connected with it expected to get-higher than the initial price. And why? Because of conditions that existed in Europe. One fact that contributed more than anything else to the success of the Wheat Board in 1919, was the threatened coal strike in Great Britain in the summer of 1920, because it is a well known fact that the British Government at the time bought grain at every place which they could buy it, stored it in every warehouse in Great Britain and paid any price that was asked for it, in order
that the United Kingdom might be provided with food reserves against a possible tie-up of transportation.
This is, however, slightly off the line of argument that I wish to take. I say that it is not necessary in the first place that all the provinces take action to implement legislation based on the report submitted now to the House. The whole idea behind this is that through co-operation of federal and provincial legislation, the wheat producing provinces that are directly affected can have created, a board that will largely, if not altogether, function along the lines of the board of 1919. My right hon. friend argues against this. He states that there are many obstacles and difficulties of a legal character in the way. That may be. I am not a lawyer and I cannot say.


Arthur Meighen: Of a practical character, I said.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: They may be of a practical character; but I do not think they are of a practical character. If the legal difficulties can be smoothed away, I see no reason why the thing would not work. I may be wrong; but my right hon. friend suggests that this is all impossible. He suggests first that it will be impossible to get legislation passed in time to function for this crop; and yet, if a voluntary system is created along the line of his own argument, provincial legislation is necessary, so that as regards the question of time, the one scheme is on all fours with the other.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say that it was necessary at all. The board could function without any provincial legislation whatever; but they might assist, and I would give the Government power to utilize it if it was available.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Very good. I am very glad to have that point cleared up; but I would like to examine for a moment the voluntary scheme suggested by my right hon. friend, and I do not think it will'be of any value whatever. Let me tell the House why I think so. What does my right hon. friend suggest? He suggests that another agency be set up to market grain. Well, suppose you pass (legislation creating your voluntary agency. That agency opens an office in Winnipeg to do business. Now, whom is it going to do business with? In the first place, the voluntary board or agency created under the plan suggested by my right hon.friend has not a single elevator
Wheat Board

in the prairies between Winnipeg and Calgary, and therefore it cannot do business of an elevator character. The only business such a board could do would largely be confined to a small commission business in the handling of grain from farmers loading grain over loading platforms. And that would not meet, in any degree whatever, the demand or the wishes of the producers of grain in this country. Such a voluntary board could handle grain on commission; it could have the use of the government elevator at Port Arthur, could enter into the exporting business in competition with other exporting firms, and could sell grain abroad in the markets of the world. But it would have no grain to commence with, except such slight quantities as wouild come to it on a commision basis from farmers who might load over the loading platforms.


Arthur Meighen: What is the proportion of western grain loaded on cars over platforms?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The proportion of western grain loaded on the cars over platforms is growing less every year.


Arthur Meighen: What is it?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I cannot say at the moment what it is, but I may remark that since the advent of the farmers' co-operative companies, who now have between 700 and 800 elevators operating on the prairies, the shipment of grain from the loading platforms has considerably decreased. Speaking of the company, with whose business I am familiar, I know that a very small percentage indeed of the grain reaching the markets in Winnipeg and Fort William through our agency comes over the loading platforms.


Arthur Meighen: Could not the farmers' co-operative companies utilize the government agency?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is very true they could. But I will venture this assertion, that the farmers' co-operative companies can handle the business better, under these conditions, than could any agency such as is suggested by my right hon. friend. That is the simple truth of the matter. But what advantage would there be in utilizing the government agency? None. The whole purpose and argument behind the compulsory wheat board is that it regulates the flow of grain to market. To what extent would the voluntary board suggested by my right hon. friend achieve that purpose?
f Mr. Crerar.l


Arthur Meighen: If the grain shipper over the loading platforms and the grain handled by the farmers' co-operative organizations were entrusted to a board that had government finance behind it, it would certainly have a control over the disposition of grain and would be enabled to spread the flow over the year, taking the best advantage of marketing conditions.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am afraid that the advantage that would come from such an arrangement would be very slight indeed. However, we need not argue the point. I have indicated the practical difficulty that exists in the way of the scheme propounded by my right hon. friend. I give him credit for sincerity in the matter, but his proposal is not practicable. The marketing of western'grain is one of the great problems of the day; and after the most serious consideration I cannot bring myself to believe that any great measure of relief would come from the plan he suggests. I think that undoubtedly the best thing for the House to do is to adopt the report. Let us get legislation passed, based on the report before the House, and let us approach that legislation with the view of earnestly working out a scheme that will give the benefits that are expected. If that is done in the near future, there is no reason, in my judgment, why the provincial legislatures of Alberta and Saskatchewan could not meet and pass supplementary legislation. At any rate, the scheme should have an honest trial, and that is all that is asked for by those who are supporting it.


Mr. RENE MORIN (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville) :: Mr. Speaker, fate has willed that I, a mere professional man should have been appointed a member of the select standing committee on Agriculture. In my particular case, however, the anomaly is not so pronounced as it may appear, since, in my riding of St. Hyacinthe-Rouville, 1 have been for over fifteen years secretary of the agricultural society, of the local, fair, and of the municipal council of the county. You will understand that, occupying these positions, my daily dealings are with farmers and my interests are so mixed up with theirs that their prosperity is essential to mine. On account of these relations with them, I may state that all my life I have been profoundly interested in their work and in their prosperity, and that I am here in this House to defend their interests, claim all their rights, and support any policy which will tend to improve their condition.

Wheat Board
The question that has come up before the Committee, the re-establishment of the Wheat Board, is of no direct interest to my constituents, but inasmuch as it relates to farmers, though they are of another part of the country, and as there is, and must be, a spirit of solidarity between the farmers of the whole country, I followed as assiduously as possible the sittings of the committee and the evidence that was brought before it. The wheat growing industry is one of the most important industries in Canada; it is one of those in which our exports are the largest; and, inasmuch as it brings into our country foreign wealth, it is one of those which has to be nursed the most tenderly. During the past two years this industry has gone through a very critical period. It has been asserted' that for the last two years wheat growers have had to sell their product at a price far below the cost of its production, that in most cases the financial reserves accumulated during the years of plenty have been exhausted, and that such a state of things can no longer continue without grave consequences. This period of depression has followed the years of plenty which prevailed during the war, when Canada had to carry on the task of providing the warring nations on the allied side with bread.
Now, if we recall the principles and laws of economics, we should not wonder at such a situation, because these laws and history, since the time of Joseph of Egypt, teach us that, inevitably, periods of increased production, of intensified activity, of inflation of prices, are followed by times of depression, of stagnation, of deflation of prices, entailing monetary losses and all kinds of difficulties and troubles. But economic laws also teach us that the bottom of such a depression is reached one day, and then the reverse and upward march starts again and brings us back to normal times. In this sphere, as in many others, it is merely the operation of the law of averages which regulates the trade. Some will say that this crisis is the outcome of the war. I do not deny it; the war was the cause of abnormally high prices. But this does not in any way affect the operation of the economic laws which I have alluded to; given the abnormal increase of activity for any reason whatsoever, a depression was bound to follow. However deplorable and heart-rending may be the condition of the wheat
grower, there is yet no reason to despair, because, according to the inexorable operation of these laws, we shall slowly and gradually come back to the time of normal and reasonable profits in this industry, as in others which are established on a solid foundation. The wheat growing industry is not a war industry; it grew and prospered before the war under normal conditions and in competition with the wheat growing nations of the world; and there is no reason why it should not, after this crisis, be in a position to resume successfully this competition. The question is, what can be done to hasten this revival? What are the ways and means of bringing some relief to the actual situation?
One of the remedies suggested is the improvement of the marketing conditions of wheat through the creation of a central agency called the Wheat Board, which would market or control the marketing of the greatest part of the wheat crop of Canada. The advantages claimed for such a system may be put under three heads:
1.	The regulation of the flow of wheat;
2.	the possibility of increasing its price;
3.	the elimination of the profits of some of the middlemen.
As to the regulation of the flow of wheat, it is asserted, that right after the harvest, the farmers, on account of their financial obligations are compelled to realize on their crop, and as a result seventy-five per cent of the wheat crop of Canada is thrown on the market during a period of three months. This glutting of the market causes a drop in the price, so that, at the time when the farmer has to sell his crop, prices are the lowest of the year, and he has to stand the loss, represented by the difference between this low price and the average higher prices prevailing during the remainder of the year; and when, as now, prices are below the cost of production, the consequences are disastrous. But, if on the one hand, these abnormal offerings of wheat have a tendency to decrease the price, this to a certain extent is counterbalanced by another element-the desire of the dealers and exporters to buy at the same time, in order to be able to take advantage of the lower cost of water transportation before the end of the season. So, if we go over the statistics, based on the Fort William prices, we find that if there is often a sagging of the price in the fall, it is not always the case and that sometimes prices have been as low or lower in the spring
292S
Wheat Board

than in the fall. Assuming that, more often than otherwise-and I think this is the case-there is a decrease in price during the fall, this disadvantage would be overcome by the operation of the Wheat Board, which would permit the wheat-grower to realize immediately after the harvest, by getting from the board, on delivery of his wheat, an initial payment not very much below the value of his crop, and receiving the benefits of the later higher prices, which the board, by holding his wheat to dispose of it at the best time and at the higher price, so far as human foresight can be relied upon, would procure for him. Another advantage which may be put under this heading, is that the handling of wheat by a single agency would also permit a better, more effective and more economical use of our transportation systems, and by disposing first of the wheat which may be liable to deteriorate would prevent losses which sometimes occur.
As to control of the price, by this we mean control of the foreign price, for the board would absolutely control the domestic price, but no advantage would be received from that control since these advantages would be at the expense of the local consumers, and this is not what is being sought. The local price would have to be based on the foreign price. The control of the price is an advantage which can only be claimed for a compulsory wheat board controlling the whole of the Canadian crop, or as near to it as possible. The question is whether an agency controlling the wheat export trade of Canada could pretend to influence to a certain extent the price of wheat in the European markets.
On this question we have the evidence given by Mr. H. W. Wood, president of the Canadian Council of Agriculture. I give the question put by Mr. Stevens and Mr. Wood's answer. This is extracted from the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the select standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization:
Hon. Mr. Stevens: Do you expect by the constitution of compulsory selling agfncy or wheat board to so influence this relation between the seller, the Canadian market and the purchasing market, the European market, so as to increase the price in the foreign market?
Mr. Wood: Yes, I think so. I am not certain, but I think I can risk that answer.
Then we have this evidence by Mr. James Stewart, formerly chairman of the Canada Wheat Board of 1919-20, and now a grain merchant in Winnipeg:

Q. Would it be possible for a selling agency controlling the marketing of the whole of the Wheat in Canada to increase or to affect in any way the Liverpool price?-A. It stands to reason that one seller as against many buyers has a better chance in the merchandising of any commodity. I would accept that principle unquestionably.
Q. Would that be to a very large extent or only to a very small extent?-A. That would depend very largely upon circumstances.
Q. Then we might conclude that the operation of the Wheat Board would affect the foreign wheat price and increase It to a certain extent for the benefit of the Canadian producers? -A. Conditionally upon the crop not being a very large one, such as we had in 1915, I would say that possibly the price which a Board would receive might be better than could be secured under the present system.
I have much respect for the opinion of both these gentlemen, but I have much reluctance in concluding from these statements that a wheat board would be in a position to materially affect the foreign price of wheat. British imports do not come only from Canada. We have to compete in the British market with the Argentine, Australia, Egypt and India, perhaps we shall soon be competing with Russia; and it cannot be conceived that Britain would buy very much wheat from Canada if she could buy it elsewhere cheaper. Truly, the principle set forth by Mr. Stewart that one seller as against many buyers has a better chance in the merchandizing of any commodity, can hardly be challenged. But does it apply here, when we are competing with so many nations? Even granting that the withholding of the Canadian crop might raise the price of wheat, there would be an advantage, but I claim that this advantage would only be temporary and that in the long run the harm that it would do to our trade would more than offset all advantages secured.
If he had to pay more for Canadian wheat than general market conditions seemed to warrant, and if this rise could be imputed to a government agency, the British importer, who would think that he was being held up for higher prices by such an agency, would, when the other markets of the world are free, inevitably feel inclined to leave aside, as far as possible, the Canadian product, and deal only with the products of our competitors, and I am afraid that the reaction which would follow might hurt our trade with that country to a much larger extent than the benefit which would have resulted from such a rise.
As to elimination of the profits of the middlemen, each step made in the marketing of a form of merchandise increases

Wheat Board
the difference between the price the consumer pays for it and the price which the producer receives. If the producer could sell directly to the consumer, such difference, less the cost of necessary services, would disappear altogether. It was acknowledged that in this particular trade no unfair charges for services are made by the middlemen, but it is also claimed that, as shrewd business men, they turn to their advantage the variations in prices which occur daily, the speculative element which this variation entails, and this explains why there is sometimes such a large difference between the "street" price, the "track" price and the Fort William price of wheat, a difference which was much smaller under the operation of the Wheat Board. There is no doubt that the operation of the Wheat Board would there effect a saving in favour of the producer.
This wheat board may be constituted either with all the powers which the old one possessed of taking and selling the whole of the wheat crop of Canada; or it may be only a commission appointed by the Government, financed by it and going into the trade in competition with other dealers for the purpose of taking the wheat of only those of the farmers who would elect to dispose of their crop through this agency, handling it with as much economy as possible, selling it at the best time of the year, and after having made an initial payment at the time of its delivery, distributing the profits between the farmers having dealt with it. The first would be a compulsory wheat board and the other what may be called a voluntary wheat board. The board which it is proposed to establish by the resolution before the House, is a compulsory one, to deal with the crop of two or more of the prairie provinces. No doubt some of its most dangerous features have been removed by the restriction of its scope to wheat in its natural state, or by the elimination of flour and wheat products from its control. But if the principle of the compulsory feature of the wheat board is wrong, it cannot be made right, by being made subject to certain limitations in its application. And I claim that the compulsory feature is wrong in principle and dangerous in its effects.
The ground on which the law officers of the Crown laid their argument that the constitution of a compulsory wheat board was outside the jurisdiction of this Parliament was that it was an interference with property. The fact that the provincial legislatures have control over property and can legally make that interference is immaterial to my argument. I have always been taught, and I have always believed, , that in a free country the right to private property, the right to ownership, is sacred; that this right is the basis of our whole economic system, and that the State can lay a hand on private property only in very special circumstances, when it is obviously in the public interest, and on payment of adequate compensation. My appreciation of the evidence before the committee and of the advantages to be derived from the constitution of a compulsory wheat board, leads me to believe that such a board is not necessary to the maintenance of the wheat industry and that such an infringement of liberty could not, in this particular case, be based on the public interest.
Moreover, the operations of such a board would be dangerous in their effects. Statistics have been produced to show that it is nearly impossible to forecast the price of wheat much in advance, and that on many occasions the price of wheat in the spring has been lower than in the fall. If a Government agency, operating under the compulsory principle, took the wheat of the farmer right after the harvest, held it over until the spring in the hope of a better price, and by an unfortunate chance had then to sell at a lower price that the fall price, thus causing a loss to the farmer, who would pretend that the farmer would not object to such a board and would not raise a hue and cry against the Government and rightly claim compensation for his loss? The experience of the farmer with the compulsory wheat board has been a profitable one, but the conditions under which the old board operated during the war, when the whole of Europe had ceased to produce and was destroying and consuming wheat on a larger scale than ever, no longer exist. It is rather the reverse; the production of wheat is gradually increasing, and we are justified in fearing, under actual circumstances, a different trend of prices.
Our wheat export business has been done so far by dealers who, by years of toil and good service, have built up trade connections, have made for themselves a name and a reputation and have built up a good-will, all of which constitute a valuable asset yielding considerable revenue. The operation of the wheat board would, as by the stroke of a pen, end these business connections and wipe out the asset represented
Wheat Board

by the good-will, thus entailing considerable losses, which, to my mind, should not be imposed on any one in this country without due compensation. This objection did not arise during the war, because all individual or private importers in Europe were replaced by a single government purchasing agency and ordinary business transactions were temporarily suspended everywhere. But this is no longer the case, and I see no way of avoiding responsibility for these losses.
A compulsory wheat board involves the creation of a monopoly by the government in favour of one particular industry. Such special treatment or privilege, once granted to one industry, could not long be refused to others. It is the first step toward the adoption of a policy which would be no more severely condemned by any section of the people than by the farmers themselves. It behooves them not to urge the government to embark upon a policy from which they may, perhaps, draw some benefits today but which will operate to their detriment to-morrow.
The establishment of a compulsory wheat board is an intereference with the normal operation of the laws of supply and demand, or rather, an attempt at interference with these laws. The price of an object is normally based on the cost of its production and its distribution, but there are two elements which affect it: the intensity of the demand for it may increase the price, or a lack of demand at a particular moment may decrease it. The quantity or supply available has also an effect on it, either way. The proposal is an attempt to control the supply. If this control were limited to the home market, it would surely be effective, but the control of the supply is intended to affect the foreign market, and as such is necessarily limited to that portion of import into the foreign market that comes from Canada. The supply from the other countries will remain free, and under these conditions our control of the Canadian wheat can have only one effect, an effect detrimental to our trade. It will lead the foreign trade, the foreign consumers, to curtail their purchase and use of Canadian wheat; it will tend to open new channels of import, to increase the use and consumption of foreign wheat, and so decrease the value of Canadian wheat.
These reasons and others are, to my mind, unsurmountable obstacles to the establishment of a compulsory wheat board. Truly, some of the advantages claimed for a

wheat board can only be secured by the use of the coercive feature, but having regard to the problems, difficulties and responsibilities which the compulsory feature entails, we are forced to conclude that a compulsory wheat board is not practical and would not be in the general interest.
In my mind, what is needed to help the wheat growers-and in this I am of the opinion of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen)-is the constitution of an organization, under the co-operative system, and of a permanent character, to market Canadian wheat. Such a co-operative society would permit the regulation of the flow of wheat, would secure all the benefits arising therefrom, and would eliminate unnecessary middlemen. These are the two great advantages to be derived from the constitution of a wheat board, and I claim that the establishment of a voluntary wheat board would procure both these advantages-perhaps not for the present, to the same extent as in the case of a compulsory wheat board, but still in a way to benefit the wheat growers; and that it would lead the way toward the establishment of a system which would secure these advantages permanently.
A voluntary wheat board would be in a position to regulate the flow of wheat to a certain extent and to get the benefits resulting from such regulation. The extent of these benefits would be proportionate to the volume of wheat which the board handled; it would measure up to the degree of trust and confidence which the farmers put in it, and if they did not patronize the wheat board and did not get to the full extent the benefits to be derived therefrom, they would have only themselves to blame.
Some work may be necessary to bring farmers to patronize the Wheat Board, but the farmers' organizations in the prairie provinces are now perfected to a point where they can no longer fear lack of cooperation and I cannot believe that they would not be able to bring their members to support and patronize an agency which would secure as many advantages as they claim for it.
As I have been told that one of the effects of the establishment of co-operative elevators was to raise the price of wheat in the localities where such elevators were in existence, the dealers when in competition with these elevators being forced to pay a higher price, I claim that the mere existence of such a board, by creating an acute competition between the board and inde-

Wheat Board
pendent dealers, would have a tendency to raise the price of wheat and to decrease the difference between the "street" price and the "track" price. The establishment of a voluntary wheat board with a view of securing these advantages is, to my mind, the largest and most efficient measure of relief which a government can safely and reasonably concede. I have heard the assertion that the farmers want a compulsory wheat board or none at all. There is nothing in the evidence to justify such a stand and I fail to understand it. Some will say that this attitude on my part is due to my ignorance of the matter. There may be points which I am liable to overlook in a matter of that kind but I find some comfort in the report of Messrs. Stewart and Riddell to the government of Saskatchewan. Having analyzed the different kinds of pools which may be formed for the marketing of wheat, and speaking of plan "E", which is exactly a voluntary wheat board, in its simplest form, they say this:
The success or failure of any form of pool depends entirely upon the degree of support to be given by producers. But is Is perhaps worth mentioning, that assuming a voluntary pool or a non-minimum Contract pool were successfully operated with a comparatively limited patronage, the existence of such an organization might be able to exercise sufficient regulative influence over trade practices to reduce to a minimum any disadvantages which the present system may have developed. That is to say, it might increase the tendency on the part of the trade, which exists , even now in a measurable degree, to regard the farmer in the light of a partner in a mutual enterprise.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker-and this is my concluding remark-I believe that there are insurmountable obstacles opposing the constitution of a compulsory wheat board, objections which are removed by the elimination of the coercive feature; and even if a voluntary wheat board must be less efficient and less beneficial than a compulsory one, yet it is worth while to attempt to establish it first with a view of securing the advantages to be obtained therefrom, even if they are limited compared with those which would accrue under a compulsory wheat board; and, second, as a first step toward the establishment of a permanent co-operative system for the marketing of Canadian wheat. The constitution by legislation of even such a board as this would confer great and particular benefits upon the wheat growing industry and would help to put the wheat grower of Canada in a better position to compete successfully with the other wheat growing countries in the markets of the world. To
proceed along this line is the best and the only thing that a democratic government can do.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, this report has been
before us for some weeks, standing on the Order Paper. My hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) a moment ago used the expression, "When this report was under consideration by the committee," and a little later on he used the words, "adopted after careful study," and so forth. What I wish to submit to the House and more particularly to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and the ministers of the Crown who will have the drafting of this legislation is this, that this report never was before the committee except for a very brief moment at a meeting called without any notice that such a report was to be drafted, and at which I was personally informed no action of this character would be taken. The clerk of the committee himself told me that the meeting was being called for one purpose, and one purpose only, and that was for the purpose of presenting to the House a report that had been carefully drafted after weeks of consideration, and approved by the committee at a previous meeting. I submit, Mr. Speaker, and it was for that reason I asked some weeks ago why the report was not then moved, that I would have been justified in raising the point of order-I am not doing so, however, at this late stage of the session-that this report is not in order, is not properly before the House, that it is the product of the private and individual opinion of particularly two or three hon. gentlemen on the committee, and as to which hon. gentlemen in this particular group had no opportunity of expressing an opinion.
I want the House to give me their attention for a few minutes while we consider the history of this committee- "history" was the word used by my hon. friend, (Mr. Crerar) a moment ago in speaking of the Wheat Board.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River) :: Did
not the members of the hon. gentleman's party who were members of that committee receive notice to attend the meeting to which he refers?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will deal with that
in a moment, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to go into all the details of the history of that committee through all its

Wheat Board

meetings other than to say that the committee certainly did give a great deal of consideration to this problem and, I think, very sympathetic consideration. There was a difference of opinion on the part of some hon. gentlemen on many points raised, but the committee made what might be termed, Sir, an exhaustive inquiry. That exhaustive inquiry found culmination in a resolution presented by the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Johnson) on May 9, which was adopted on May 17, after having been before the committee in the intervening period. I wish very briefly to quote from my hon. friend who presented that resolution on May 9, because his words will bear out exactly the point I desire to make, namely that the resolution which he presented on that occasion was accepted by the committee as the findings of the committee. I have not his exact words under my hand, I am afraid, but I remember that he stated that now the evidence was all in he desired to place some concrete proposals before the committee, and after consultation with his friends he had carefully prepared a resolution. Although I have not his exact words, I do not think anybody will dispute that I have given the substance of what he said. He presented his resolution to the committee as a basis for a report, and it was so accepted. It was before the committee from May 9th until May. 17th, I think it was, and was adopted on the latter date, according to the report of the committee, after a resolution in amendment n.oved by my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. Mc-Master) had been rejected. I have before me the vote. Immediately following that, and this is very important, a motion was made that a sub-committee be appointed consisting of the Chairman, with Messieurs Forke, Johnson, Stevens, Tolmie, McKay, McMaster, Morin and Malcolm, to prepare a draft report to be submitted to the main committee as the report of said main committee to the House. That was the intention of that sub-commitee. The sub-com-mitee met and drafted a 'report after several meetings. I shall not read the report presented by the sub-committee. It gave a very excellent resume of the proceedings of the committee, the difficulties faced, the judicial opinion^ of Government counsel, and it included the resolution to which I have referred and which I shall now read as the substantive part of their report.

On the 9th of May, 1922, the following resolution was moved by the hon. member for Moosejaw:
1.	It is desirable In the National interests that the Government immediately create a national wheat marketing agency similar to the Canada Wheat Board of 1919, for the marketing of the wheat crop of 1922, and that
2.	This agency be given all the powers of the Wheat Board of 1919 as are within the Jurisdiction of Parliament to grant, and that
3.	An Act be .passed based on this Resolution, to become effective by Proclamation as soon as two or more of the Provinces have conferred upon this agency such powers possessed by the Wheat Board of 1919 as come within Provincial jurisdiction.
This report was submitted by the subcommittee to the main committee, and the main committee after very considerable discussion adopted this report on May 23rd. I shall just read the resolution.
Moved by Mr. McConica, seconded by Mr. Sales:
That the report as read-
That is the one to which I have just referred, and which is incorporated in the official report of the sub-committee.
That the report as read be adopted as a correct statement of the record and proceedings of the committee.
There was an attempt made at that time, Mr. Speaker-and to this I desire to draw your attention as the supreme authority in this House on questions of procedure

an attempt was made to alter and change, or modify, the resolution which I have just read, and which was incorporated in this report. On that occasion I produced May's Parliamentary Procedure, and Bourinot, and from these authorities I showed -as I can show now if it is necessary-that such action was out of order; that, according to one of the well-founded rules of parliamentary procedure, when a resolution or a bill has been disposed of it is not in order to re-open discussion on it or, what is more important, change it. That is a rule which has been recognized for many years.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I ask my hon. friend from Vancouver if he is arguing thac this report is not properly before the House?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, my hor,. friend when I asked him a question a moment ago answered me by suggesting that I brighten up a little mentally. Let me say to him that if he will just cast his memory back about five minutes he will recall that I stated I had no desire to raise a point of order at this late stage of the session.

Wheat Board


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If my hon. friend will permit me I caught his remark at that time but I could not quite associate his argument with what he stated then?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Unfortunately I am not bound to suit my argument to my hon. friend. I have the unfortunate habit of proceeding with my argument in my own way, which may not quite suit the scintillating intellect of my hon. friend, but after all it is my way, and, for some reason or other, I am stubborn enough to follow it. Now, Mr. Speaker, Bourinot, referring to reports of committees, and so on, says this at page 479:
A report may be referred back to a committee for further consideration (f), or with instructions giving them power to amend the same in any respect (g). In this way a committee may regularly reconsider and even reverse a decision it has previously arrived at. As the rules of the house govern the procedure of committees generally, a committee cannot strictly speaking renew a question on which its judgment has been already expressed.
And then at the foot of the page there is this comment:
Every question by voice in committee bindeth, and cannot be altered by themselves, but by the house it may.
I shall not read the various other authorities but I have them here. The point is this: On that day-and that is what I wish to emphasize-on that day, the last, as I call it, legal day, this report which I hold in my hands, as reported in the proceedings of Tuesday, May 23, was adopted. The point of order which I raised on that occasion was sustained. I will admit that the Chairman did say that my point of order was not well taken "at the present moment," but later in the day, after the report had been adopted, one of my hon. friends to my left sought to re-open the matter and the Chairman ruled that it was not in order. That was on Tuesday and, I think it was the same afternoon, the chief clerk of committees, Mr. Todd, intimated to me that there had been some technical oversight, that the Chairman of the committee had forgotten to say these magic words "Shall I present the report to the House?", and that, because he had forgotten to use those magic words, it was impossible to present the report to the House. Mr. Todd informed me that afternoon that the Chairman had instructed him that a meeting would be called on Friday for the purpose of securing that authority. I asked the Clerk if there was any intention of reopening the question; because every member of the committee knew perfectly well
186J
the stand I had takn on the matter, and also knew of my objection to the question being opened, and that the ruling had been given-


Mr. McKENZIE:: I rise to a point of order. My hon. friend is discussing a former decision of this committee whose report we are now discussing, and saying there were softie irregularities in connection with the former finding of the committee, whether it was reported or not. I submit to you, Sir, on the question of procedure, that if my hon. friend-or any member of the committee or any member of the House-was dissatisfied with that finding of the committee at that time, that there should have been an ap-
5 p.m. peal to the House at once and the will of the House ascertained upon that point. But that was not done, the committee went on with other proceedings, and, I submit, Sir, upon the discussion, for ratification or otherwise, of the second report, it is not open to a member of the committee, or a member of the House, to discuss a point as to irregularity or as to proper procedure in connection with that report. I submit that the discussion upon this question as to a former irregularity is not in order, and it is not competent for the House to deal with it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I, Mr. Speaker,
speak to the point of order in just one sentence? My hon. friend says that there existed a right of appeal to the House at the time of the first report. Let me tell him that, being absent in the flesh at the time referred to, I was unable to make that appeal.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand that the hon. member for Centre Vancouver is simply reciting the facts which took place in the committee, and that he does not intend to move that the report be referred back.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: fn further argument in support of the point of order, I understand from the arguments advanced by the hon. member that he considers the report in question to be irregular and bad, and that while he may not move to refer it back at the present time, he may perhaps do so later on.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member for Centre Vancouver has waived that right by his admission of a few minutes ago.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am seeking to lay the foundation for an argument which I
Wheat Board

propose to make in a moment. As I say, another meeting of the committee was held on Friday. Of that meeting certain notice was given, and in this I answer my hon. friend's question of a moment ago. I was asked if I received notice of that meeting. I did. I received this notice:
The Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization, of which you are a member, will meet in room No. 271 at eleven o'clock, tomorrow, Friday.
No notice whatever was given that it was intended to change the original report. I also had the assurance of the Chief Clerk of Committees that it was the intention of the committee merely to ask for leave to present the original report. Now, I come to the last meeting. At that last meeting-based upon this call that I mentioned a moment ago, in which no intimation was given that there was to be a very vital and important change in the report-this resolution was proposed:
It was moved by Mr. Forke, seconded by Mr. Lovett; that
"The resolution proposed by Mr. Johnson (Moosejaw), on the- 11th day of May and adopted on the 17th day of May be rescinded."
That was done. Now I submit to the House that was an extraordinary action, especially in view of the facts which I have referred to. But that is not the chief significance of it. All the committee did was to rescind a resolution which formed a part, a very small part, of the volume of a report which had been adopted. However, on the same day a new report was drafted and presented to the House, and I learned of it when I returned to the city the next day. I feel, sir, that it was perhaps the most flagrant breach of parliamentary etiquette which obtains, and has obtained for so many years, the only case that I remember where members were deliberately- perhaps, I am putting that too strongly- where members were led to believe that no new or important action would be taken; but when they knew that he was away and was not there, and when they knew perfectly well the position he had taken on previous occasions, they deliberately changed the report which had been previously adopted;- yes, and I am advised, after the Chairman had stated at the previous meeting that it could not be changed. The fifth report of the committee was moved in this way:
Moved by Mr. Garland, seconded by Mr. Mc-Conica, that the following be the report of the committee.

And so forth. What I am referring to is a statement by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), who told the House, in his discussion of the matter, that the report now before the House had been carefully considered by the committee. That portion of the report which exempts the flour milling industry from the control of the Wheat Board was never considered by the committee. Furthermore, when that committee was called on May 26, there was a caucus of the members of this section of the House, and only two members, the hon. member for Victoria city (Mr. Tolmie) and the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Charters) attended that meeting of the committee. These hon. gentlemen attended the committee at eleven o'clock. The committee was not called to order. There were little groups of members standing around talking. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), the hon. member for Moosejaw Mr. Johnson) and a few others had their heads together concocting the report that is now before the House. Then my hon. friend says that this report was considered by the committee. There was absolutely no notice given of the changes in the report. There was absolutely no consideration given to this vital change in the original report, namely, the parr, " except as they include the direct marketing of flour and other mill products ", and this is a vital part of the report now before the House.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If my hon. friend states that I was a party to concocting any scheme to deprive him of his right of appearing before the committee, he is stating what is entirely incorrect. The committee on the occasion in question met in the regular way after notice to members had been given, and the fact that my hon. friend was absent was not noted by myself. A discussion took place for an hour and a half and a decision was reached. When my hon. friend imputes motives that are altogether wrong to myself and other members of the committee in the manner he has done, he is transgressing the bounds of what is actual fact.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Might I set my hon. friend right in one respect? I remember the occasion to which he has referred and also that as I had to attend a council meeting, I had to leave the committee before any decision was reached.

Wheat Board


Henry Herbert Stevens: That was the first meeting. My hon. friend is not going to divert me from my argument one particle. My hon. friend is referring to the meeting of May 23, and he gives me the very material which I was going to use. On that occasion my hon. friend violently differed from the resolution of my hon. friend from Moosejaw. He stated on that occasion that he was absolutely opposed to a compulsory wheat hoard or a wheat board with compulsory powers and he threw out some suggestions which my hon. friend from Moosejaw, after his resolution had been adopted, intimated that he might be prepared to accept. It is these facts that lead me to the conclusion that, in the interim between May 23 and May 26, these hon. gentlemen, in some mysterious way -maybe spiritual, psychological, but in some way or another-brought their minds into harmony, and they produced a report changing vitally the report that had been adopted.


Mr. TOLMIE:: If the hon. member is referring to the last meeting when the report was adopted, I may say that the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Charters) and myself attended it. We waited for twenty-five minutes. No business had been commenced at that time, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) left before any business was done at that meeting.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The meeting was not called to order until long after that hour-eleven o'clock. If this practice is adopted in connection with Parliament, that, after a committee have given weeks of consideration to an important matter and have arrived at a conclusion, and after members of the committee have accepted that conclusion as definite and final, one wing of the committee may get together and say: "We will have another meeting on Friday; we will send an ordinary notice around with absolutely no intimation of a vital change, and then we can meet and reverse or vitally change the previous decision"-if that can be done, a hopeless condition faces committees of this House in the future. The situation is absolutely appalling, and I intend to protest now and at any other time against procedures of that kind. It is not, in my estimation, in the slightest measure in keeping with the ethics of Parliament. It is a violation of all the decencies of business procedure. How can we have confidence, if we attend a committee and pass a bill, that at some future meeting of
which we have no notice of intention to vary that bill, those who favour the particular bill will not meet and change, modify oi amend it? Or, how can we have confidence that a vital resolution may not be changed in this way? Every member who was present in the committee from among my hon. friends to the left supported the resolution of the hon. member for Moosejaw. Yet after weeks of consideration and a vital decision, at a meeting at which I was officially informed that no business of that kind would be taken up, a vital change was made, moreover, I say, in face of a lengthy debate at a previous meeting where I raised a point of order that this could not be done and a ruling was made accordingly. The report is now before the House. I submit that this report has not received the consideration of the Committee on Agriculture; I submit to the Government that this report does not represent a considered opinion of the Committee on Agriculture as regards that portion which exempts the flour milling industry from control of the board.


Mr. McCONICA:: I rise to a point of order.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand the hon. member rises to a point of order.


Thomas Henry McConica: My point of order is that this report is regularly before the House and that the discussion of the hon. gentleman is not germane to the substance of the report and, therefore, is out of order. This is not a proceedings at which we can review what took place in the committee.


Hewitt Bostock: The Solicitor General (Mr. McKenzie) raised the same point a moment ago; but I understood from the beginning of the remarks of the hon. member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) that he waived the point of order which he might have raised, but he was only reciting facts in order to reach certain conclusions, which conclusions he is reaching just now. I understand he has left the question of order and that he does not protest the validity of the report of the committee now that it is before the House.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I close that portion of my remarks with this observation, that when the hon. member for Marquette in this debate states that this report was under consideration by the committee and was adopted after study, that is not an accurate statement of fact.
Wheat Board


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If my hon. friend will permit me, I have just this to say in that respect, that I was present in the commlittee and apparently my hon. friend was not; that this report that is now before this House was considered in that committee, if my recollection is right, for an hour and a half and discussed and agreed upon. If my hon. friend, after he received the notice for the committee, was not present, that is no fault of any other hon. member of this house.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In the way described by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie), exactly. But if they persist in the argument I submit this. We have the report of the previous committee, arrived at after a period of about six or eight weeks' sitting; and in an hour and a half, my hon. friend says, they reversed the principle of that report by exempting from the operation of the Wheat Board the flour and milling industry of Canada. That is a vital change. Now, my hon. friends to my left have asked this Parliament for a wheat board. I have never taken a stand in favour of a compulsory wheat board; they have. Their leader (Mr. Crerar), the member for Mposejaw (Mr. Johnson), who consented to the changing of his motion, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), by their tactics at the last meeting have completely vitiated any useful purpose that would have been served by the resolution of the member for Moose-jaw. That is my point. I am not in favour of a compulsory wheat board, I repeat; but it does look mighty funny to me that hon. gentlemen should come into the House with an emaciated resolution such as this and support it as meeting their requirements. As I told the committee on more than one occasion, we stand clearly on the principle of a voluntary pool for the handling of the products of the West.
Now, let me turn for a moment to a brief consideration of this resolution. My hon. friend from Marquette a moment ago, in his address, ridiculed the questions that my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) and I asked regarding the practical working out of this proposal. I ask whatever hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches may have charge of the drafting of the bill to consider one feature,-I am not going into very many phases of the subject, but I want to take this one. By this resolution, upon which, it is stated, the House is to base the legislation that is to be passed, you will control, if it is to be effective at

all, by subsequent provincial legislation, the compulsory acquisition of wheat in two provinces. I should like the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb) to note this in particular: In this resolution we are saying to the milling industry, "We are not going to touch you; we are exempting you from the compulsory features of this board." Am I wrong in that view of the matter? Is that a mis-statement of fact?
I submit it is in the resolution and you cannot escape it. Now, how are we going to exempt the milling industry? Take the millers of Alberta and Saskatchewan. They are to be exempted from the compulsory features of the board by the legislation which this resolution proposes, and that is the price of the consent of the Minister of Agriculture and of the Government tos this proposal,-at least, that remark applies to the Minister of Agriculture, for I have heard him express his views. But you will commandeer or acquire under compulsion all the wheat in these two provinces. Where will the millers get their wheat? My hon. friend from Marquette says, from the wheat board. But how can the millers operate under normal conditions-as you assure them you intend them to do, by exempting them from the compulsory action of the board-, if the only place they can get their wheat is from the board, which will have absolute control? They are compelled to go to the board for their wheat. Some one will say, of course, and it occurred to me myself, that perhaps, Manitoba being unable to come under this system this year, the millers can buy their wheat there from the Wheat Exchange in Winnipeg, which will be in full operation. But my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar), who sneered at my questions a moment ago regarding imports, laid down as a doctrine in regard to importations, that the moment the wheat entered the provinces that were under the wheat board it would immediately come under the control and into the possession of the board. That is what the hon. member said; it is his interpretation of the proposal; and I presume that he is right. Now, I ask, where will the millers get their wheat? From one source only, and that is the wheat board. I appeal to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is a business man of broad experience and sound common sense. He is experienced in the milling business and I defy any hon. gentleman to besmirch his character with any of the terms of opprobrium they heap on millers generally. When you single a man

Wheat Board
out and look him in the face, general denunciations vanish into thin air; and so I will address myself, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister. If he were operating a mill in Alberta, like the Maple Leaf, or Robin Hood in Saskatchewan, knowing that he had to compete in the world's market with his products-knowing that he had to compete in British Columbia, in Ontario, in Europe, in the West Indies, in China, in Japan with his products -does he for a moment think that he could operate if he could not buy his wheat on the open market? Will my hon. friend intimate whether he thinks that would be possible?


James Alexander Robb: If they created embarrassments in Alberta, I might have to move to Ontario or Quebec.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly; my hon.
friend unquestionably agrees with my view. He could not operate under such a condition, and that is the crux of the whole business. So that my hon. friend from Marquette has handed to the farmers of the prairies a huge lemon in connection with this resolution. I see the Minister of Agriculture shakes his head. Possibly, however, he is thinking of this advertisement which he had in the Regina Leader a few months ago: "Vote for Motherwell and the Wheat Board." Let me read this advertisement to my hon. friend from Marquette; I think it will be interesting to him.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I know it all by heart.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then my hon. friend must have experienced a great wave of compassion for the Minister of Agriculture to forgive him and co-operate and collaborate with him in the drafting of the report. This advertisement, published on the 24th of November, and bearing the picture and autograph of the Hon. W. R. Motherwell, says:
Up to November 11th the farmers of Western Canada had shipped 23,000,000 more bushels of wheat than at the same time last year and received $107,000,000 less money (than they received last year.
This tremendous loss might have been averted but for the action of the Meighen government in abolishing the Wheat Board and Hon. T. A. Crerar's support of that action.


William Richard Motherwell: Where did you get that?


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
William Richard Motherwell: I never made any such statement.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, that is the hon. member's advertisement. Let me read what the Regina Leader says with regard to the minister's denial:	g
The statement of the Hon. W. R. Motherwell, Federal Minister of Agriculture, that he has always been opposed to the compulsory wheat board is rather surprising, when it is remembered that Mr. Motherwell owes his election in this constituency very largely to the fact that the people were given to understand that he favoured the constitution of the Canadian Wheat Board of 1919, with its powers unimpaired. Sixty odd days elapsed between the date of Mr. Motherwell's nomination and that of his election and very few of them passed without his appearing before an audience in some part of his constituency. Surely he does not now intend to plead that he had no opportunity of making his position on grain marketing clear before election day.
Further down it says:
And not only did 'Mr. Motherwell accept responsibility for that slogan-
That is, the one I have just read to the House, "Vote for Motherwell and the Wheat Board."
-and all it implied, but on platform after platform he criticised the Right. Hon. Mr. Meighen for not reviving the compulsory Canadian wheat board,-
What has my hon. friend to say to that now? He is silent.


Arthur Meighen: Struck dumb.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -and the Hon. Mr. Crerar for the latter's opposition to national marketing.
At the convention at which he was nominated on September 30th Mr. Motherwell stated in his speech of acceptance: ''By taking this grain pool stand"-
The position of the right hon. leader of the Opposition:
-"now, on the eve of an election, Mr. Meighen admits that the suspension of the Wheat Board for the past two years against the almost united voice of agriculture was a grave injustice that he hopes to have us forget".
And so forth. But I have some other interesting lines to recite to the House. During the study of this problem in the Committee of Agriculture, Mr. Maharg and, I think, Mr. Wood of Alberta, made the statement that about $25,000,000 had been lost to the farmers because the Wheat Board was not in existence last year, and that figure was frequently used. Now, let us see what the Minister of Agriculture thinks about that. This quotation is from the Regina Leader of November 15, 1921:
Wheat Board

Millions of dollars lost to Saskatchewan.
The loss to Saskatchewan farmers in marketing this year's crop, through the Meighen Government's callous refusal to continue the Canada Wheat Board, is variously estimated at forty to seventy-five millions, a loss which for thousands of farmers this fall means real suffering and wa^t.
My. hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture in arguing against a compulsory Wheat Board stated before the committee that comparatively little of the $25,000,000 was due to the lack of marketing facilities, most of the loss occurring in shrinkage here and there and other incidentals. He used these words:
The introduction of the compulsory wheat board would make tout a very little saving of that $25,000,000.
When he was seeking election, however, he made this statement:
That from $40,000,000,000 to $75,000,000 was lost to Saskatchewan alone.
If you include Manitoba and Alberta the loss would be about twice as much at least, say $150,000,000. Before election that is the appalling loss to the western farmers through the discontinuance of the Wheat Board: hut it is only a fraction of $25,000,000 after he assumes office. I suppose he will say, " Oh, then I spoke as a private citizen; now I speak as a minister." And he has told us, " You know, we often get into a corner that we must get out of." Then did he not use this classical language the other day?-" We have got to save our faces." Now my hon. friend saves his face by securing the presentation to the House of an absolutely abortive resolution-abortive as far as any possible beneficial effect is concerned.
Then my hon. friend has this to say:
Unfortunately the Government was assisted in its action by the attitude of the Progressive leader, Hon. T. A. Crerar, who from his seat in the House of Commons opposed the continuance of the Wheat Board in the following words:
"Personally, I am opposed entirely to any permanent policy that means the control of the marketing of grain in this country."
Further on he states:
Meighen and Crerar are on record at the present time as opposed to the re-establishment of the Wheat Board, and every vote for Meighen and Crerar candidates is a vote in support of the stand taken toy these leaders on the question of the Wheat Board.
Every Liberal candidate in Saskatchewan is pledged to support the re-establishment of the Canada Wheat Board, as successfully operated under Stewart and Kiddell.
Was my hon. friend a Liberal candidate?
[Mr. Stevens. 1


William Richard Motherwell: Who is reported as having said that?


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is my hon. friend's paid advertisement in the Regina Leader. I should like the owners of the Regina Leader to be here to see him as he says, "Oh, poof!" and waves this aside. How lightly he deals with the Regina Leader! I wonder if the hon. gentleman spurned the editor and publisher of the Regina Leader a few months ago. I wonder if my hon. friend paid the bill;-that would be the supreme test. But perhaps the bill was paid for him by generous subscriptions from the outside. However, we will not bore too deeply into these secrets.


An hon. MEMBER:: Perhaps Big Business.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, Big Business may have had to do with that. I wonder if any of the money from Montreal leaked out to the West to pay the Regina Leader. But, anyway, my hon. friend made the statement in the committee that he was absolutely opposed to the wheat board; before the public, he stated that if they elected him and other Liberal candidates they might rest assured that the wheat board would be the result of their faithful support.
Now I wish to return for a minute or two to the argument on this flour question. Supposing these mills in Alberta and Saskatchewan-the Robin Hood Milling Company, the Maple Leaf Milling Company, and the other companies having flour mills in Moosejaw, Yorkton, Calgary, Edmonton, and other places-were to attempt to import wheat from -the free market of Manitoba, would they be debarred by the wheat board under this resolution? My hon. friend (Mr. Crerar) said a moment ago that any wheat which entered the confines of the province would immediately come under the control of the wheat board. Now, can you imagine a more preposterous situation? And that is our complaint, Mr. Speaker. This is an ill-digested, ill-conceived proposition. And, further, it is a proposition which was not before the committee. My hon. friend from Marquette to the contrary notwithstanding, this resolution was not before the committee except for a very, very brief space of time at one meeting. It is quite a change from the original resolution dealing with an economic problem affecting the milling industry which I presume is of very considerable importance.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Perhaps my hon. friend will permit me another question. He has

Wheat Board
been very courteous in that respect, and I appreciate it. Does he suggest that mills located in Moosejaw or Calgary, for instance, would be unable to secure from this agency all the supplies of wheat they require?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend knows the answer before I give it; the answer is in his own mind at this moment. When a mill operates it looks ahead and makes contracts for the sale of its products in the markets of the world, and it may sell flour three, four or five months ahead. The moment a big order for flour is secured, what do the management do? They do not sit down and twiddle their thumbs until the time comes for delivery. They go out on the market and buy the wheat for future delivery so they can get it at the price upon which they figure for that order. Am I wrong or right?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend is quite correct.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: But my hon. friend-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let me finish my argument. If the mill must go on the market and secure wheat against that order, does my hon. friend contend for a moment that they can go to this board, operated as the wheat board of 1919 was operated, and secure that wheat?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Certainly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, there is absolutely no provision in the old regulations of 1919, and I venture to say that you would find it exceedingly diflicult to frame any regulation that would help them. But that is not all; the board fixes the price on the sale of the flour-fixes the spread, if you like. My hon. friend shakes his head.


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil) :: May I be permitted to ask a question? Is my hon. friend arguing that the board will hold all the wheat that comes into their possession until the end of the year?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend need not ask me such an absurd question, because he knows, and every one knows, better. The question is ridiculous on the face of it. The board will acquire the wheat, and, according to my hon. friends who are advocating this most strongly, they will market the wheat as they consider the market will absorb it.


Charles A. Stewart: Exactly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the underlying idea back of this whole business.


Charles A. Stewart: Are the mills prohibited from getting that wheat?


Henry Herbert Stevens: But for my hon. friend to say that wheat will go immediately into the control of the board as it enters the province, and that notwithstanding a mill could operate under conditions of that kind,
I think is answered completely by the statement of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb).


Mr. BROWN:: Is the hon. gentleman arguing that the mills are in a worse condition because of the change that was made in that report of the committee? Or is it an argument that would have applied equally had the change not been made?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think the change
that was made in the committee would put the miller in those provinces out of business. And I am sure that as a result it would be impossible for the mills in Montreal, in Ontario, on the Pacific coast, the mills in the two provinces where they are controlled, to operate in anything like a fair way in competition one with the other. I think it would be hopeless to attempt to harmonize the position in which they would find themselves.


Mr. JOHNSON (Moosejaw) :: Why could they not get the wheat in the same way that they got it in 1919?


Henry Herbert Stevens: How did they get it in 1919? I do not wish to go into a detailed discussion of that, but here is the way they got it in 1919: The wheat board supplied the mill with the wheat at a fixed figure-to all mills alike, throughout the whole of Canada. Well, my hon. friend sat in the committee and listened to the evidence of all the millers to the effect that even under those conditions, when there was an equitable condition throughout Canada, their difliculties were great. Then, when they got the wheat at that figure, the price of flour was fixed as well. If the price of wheat increased on the foreign market and the board raised the price of wheat to the mills, then the board exacted from the mills for their stocks in hand the difference between the lower price at which they had already secured the wheat and the higher price which was then fixed. My point is this. If you apply that principle to the mills in Alberta and Saskatchewan while the mills of the
Wheat Board

rest of the country are without restriction or control, how on earth can they operate? There is one thing the milling industry wants, namely, the liberty to finance and to acquire its supplies on the open market. But that is not all. Under this resolution there is no possible, chance of Manitoba, as my right hon. leader has intimated, coming under the regulations; the legislature of that province could not possibly meet and pass the legislation this year. I would point out in this connection that the plan is designed to apply to this year only.
The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) opposes the voluntary pool suggestion, because, he says, it will be an agency competing with other agencies or institutions. Well, that is perfectly true, but I do not think it is a valid objection to an attempt to assist the growers or producers of wheat on the prairies, if they so desire.
In the committee, Mr. Maharg, Mr. Robinson, Mr. Hamilton-the Minister of Agriculture of Saskatchewan-and many others gave what I thought was exceptionally intelligent evidence. But there was one thing they all assured us of-I must say I was not quite convinced of it-namely, that the people of the prairies were a unit in this matter. Well, if the people are a unit and the government brought in a voluntary pool sysem, offering them the facilities of a wheat board if they chose to take advantage of them, surely there would be sufficient support of the voluntary pool to make it a success. Some of my hon. friends shake their heads, but that does seem to me to be common sense. It may not appeal to my hon. friends to my left, but it strikes me as a fair argument. If, as they say, the people of the prairies are a unit on this thing, and if the Government of Canada with its credit will offer to them the advantage of facilities for handling of their wheat crop by way of a voluntary pool, surely the two combined would insure the success of the movement.
I wish to say, in conclusion, that I consider the method of presenting this report ;o the House as being wholly unfair to the committee. The exemption of the flour milling industry as represented here was never properly before the committee, and was not given fair consideration. I doubt very much whether any legislation which would be workable can be designed on the basis of this resolution.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to go into this matter very extensively, had it not been for some remarks made and some extracts read by the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Stevens). Had this been the first occasion of the making of these statements I would have let them go by, as I have done on former occasions. But this is not the first, or the second, or the fourth, or even the tenth time that they have been presented. In fact, I am unable to tell how many times statements and allegations have been made misrepresenting my attitude on the question of a wheat board not only last fall during the election, but more recently as well.
I have in my hand extracts taken from the Regina Leader of remarks made by me during the election. With regard to the advertising portions of the remarks read by the hon. member for Vancouver, it is the first time I have heard of them. I never knew they were there and am in no way responsible for them, and I say that knowing the consequences of my remark. Here are some of my statements during that campaign; they were handed to the reporter in typewritten form so that there could be no mistake through their being misreported. The very first extract my hon. friend read from the Regina Leader is only part of my statement; here is the first part of it:
Mr. Meighen's voluntarily grain pool pro-prosal is merely carrying out a Liberal policy with respect to grain that the Saskatchewan government inaugurated with respect to butter, wool and poultry and other farm produce many years ago.
And then follows the extract read by my hon. friend.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the date of that?


William Richard Motherwell: The last day of September, on the occasion of my nomination in Regina. That portion of my remarks in regard to the wheat board is not to be found in the extract read by my hon. friend, and the result is that the meaning is entirely different.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was quoting from
the Regina Leader.


William Richard Motherwell: I know my hon. friend did not eliminate it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Regina Leader did.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend will have to settle with the Regina Leader

Wheat Board
the question of who eliminated the context. Then later, in order that my attitude on the question of a wheat hoard should not be misunderstood through any advertising campaign on the part of any person or paper, eight days before the election I issued a letter to some three thousand families in the rural portions of my constituency, outlining specifically my attitude on the wheat board question. I did this in order that there should be no misunderstanding as to where I stood in the matter. There are 5,000 voters in the rural portion of my riding, and the following letter went out to 3,000 families:
I, like many of you, have no revenue from any source except the farm and I suffer with you as a result of the high tariff, higher freight rates, and the absence of a national wheat board. Provincial marketing of farm produce, such as butter, wool and poultry, was introduced into Saskatchewan in 1906 by the Department of Agriculture over which I had the honour to preside at that time as minister, and this was the first effort of its kind in ail Canada. 1 naturally, therefore, favour at the present time the extension of this principle into the national arena.
That is plain enough.
This same principle should be applied to all cereals. If these features of my record and platform commend themselves to you, I shall feel honoured by your support and influence.
" If these features as set out in the letter commend themselves to you, I should feel honoured by your support and influence." Now, is that not plain enough, Mr. Speaker? Does that not indicate where I stand? I repeat that I have nothing to do with the advertising campaign in the Leader or any other newspaper, and that in order that there should be no misunderstanding as to my attitude on the question, I sent this letter to practically every farm home in the rural portion of my riding.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the hon. gentleman will permit me, I do not myself wish to misrepresent him, but we are certainly faced with these reports in the newspapers. Would he tell me what he means by " national wheat board " in the letter which he has just read?


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend knows what system was in vogue in Saskatchewan with respect to butter and wool and poultry. Everybody in that district knew what that system was. I did not anticipate having to take it up here; but it meant voluntary. For eleven years in our province while I was at the head of the department, we had provincial marketing with respect to butter, eggs, wool and
poultry, and it was the most natural thing in the world that I should make the statement that that principle should be extended to the federal arena.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member says he meant voluntary, though he did not say so. Now will he explain why he bewailed the cessation of the old compulsory Wheat Board? ,


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend stopped it and he did not introduce anything else to take its place in the years 1920 and 1921 when grain was on the toboggan slide.


Arthur Meighen: Why did the hon. gentleman himself oppose my proposal and denounce me for ever making it?


William Richard Motherwell: I never did.


Arthur Meighen: I have his speech.


William Richard Motherwell: All right. Get it out. I have a number of extracts here, Mr. Speaker, that I might read. I was told by my friends that I was making a mistake in coming out as I did because the old government was so unpopular that if I stood up for its wheat board I would go down to defeat with the right hon. gentleman, but I could not stultify myself and my record of eleven years in provincial marketing. What are the hon. gentlemen laughing about? I said in my speech at Lumsden:
That the farmers of the West were so situated geographically, and so hemmed in by paralyzing freight rates, a short growing season and long accounts to settle, that they aie driven by necessity to throw large quantities of their crop on the first market every season. This so gluts and depresses the market that our very penury is conducive to even greater penury, and makes some form of national marketing an imperative and permanent necessity.
When the late Conservative government first proposed the wheat board idea it was in lieu of a guaranteed minimum price for wheat such as had been made in the United States in the early autumn of 1918, so as to encourage a large acreage of winter wheat. Before it was necessary for Canada to act in the matter, the war was over and a guaranteed minimum was refused, and the wheat board finally substituted therefor. Very few farmers took kindly to the idea. Chiefly because they had no faith in the Government itself. With a rapidly tising market the wheat board idea worked out fine and demonstrated that the participation certificates, looked upon by many as worthless to be worth about 48 cents per bushel. Then the government dropped out of it apparently satisfied that they might be in that kind of business for many another year and not have such a favourable opportunity for making good. Then came the desperate slump of all cereals in the fall of 1920 with no wheat board to steady up the decline, when a general cry went up throughout the land for the restoration of this
Wheat Board

board. But the Government even though they had passed enabling legislation empowering them to do so, was inexorable and refused to touch it. In the meantime farmers suffered and were bled till they were white. Time passed and the 1921 crop, up till about August, gave great promise. Then came the rust followed by the wettest harvest ever known here with farm machinery and labour higher than ever, and all cereals, live stock and other farm produce again on the toboggan slide till the bottom seemed to be clean shot out of everything rural. And yet the Meighen government still looked on and apparently without a conscience or even a latent desire to hold out a helping hand. Then when much of the wheat had left the farmers' hands at sacrifice prices, Premier Meighen unfolds his wheat board plans at Portage la Prairie, dangles them mockingly before the furious farmer and then blandly suggests that if we vote the bunch back again, the wheat board is ours. But the price is too high for the average elector, even though the prospects of the scheme if properly managed will work out all right.
The Saskatchewan government 16 years ago, and since, has in a smaller way proven the workability of provincial marketing of butter, eggs, poultry and wool on a co-oj.erative plan, to the great advantage of the producers of these farm products and without the loss of one cent to the Government. Mr. Meighen's plan is merely an enlargement of our provincial activities into a larger arena of national marketing of our cereals, and therefore is no experiment at all and should work out all right.


Arthur Meighen: When was that speech made, and where?


William Richard Motherwell: At Lumsden. At the opening of my campaign in Lumsden on November 9th, I said in part as follows-


Arthur Meighen: What is the paper
the hon. member is reading from?


William Richard Motherwell: The Regina Leader.


Arthur Meighen: Of what date?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the same paper that printed the advertisements.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member has not told me the date of the paper.


William Richard Motherwell: If my hon. friend would just stop jumping around like a weasel in a cage and let me get through and make a proper presentation of the case, I should be obliged. In order to make quite sure that that was the interpretation that was put on those statements, and lest my right hon. friend will be jumping up again, I will read an extract from a comment written by Mr. J. A. Aikin, of whom he has no doubt heard. He was formerly editor of the Saskatoon Phoenix and wrote the advertising for my hon. friend's campaign in the western press, [Mr. Motherwell. 1
and wrote it pretty well from my hon. friend's standpoint. It was pointed out tc me once more that I was making a mistake by playing into the hands of the old government over the Wheat Board. They said " Look what Aikin is writing about you in his two-column advertisement in the Regina Leader." I asked what it was he was saying, and they said " Aikin is taking your statement on the Wheat Board to back up Meighen's government." I said, " I cannot help that. Because Meighen happens to be on my side for once, it is no reason why I should run away." I looked up the issue in question, and this is what Mr. Aikin said in the Regina Leader in a two-column advertisement that appeared on a certain page every week. I am sure the Progressive members from Saskatchewan will remember those two columns on the right hand page, because they did not think very much of them, and I do not know whether anybody else did, except possibly the writer and a few others. I do not know that even the writer did for before that Aikin was a good Liberal, and is yet, but he fell into bad hands for the time being. This is what Mr. J. A. Aikin wrote in the Regina Leader of November 17th, regarding the interpretation Conservatives gave to the paid advertisement:
It would be a pretty difficult task for a practical man like the Hon. W. R. Motherwell-
This is a rather difficult thing for me to read Mr. Speaker:
-to condemn the Grain Boaru proposal of Premier Meigrhen. He does not attempt to do it, though, as one would expect, he is critical of the Meighen administration. Speaking at Lumsden, November 9, as reported in the Morning Leader, of November 10, Mr. Motherwell said: said :
"Mr. Meighen's plan is merely an enlargement of our provincial activities into a larger arena of national marketing of our cereals and therefore, is no experiment at all, and should work out all right."
Now, if my hon. friends do not choose to interpret what was said then in the way in which I interpreted it, and in the way in which Mr. Aikin interpreted it, I cannot help it; if it did not mean that it did not mean anything. I do not take a whole lot of pride in allying myself with my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) because I think, possibly, it had a detrimental effect on my campaign. But I could not help it; it was what I believed in and it was what I have tried myself for eleven years-


An hon. MEMBER:: And still believe?

Wheat Board


William Richard Motherwell: -and have proven. But the issue between the compulsory and voluntary idea ceased the moment the law officers of the Crown decided that this Parliament could not create a compulsory board.


Arthur Meighen: I did not propose the creation of a compulsory board.


William Richard Motherwell: The law officers
of the Crown, if I understand their opinion, took the ground that it was not within the prerogative of this Parliament to create a board like the board of 1919 because of the compulsory features involved. If that is so, and that is my understanding of their opinion, then the question of compulsory legislation ceases to be an issue. While I am on that point I would like to draw the attention of the House to the discussion which took place in the Committee on Agriculture. When the farmers expressed a desire to have a compulsory board it was apparent that it was not from this Parliament they were going to be able to get it. The system most likely for them was a system similar to the one Australia brought into effect over five years ago. At that time they did have a compulsory board in Australia, but later on it was continued as a voluntary board. I took the ground in the committee that if the farmers of the West wanted a compulsory board it must be of some such nature as that, in view of the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, and that they must be prepared to accept it. In order to bring the exact situation before the committee I came before them armed with the Australian legislation- the New South Wales Act and the Queensland Act-my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) has not referred to that in his remarks- and I read extracts from the Australian statutes, a whole page of them, setting forth exactly what could be done. It is on the Australian legislation that the resolution of the hon. member for Moosejaw is largely based. I am not going to enter upon a consideration of the discussion at the meetings of the committee, or the evidence given before them except to say this: There was some informal discussion among the members arising out of the quotations I had given with respect to the Australian legislation. In discussing the matter with Hon. Mr. Hamilton he took the ground that unless some scheme was evolved that would make it possible to handle all the wheat, we would not get the maximum results desired.
Then I asked Mr. Hamilton what he thought about the Australian scheme. I said first of all: These respective acts can be made either voluntary or compulsory by the provinces. That is the acts of New South Wales and Queensland, that was the beauty of the Australian scheme. Then the provinces would be able to exercise their sovereign right to say how their wheat should be marketed. That is the principle embodied in the Australian legislation, and that is the principle we propose to embody in the act to be passed upon the report of the committee. This Parliament not having authority to create a compulsory board, the only thing then to do, according to the law officers of the Crown, is to leave the problem to the provinces concerned. Consequently, I am absolutely right when I take the ground that the question of whether the board shall be compulsory or voluntary is not an issue here at this time. To further quote from the discussion in the committee, Mr. Mc-Master said:
Mr. Hamilton might give us ills views.
I then interjected the remark that it was optional on the part of the provinces to say whether the action taken should be voluntary or compulsory. That is my attitude, Mr. Speaker, with regard to this question.
As six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Speaker,
when you left the Chair before dinner, I had just completed reading some extracts indicating what my attitude towards the Wheat Board was prior to the election. I am now going to read a short extract to show what my attitude was after the election. This is what I stated at a complimentary banquet given to me in the city of Regina, and I am sure the House must realize that giving that opinion at that time, could not possibly have any influence on an election that had been over for more than a month. This is what I said as reported in the Regina Post. I did not give it to that paper in typewritten form; it is just as the reporter reported it. As was the case with the other extracts, it is approximately correct:
The national marketing of wheat is a problem in which we find three separate schools of thought. One desires a compulsory pool, another a voluntary pool and a third no pool at all, but rather the utilization of co-operative sys-
Wheat Board

terns. Personally I am inclined to believe that the voluntary pool proposal advanced by Hon. Arthur Meighen at the time of the recent federal election campaign, to be the best outstanding plan yet suggested. I have been unable to think of any better.
I do not think I made the statement just in those words, but we will take it in that way.
In any event, there is room for improvement here. The losses to the farmer through marketing which we believed we had eliminated a few years back by the inauguration of new methods, still exist and, in the interests of the agriculturists, we must thoroughly probe the question.
That probing has been going on for the last two or three months, and that is what that refers to.
Let me get back to some of the remarks made at the beginning of the discussion this afternoon. The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), in his supercritical style, if we did not know something about this matter ourselves, would have laughed the whole proposition off the board. It was a somewhat alarming picture, a sort of a political scarecrow that he made with regard to this report of the Committee on Agriculture. He started out, however, on a wrong premise. He took the ground that this wheat board that was contemplated was required for only one year. Some of the witnesses said that; that has been said on more than one occasion in a sort of persuasive way to induce those who had a little objection to try it for one year. But what does the Council of Agriculture say in respect to-this matter, and after all, that is the say that has to go? The Canadian Council of Agriculture is the responsible body that brought this matter to the attention of the Government, and the Government, in turn, brought it to the attention of this House. This is the opening paragraph of the memorandum of that body:
Resolved that this council favours the reinstatement of the Canada Wheat Board for the handling of the 1922 wheat crop, and until such time as world conditions again become normal.
Does that mean one year only? I rather surmise that if the board that we have in contemplation proves successful, it will run for more than one year. I know that what many farmers have ultimately in view, is some form of co-operative activity amongst themselves, and that is the reason why I took the attitude I did. Having tried a government system myself for eleven years and having then handed it over to the farmers who are now running it as the Saskatchewan Co-operative Creamery Com-

pany, I anticipated that this would run probably the same course. I anticipated that it would be run by the Government for a few years until it got upon its feet, and it had established confidence in itself on the part of the banking institutions, because that is essential. For a few years, the Government would handle it as a demonstration of what could be done, and then when confidence was established in it, the farmers would take it over and handle it themselves according to their requirements and their ideas of carrying it on. It is entirely problematical how many years it would be necessary to continue government direction and assistance, in co-operation with provincial governments, or how long a time would elapse until the farmers would be able to handle the system themselves. My right hon. friend, in starting out, said that it is only for this year that it would be required and that there is very little chance of getting it for this year, because we had dallied so long with it. I think he said we were indulging in a species of slow strangulation of the idea of the wheat board. When a certain other report came down about six weeks ago with respect to referring this matter to the Supreme Court, my right hon. friend, in rather dramatic style, said: "If this report goes through, this whole proposition will be ditched." That was the term he used, and he scared some members in this House into thinking that probably it would have been ditched had that action been taken. May I draw the attention of the House to the fact that if that report had been allowed to go through, we would long ago have had a decision by the Supreme Court? In the estimation of the average man on the street and on the prairies that decision would have been more satisfactory than any decision by law officers. It would have been a legal decision, whereas the other would be merely an opinion. My right hon. friend probably had some other idea in mind in wanting the matter referred back to the committee. But, as a lawyer, judging by the decision of the Privy Council on the Board of Commerce Act, judging by a more recent decision in Manitoba on the Manitoba Grain Act, judging by the decision in connection with certain injunction proceedings in Winnipeg last fall, and from his own undoubted knowledge of constitutional law, he must have known, as any lawyer of any prominence I have ever spoken to knows, that a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada would have been just exactly along the same lines as an

Wheat Board
jpinion of the law officers of the Crown. Well, slow strangulation is the process now as against ditching six weeks ago.
But we are not going to be alarmed, Mr. Speaker, for this report I have no doubt will go through. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has intimated, the bill is not yet quite completed, although it is practically ready, and it will no doubt in due course become law. And time alone will tell how it will work out. In the course of his remarks my right hon. friend said that the act should not become effective unless three provinces at least acted under it. There is one prairie province that will not be able to take advantage of it, and that is Manitoba; and if we stipulated that three provinces must be ready to invoke the act, that would to all intents and purposes preclude any action this fall. But by providing that the act shall go into operation as soon as two or more of the provinces have fulfilled the requirements, we make it possible to take action at once and wait for Manitoba to come in later. The member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) expressed the view that I have stated, that in the last analysis the way to handle wheat on the prairies is through the farmers' own co-operative systems. That is my opinion, and it is equally my opinion that to bring that about there must first be a demonstration by the Government that this can be done, in order to establish the confidence of the financial institutions in the undertaking. They must take hold of it, and when that confidence is secured the farmers can then carry on their operations.
Now, the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) thought he had one on your humble servant when he got off those extracts this afternoon. Well, I hope he has had time to cogitate on the matter since then and to realise that in reading from that editorial of the Leader he was inextricably involved as to the true situation. I have stated the situation, as it existed both before and after the election, and my position in either case is consistent. I am afraid that someone else will have to explain the matter to the hon. gentleman if he does not understand it. I wish I could explain the editorial in the Leader, to which he referred.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I read the advertisements and the article in question this afternoon. Now, if my hon. friend on his responsibility as a member of this House, says that those advertisements and the statements I quoted are not true, why, of course, we have to accept his statement.


William Richard Motherwell: I did not say that. What I said was that the Regina Leader held strong views with regard to the advisability of a compulsory board, and not only its editorial column but its advertising columns as well were conducted with that idea in view. I, too, held strong views on the question of a voluntary board; and recognising that there was a danger of misunderstanding I sought another channel, through a circular letter, to get my real views straight before the electors of Regina. That is what I did. You could not have anything fairer could you? What does the hon. member suggest that I could do further in the hurry of an election?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, I know that I have spoilt a nice little mare's nest over there.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, I have been waiting for this hour for some days, for some weeks, for some months, in fact ever since the address, and I want to thank my hon. friend from Vanocuver Centre (Mr. Stevens) for having brought the matter up, because I did not want to interjet it into the debates without provocation. My hon. friend says that the committee deliberately changed the first resolution without giving notice. He forgets that the last two meetings of that committee I was unfortunately obliged to leave prematurely; but on each occasion I left a memorandum indicating some of the changes which I thought should be made in the resolution. In the first occasion I elaborated on the subject in the memorandum I left with the chairman. I do not happen to have that memorandum with me, but it is not of such great importance. However, the point is this, that my hon. friend, who objected to the change at the second last meeting, knew, as I knew and everybody else knew, that the committee had in contemplation changing the resolution. What was all the talk about if they did not contemplate changing it? I think my hon. friend is simply creating a grievance. Surely the committee was superior to its own resolution and had a right to remould it. There was nothing "put over" in the last meeting. My understanding was that the members were there for the purpose of trying to crystallize various opinions into one resolution, and my hon. friend seems to be very much concerned about the harmony that existed between the member for Moosejaw (Mr. Wheat Board

Johnson), the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), the Chairman (Mr. Kay) and myself. We got together and concluded something that brought about harmony. Ah, that is the trouble! Where a certain amount of confusion existed before, eating up a lot of time and giving a lot of nonsensical copy sometimes to the newspapers about divisions in the committee, instead of continuing that, the members who were most interested-we are all interested in the matter, of course, but probably some of us were particularly so-got together before the meeting was convened and agreed that certain things which were not necessary might be omitted.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We are getting the
real truth.


William Richard Motherwell: I took this
ground, that the Government of Canada should not have any surpluses. It was thought proper that any surpluses such as existed in 1919 should belong on a pro rata basis to the respective provinces in which they were generated. I further took the ground that if we carried that out, the respective provinces interested in the wheat board should also bear any possible deficit that might arise. The hon. member for Vanouver Centre no doubt remembers, that because he was sitting beside me.


Arthur Meighen: Who were present?


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
tried to get me tangled up in my extracts before dinner, and if he will keep his seat warm for a minute I will finish the statement I am making.


Arthur Meighen: I rise for the second
time to ask the minister a question. Of course, if he persists in curt and unmannerly refusals I will not ask it again. I merely rose to ask him, who were present at this preliminary confab at which the details of the meeting of the committee were pre-arranged?


William Richard Motherwell: According to the report there were twenty-nine present.


Arthur Meighen: There is no report at all. The minister said it was a preliminary confab before the meeting was held.


William Richard Motherwell: No. My right hon. friend is full of cynical suspicion. There were twenty-nine members waiting around for the meeting to be called to order. I think there were very few present but the Progressives themselves; they

had it all their own way. The Chairman was wondering whether it was time to call the meeting to order, and the members of the committee were sitting around the table as close to me as my friends to my right here, in addition to the four members I have mentioned. We did not go off to some secluded corner before the meeting was convened, we did everything right there in front of the table. I left because I had to go to a council meeting of equal importance. The whole stock in trade of my right hon. friend is that no one can do anything right, and he mutters about broken pledges, broken promises, prostituted honour-everybody is wrong but himself. I hope I have answered my right hon. friend's question. He remarked in a profound manner, and I made a note of it at the time, that-something might be done by the provinces to assist in organizing a voluntary board.
We do not need any assistance in organizing a voluntary board. So if the whole thing was left to my right hon. friend he would so bamboozle us that he would send us back to the committee again.
He referred to the millers. What is to hinder the millers from getting their supplies of wheat? As a matter of fact, every miller to a man wants to be left outside the jurisdiction of this board. Have not the millers a right to go to the board and get their requirements filled? Do you think the board is going to boycott our millers? Of course not. And will not the export price of flour determine the price of what is consumed at home? Most assuredly that principle is sound. So all this bewailing and mourning the fate of the millers is wasted breath. It will be the duty of the board to sell wheat to the best advantage wherever they can find a purchaser, and if they start to boycott our millers their action will have to be attended to, that is all. This talk about the control <5f flour is so nonsensical that it is not worth while regarding it seriously. We are told that our millers are going to be ruined somehow or other, but I do not know how the right hon. gentleman made that out.
I do not think there is anything further to add, except to say that the promise which the first minister made in the West and in this House has been carried out, and as a member of that committee present at all but two or three of the sittings, and knowing something of the heart's desire of practically every member to find a solu-

Wheat Board
tion of the problem placed before them, I know that they have done their best to that end. Although they may have taker longer than my right hon. friend thought was necessary, of course no one but he expected that the committee would bring in a report that would satisfy him; but as far as was consistent with presenting a scheme that was workable we hurried our work as much as we possibly could. There is no sense in trying to leave an impression to the contrary, because I know that I am stating the facts. My right hon. friend was not there, but his colleagues were, and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has already stated that we did counsel with each other long and earnestly to reach a solution of this question. If this proposal does not work out as satisfactorily as some of us expect, there will be opportunities to amend it later on; but in the meantime, although I should like to see that report a little different in some respects, I believe that on the whole the proposal it contains is sufficiently workable to justify the Government in drafting a bill based upon it that will be reasonably satisfactory not only to this House but to the men on the prairies whom we are endeavouring to serve.
Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South
Oxford) : Being a member of the committee to which this question of a wheat board was referred early in the session, perhaps I may be pardoned for taking part in the discussion. I know warning has been given that this concerns the three western provinces exclusively, but at the risk of being considered as venturing into a field where I have no business to be I am going to offer a few remarks. I can assure you, Mr. [DOT] Speaker, that I shall not attempt to follow the course pursued by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), however much I may admire the agility with which he skated around and doubled back on the same course in an attempt to confuse those who were endeavouring to arrive at an understanding as to what he really meant.
This proposal contains a principle which, if adopted all the provinces must be called upon to bear and to see that it is given effect to. The Prime Minister this afternoon stated that the attitude of the Government would depend upon the action of this House, which action was likely to be influenced to a very great degree by the report of the special committee to which this matter was referred, and is now
before the House. We have heard a good deal about democracy during the present session, I wish to point out that the spirit of democracy, about which our hon. friends opposite express so much solicitude, is being sadly violated by the powers that be in this connection.
It is true that the committee devoted themselves diligently to the task of endeavouring to arrive at some understanding as to the best methods to be pursued for the creation of a wheat board, because we all realize and appreciate the difficulties with which our friends in the western provinces in particular are confronted at this time. A series of poor crops, together with the deflation of the prices of farm products in advance of the deflation of the prices of those commidities which they have to purchase, has placed many of them in a very awkward position, and consequently I believe it was the earnest desire of every member of the committee that Parliament should go to the limit in helping to improve the condition of our wheat growers. I know that was the feeling which I entertained, and I endeavoured to follow the proceedings of the committee as well as I could during its early sessions. But I happened to be on two other committees and unfortunately all three met at the same hour; consequently I could not attend the meetings of the Agriculture Committee as regularly as I would like to have done.
There appears to be a tendency on the part of some hon. gentlemen to argue that the report Which is now before the House is the result of the mature deliberation bf the Agriculture Committee with regard to this question. I want to refer to that matter for a few moments. It has already been dealt with by the hon. member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) and also by the leader of Opposition (Mr. Meighen), but in view of the statements which have been made since, I ask the indulgence of the House while I refer to it again.
It is true that a report was drafted1 and submitted to the committee, to which the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) offered an amendment which was voted down in committee. This report passed the committee, and notwithstanding the fact that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) appeared before the committee and outlined what the views of the government were with regard to the matter, no change was made in the report. Those who were present will remember that the 23rd of May was the date on which this matter was dealt with. The 24th and th<*

Wheat Board

25th of May were public holidays. There was a small attendance of members in the House on the 26th of May, which was a Friday; consequently there were only twenty-nine members present at the meeting of the committee. It is somewhat significant that when the original resolution was passed, seventy-eight members were present, and they voted down the amendment moved by the hon. member for Brome. The Minister of Agriculture has intimated that when the committee resumed a few days later there was a good deal of difficulty in opening the committee at all and that this matter was discussed before the committee met and a conclusion arrived at. They immediately set about to rescind the resolution which had been adopted when seventy-eight members of the committee were present. The twenty-nine members who gathered there, without any knowledge on the part of the rest of the committee that this matter was to be dealt with, rescinded the former resolution, and we have before us today as the report of the Agriculture Committee, a report of the twenty-nine members who were present on that occasion, not of the full committee which passed this resolution in the first instance. I wonder if you consider this to be the democracy that has been so much lauded and that was to prevail in this Parliament should hon. gentlemen opposite occupy the treasury benches. It is acknowledged that a great deal of unnecessary delay has taken place. Who is responsible for that? It is pointed out that dissolution of the Manitoba legislature has taken place and that it will be impossible for that province to avail themselves of the provisions of any enactment with respect to this matter, even if it should go into effect at the earliest possible moment. One-third of the western country, therefore, is debarred from the operations of this act, for the present year, should it be passed-and it is contended that the crop of 1922 is the important one to be dealt with by the regulations which are asked for. I ask, why all this delay? If the Minister of Agriculture and the Government were satisfied in their minds as to what the proper policy should be, why should this matter have been delegated to a committee of the House at all, and1, the committee having made a finding upon it, why all this intrigue and trickery? Why the resorting to tactics whereby-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I am sure the hon. member will realize that he is employing an unparliamentary expression.

The word "trickery" should not be used in this assembly as the hon. member has used it.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I leave it to hon. members of this House to characterize in any way they see fit the course that was pursued. If the words that I have used are a little too strong, Mr. Speaker, I bovi to your ruling.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Take them back.


Donald Sutherland: The first witness we had before the committee was the President of the Council of Agriculture, Mr Wood. Mr. Wood made it very clear tc the committee and to the country that he considered that the Wheat Board of 1919 had saved the farmers of this country an immense sum of money-practically $50,000,000 during the operations of the board for that year. You will find reference to that on page 6 of the proceedings of the first meeting of the committee, and a little further on, page 17, he becomes even more emphatic and says:
It was estimated by men who were in the best position to give intelligent information of any men I know that the saving to the farmer in the sale of that crop, on a very conservative basis, was $50,000,000. From whai information I had in regard to that matter, I was satisfied, even before I heard that estimate of the expert's, that that was a very low estimate.
Now this was the opinion of the president of the Canadian Council of Agriculture. Yet in the face of that we have the Minister of Agriculture coming before the committee at a later date,-I am not going to go over the whole of the questions which he submitted to Mr. Riddell, who was then being examined, because the question is very voluminous-but he endeavoured to leave the impression in the minds of the committee and of the witness that the opinion prevailed that the Wheat Board of 1919 had been appointed in order to keep down the price of wheat. Well, Mr. Wood had very clearly and emphatically explained what the situation was some time before. In view of these conflicting reports and statements, it is rather difficult for some hon. members who are not members of the special committee to realize what has been going on. I scarcely understand what the Minister of Agriculture meant when he said that members of the committee had got together and discussed this matter even before the committee met and had arrived at a satisfactory solution; that they were anxious to do something that would facilitate

Wheat Board
matters and get things done as smoothly as possible. There are many old members of the House in this Chamber to-day; I would ask them whether they ever experienced anything similar to this in connection with any question submitted to a committee in the past? I know I never have. In the face of the attitude in the committee taken by the hon. member for Vancouver in opposition to the stand taken by the Minister of Agriculture that the committee could not rescind that resolution, already passed, I scarcely knew what to think when I came back here and found that a few members of the committee had met together and had rescinded the resolution. The report of these twenty-nine members is now before the House, and we are asked to adopt it. I think we are entitled to hear from these twenty-nine members who were present on that occasion regarding this matter. I think it is only fair to the House that we should have some explanation why in defiance of the attitude of the seventy-eight members who were present on the former occasion, they undertook, in the absence of the other members of the committee to change the report and bring in the one that is now before the House.


Mr. MORRISON:: Will the hon. member allow me to ask a question?


Donald Sutherland: The hon. member will have an opportunity to speak later. I notice that some hon. members are very good at asking questions which are only intended to disconcert the speaker, and not for the purpose of bringing information before the House. I say that it is a duty these twenty-nine members owe to the House to explain why they brought in this report in the absence of the other members of the committee, when they knew very well that those other members had not an opportunity of knowing what was being done.


Mr. LOVETT:: Did not the hon. member receive notice of the meeting at which he says this action was taken by those twenty-nine members?


Donald Sutherland: We have heard the Minister of Agriculture say in the House to-night that they met before the committee met, and arrived at a conclusion.


William Richard Motherwell: Nothing of the kind.


Donald Sutherland: Consequently, I say it is due to the House that we should
have some explanation of their action in this matter. We have also had the statement of the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) that he attended the committee on the 26th for about half an hour, that there was nothing doing, but after he left this action was taken.


John Livingstone Brown: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) expressed his intention not to raise a point of order with regard to this report being properly before the House. Is it in order for the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) to raise that point now? Is it not irrelevant to the report itself?


Hewitt Bostock: I do not think there is a point of order raised. The hon. member for South Oxford in a passing reference gives his opinion as to the manner in which the proceedings of the committee were conducted, but that is not the gist of his argument, as I understand it.


Donald Sutherland: During the early sessions of the committee, it was somewhat difficult for some of us to understand why they were asking to have the Wheat Board established for another year. If it was going to be such a splendid thing, why did they not want it to be permanent? It was the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) who stated that it would be easier to get it through for one year than if it was proposed to be made permanent. I ask: Was it fair to ask for the Wheat Board for one year if that was the intention?
This matter also came up in the House after 1919. In 1920 we undertook to provide against a similar contingency, and we have the statements made by a number of hon. members on that occasion. Hansard of June 24, 19'20, will show that even the leader of the Progressive party (Hon. Mr. Crerar) stated on that occasion:
I think the Minister of the Interior furnished the only argument that constituted a real reason why the board should be continued for another year, and that is the possibility of unified buying again in Europe.
That was the only argument which appealed to him as justifying the appointment of the board for another year. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, if there has been any evidence of unified buying on the part of Europe since that time. We all know that when the Wheat Board was in existence in 1919, there was a commission purchasing for Great Britain and the allied countries which made it easier to deal with those countries than it is under present
Wheat Board

conditions. To-day, to my amazement, the ' hon. member for Marquette stated that the farmers' co-operative companies could handle this matter just as well as any voluntary pool. The only redeeming feature to-day, apparently, is the compulsory feature, while in 1920 he argued very strongly against the compulsory feature, which he ranked with the Marxian idea of socialism. Evidently he has changed his views on this matter, and -today we find that the Minister of Agriculture and the leader of the Progressive party have arrived at the same conclusion with regard to the benefits to be derived from the continuance of this board.
We were also told by the Prime Minister this afternoon that a bill was now being prepared based on this report of the Agriculture Committee-this report which was arrived at in the manner I have indicated by a small representation of the committee after they had discussed the matter, according to the Minister of Agriculture himself, among themselves previously and arrived at an understanding as to what they would do. I would ask hon. gentlemen to explain to this House how it was they considered it advisable to change the report of the Agriculture Committee which had been adopted when there was a large representation present, and why the report of twenty-nine members of the committee who undertook to bring in this report upon which the bill is to be prepared, should be considered rather than the report of the seventy-eight who were present on May 23.
There are a number of other features in the report to which I should like to refer, but I shall not take up the time of the House. During the last election this question was a real live issue even outside the three western provinces. The leader of the Progressive party intimated that this question did not affect any other provinces, that the western provinces were the ones mostly concerned, but I have here a Canadian Press report of a meeting held at Walkerton, Ontario, on October 21,1921:
Government speakers, Mr. Crerar accused, were engaging in a "campaign of misrepresentation," and, in passing, Mr. Crerar took occasion to put a few questions in regard to the voluntary wheat pool formation of which, if it were returned to power, was indicated by Mr. Meighen in his opening speech at Portage la Prairie. If a wheat pool, Mr. Crerar queried, why should the government not furnish farm implemerts or market Ontario cheese? Why should the government not go into the business of marketing cattle? There should, Mr. Crerar urged, be a definite

pronouncement whether or not the business of marketing was to be a permanent feature of government policy.
So, Mr. Speaker, you will see that this question has invaded even the province of Ontario, and the leader of the Progressive party is the one who was responsible for that. I might say a good deal more about things which the hon. member for Marquette dealt with during the election in the province of Ontario, but I am not going to do so.
Now, unified control has not been resumed in the Old Land and wheat must follow the usual course in the matter of finding a market. It is argued that the appointment, of a wheat board would regulate the flow of wheat in Canada and stabilize prices in this country. Before the Agriculture Committee Mr. Wood was asked why not have the Wheat Board made permanent, and what do you suppose was his answer? I quote from the evidence :
Mr. McKay: If the Wheat Board is all that you claim it to be, why do you not ask for its re-establishment on a permanent basis?
Mr. Wood: Well, there are several reasons. There is a great deal of objection everywhere to that method of trading. I am not convinced that it would be a good thing to re-establish it on a permanent basis if there were no objections. Furthermore, a bad wheat board would be a bad institution. That is the reason we lay emphasis on the re-establishment of the old Wheat Board including largely the personnel of that board. That was an efficient body, and an efficient wheat board is a very satisfactory institution ; but I do not think tnat anything could be worse than a wheat board that was inefficient and mixed up with politics.
This was the opinion of the president of the Dominion Council of Agriculture with regard to the Wheat Board: There was a possibility, a great possibility of a wheat board getting the country into no end of a tangle, and consequently he is opposed to it being made permanent; but he had faith in the men who were on the old board and if they could be secured he thought we ought to try the system for another year.
Now, as to the compulsory feature of this agency, I do not like the word " compulsion " in any case. I believe that if we desired to promote business in this country we would have a much better result if we depended more on competition than on compulsion. I do not believe in the idea that some people have in this age, that it is the duty of the state to nurse people along, take care of them, think for them and do things for them that they should do for themselves. I do not believe

Wheat Board
that it is a sound doctrine to preach or to practice, and furthermore I do not think such to he in the interest of this country. If anything of value can be done to assist the grain growers in the West in regard to the marketing of their wheat I contend that it can only be done on a voluntary basis; and if you resort to compulsion I do not know where you are going to draw the line or where you are going to end up. Yet we are told in this debate that the compulsory features are the only advantages in the methods which can now be employed. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the fact that compulsion is necessary is the most objectionable feature of the proposals now before the House, and consequently in order to bring the matter to an issue in a concrete form-because I do not consider that the report which has been presented voices the opinion of the majority of the committee-I desire to move, seconded by Mr. Arthurs:
The said report be referred back to the select standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization with instructions to amend same to read as follows:
It is desirable in the national interests that the Government immediately create a national wheat marketing agency similar to the Canada Wheat Board of 1919, but on a voluntary basis fully in accordance with the powers of Parliament, for the marketing of the wheat crop of 1922, and that to this end federal legislation be introduced immediately, such legislation to provide further that the said board may, with the approval of the Governor in Council exercise such further powers or duties as may be competently conferred upon it by the legislature of any province.


Robert Milton Johnson: I
had not intended until just within the last half hour to speak on this subject to-night. It is, however, true that I have been in->
tensely interested in it. I have worked as I could in the Agriculture Committee for the adoption of this action-to bring before the House the report which it is at present considering. The report was laid before the House some weeks ago and, speaking personally, I was quite content after the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had made his speech this afternoon and had told us that the policy of the Government was to let the matter rest there until the bill to be founded on the report had been submitted to us. I want to bear this tribute to the Prime Minister at least -that while we do not always see eye to eye with him or his Government, I think that in this measure, at least, he has redeemed his promises to the letter. The right hon. gentleman promised during the election campaign to submit this question
to a committee for investigation and, when that committee had agreed upon its report, to lay it before Parliament. In the exchange of political courtesies across the floor of the House I fear I can take little or no part. I will own myself vanquished before I start out, I am a novice at that kind of thing; and if hon. gentlemen derive any enlightenment from that sort of discussion, or if they think it advances their ideas to any extent whatever, they are entirely welcome to the belief.
Before proceeding further with what I intend to say I must refer to a few of the remarks that have been made during this debate. The last speaker (Mr. Sutherland), if I correctly understood him, wanted an explanation as to action taken at the last meeting of the Agriculture Committee. I may say that I interested myself in every meeting that was held, I was present at every one of the sittings from beginning to end, and I had no intimation with respect to that particular meeting other than the ordinary notification given in the case of all meetings. I believe that the meeting in question was called in the regular order, and if anything of an irregular character was done, or anything in a corner, I have no knowledge whatever of it. I knew, of course, of the suggested alterations in the report which 9 p.m. has been brought before the House and which went back to the committee. The suggestion has been made that the report was not acceptable to certain elements of the community. The only change in the wording of the resolution-though others may have been suggested-was by adding these words at the end of the second paragraph.
Except as they include the direct marketing of flour and other mill products.
There seems to be some difference of opinion as to how or why that was inserted. I think the discussion took place, as all hon. members discuss these things, perhaps not in a formal committee. If that is an offence, I am guilty. I have discussed the merits of this case, in different places around the House of Commons and on the streets, with private members from all groups in this House, and I did not hold myself guilty for that, because I was looking for light. Let me say candidly that I did not wish to see this amendment made. I wish to put myself on record to this effect, that the resolution as first introduced and passed at the first meeting more nearly met my views than anything else that could have been done.

Wheat Board


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does my hon. friend recall refusing in the sub-committee to accept any amendment to his own resolution which is incorporated in the first report to the House?


Robert Milton Johnson: If I am correct, I think the hon. member refers to the sub-committee appointed to draft the report. Certainly I objected to that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend does
not catch my question. Does he recall refusing in the sub-committee to accept any amendment to his resolution which is incorporated in the first report?


Robert Milton Johnson: Absolutely. But when it went back to the committee, it was out of my hands and out of the hands of the sub-committee. I would have preferred it if the amendment had not been made; but I am going to tell the House why it was made. As to whether the procedure was in order or not in order, I am not an authority. The hon. member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) will remember that, in the meeting of which he speaks, I took the same side as himself; I did not believe the procedure was in order; but I was no authority and I referred it to officers whom I do not like to name, but whom I regard as higher authorities than either the hon. member for Centre Vancouver or myself. That, however, has nothing to do with the matter. The fact is that the report was returned to the committee, and so far as I know the motion was rescinded in regular parliamentary order, and the amendment made.
Why was the amendment made? Accusation has been made in this debate that it was made at the instigation of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) or myself, or the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) or others, I know not whom, so far as I know, the alteration was made at the request of certain friends of the milling interests. They objected-and this was the ground of their argument-that it interfered with selling connections which they had already made in European and other foreign countries, or other places where they were marketing their products. That was the gist of their objection. I do not see yet how it should injure the farmers to allow the millers to retain those connections if they wish to retain them, provided that we have control of the wheat, and there is no question in the resolution that that should be yielded. It is a singular thing, however, that this was yielded at the request and so far as I know, only at

the request of the friends of the milling interests. When they made this request I said:	You are conducting an
honest and legitimate business in the country and I am perfectly willing that you or any one else shall be guarded as much as is possible. But a singular thing has happened; since this change has been made, representatives of the milling interests have come to me and said that they wished it had been left alone. I am not an authority on milling, and if those gentlemen who represent the milling interests cannot make up their minds just what it is they want, we are absolutely certain what we want embodied in the resolution and we have so passed it.
The hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) said something about compulsion. He did not like a thing of this sort being compulsory. There may be some merit in that contention; but I would refer him to the remarks made a few minutes ago by the Minister of Agriculture. It is compulsory, of course; but, although the term may seem anomalous, it is voluntary compulsion. The duty of this Parliament, as I see it, and the thing which we wish, is to pass an act giving to the Wheat Board all powers, compulsory or otherwise, which it is within the jurisdiction of this Parliament to grant; then if the people want that, they shall say to the local legislature whether this shall be compulsory or not. If they do not want it, it will go by the board, and nothing more will be heard of it.
I wish to refer to some remarks made by the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen). I am not a lawyer; I believe he is, and as no doubt he is an able, clever lawyer, I shall not enter into a controversy with him. He raised certain questions and legal criticisms, and argued that the thing could not legally be enacted: that, if enacted, it could not function, and various other things. I will not contend with him in regard to these points; but knowing my lack of knowledge of this sort of thing, I had conferred with others. On two or three different occasions we have had the opinion of the law officers of the Crown on this subject, and I need not enumerate the occasions nor yet read the reports. I will, however, read an extract from the last report submitted after various consultations with the Deputy Minister of Justice and his written opinion on certain features of the matter, supported by conclusions of the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) and the Solicitor General (Mr. McKenzie) in some respects. This

Wheat Board
is the conclusion arrived at, and so far as I know, it stands as the opinion of those gentlemen to-day.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman has misunderstood my argument. I do not see legal objections at all. There is no doubt, within the two jurisdictions, the provincial legislature and the federal Parliament, everything can be done that the people of Canada or of those provinces wish. The difficulties I see are not legal at all; they are difficulties in practical operation where certain compulsory powers are conferred in one province that do not exist in the province immediately beside it.


Robert Milton Johnson: I am glad to have the correction. I did not so understand my right hon. friend; nevertheless, I should like, now that I am on the subject, to give to the House the decision arrived at by the sub-committee, based on the report from the law officers of the Crown. It is very brief:
In conclusion, the deputy minister expressed the view that by legislation passed partly by the Dominion and partly by the provinces, it was legally possible to control:
(a)	The acquisition of all wheat raised in any provinces passing such legislation;
(b)	The storing of the wheat so acquired in country elevators;
(c)	The storing of such wheat In terminal elevators even though those elevators be situated in provinces other than those passing laws for the compulsory acquisition of wheat.
(d)	All export and import trade in wheat and wheat products.
There is only one other question that was asked of the law officers of the Crown, and it is in reference to terminal facilities. While I have the report open at the page, I will also read that short extract for the benefit of the House, because terminal facilities are essential to the carrying on of this business. This is an extract from the report of the sub-committee:
That in conference concerning this question we intimated that the "use" referred to in the first line of this question.-
That is in reference to the elevators.
-was to be interpreted as exclusive use. The view verbally expressed to us by the deputy minister was that the use of elevators owned by the Dominion could be exercised in any manner by the Dominion government; that as to privately owned elevators such could be declared works for the general advantage of Canada, and when so declared would fall under federal jurisdiction.
I had other references to support my contention. Seeing that the leader of the Opposition has concurred in that as well, it is no longer a matter of contention, and
I will not repeat them. We can see that there is, within the various parliaments, provincial and federal, the power to enact this legislation and, in my opinion, all the things we asked for as regards the Wheat Board can be granted to us in that way.
I will now proceed to deal with a few thoughts and notes which I had prepared on this subject, things which I have considered in connection with it. It may seem a political matter, but I want to refer first to the attitude of the three parties within this House on the question now under consideration. I believe that all three have consistently lived up to their platform in this respect. I have no criticism to oifer and no political slams to make at any one. The Progressives have stood from the beginning for a compulsory wheat board, in other words, for the re-establishment of the board as it was in 1919. I regret that the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) has not taken a better stand than he has.
I did not expect that at this stage he would have been so emphatically in favour of a voluntary system. While I believe he was perfectly sincere in advocating it, I cannot conceive how an hon. gentleman of his intelligence, and men like those around him, can longer hold the view they express in spite of the decision rendered in the recent election. I know of no propaganda-I will not say that it was purely for political purposes, because I believe he was sincere in it-that ever fell so flat and struck so unresponsive a chord as did that proposition in western Canada. And there was a reason for it. Men who had made a lifelong study of this thing, having worked on it for years and made it their sole business, from the middle of July, 1920, for eighteen months, concentrated their efforts towards a solution of the problem, and they came to the conclusion that the system advocated by my right hon. friend was not practical. As I proceed I shall deal to some extent with the voluntary pool system and state why, in my opinion, it is not practical. The matter was dealt with by the leader of this party (Mr. Crerar) this afternoon. The Liberal party's policy on the question I described at the outset, and they too have been consistent. I do not think that they have gone as far as they should. They have a responsibility as a government to solve this problem and to solve it right, in view of the circumstances in which we are placed.
Before I go further I shall anticipate some of the objections that may be offered, one of which was mentioned this evening.
Wheat Board

Some hon. member, I do not know just who, said that while this board was being asked for as a temporary measure, possibly, with mental reservations, it might be made permanent. Well, if by permanency hon. gentlemen mean a permanent, satisfactory solution of the wheat marketing problem, i I hope it will be permanent. But I have yet to hear any one advocating that this measure with regard to the compulsory wheat board should be made permanent. I do not believe that any one seriously thinks so. In case some hon. gentlemen may think that this is a new opinion on my part, I may say that at the very first meeting in the recent campaign, when I addressed my own nominating convention, I was asked the question whether I would favour a compulsory wheat board, and I replied, for this year only until readjustment is achieved, but not as a permanent policy, because I believed in the co-operative system of a wheat marketing agency operated and controlled by the producers of wheat. I still stand by that opinion, and I think that the ultimate solution will have to be found there. From the very nature of the product, which is so widespread and of such magnitude, it is impossible for us at the present time, facing the critical situation in which we are placed, to solve the problem without assistance, and we have come to the federal Parliament to ask their aid. And it is my hope and belief that out of this measure, if it is made effective this year, will be organized that voluntary co-operative system which we hold as our ideal.
It has been stated, not in this debate, but frequently in the debate that was concluded last night, and the matter has been made the subject of some gibes at our expense, that we are asking for protection. Well, we are asking for protection, but it is the sort of protection I believe in. I believe in police protection. But the protection, as I understand it, which hon. gentlemen to my right have been advocating during the last few weeks is a form of protection that I cannot tolerate. It is a restriction, misnamed protection, that is imposed on others; some one else has to pay for the protection that is afforded. But I have yet to hear any one claim or prove that anybody will pay for this protection. Nor do I ask for our own industry protection. I believe also in protecting the public from the depredations of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and of the Canadian manufacturers. I believe in protecting the wheat producers from ex-

ploitation at the hands of the grain merchants. But if it were proposed that some one else should be made to suffer in consequence I would not advocate such protection. Nor do I ask for our own industry, any form of protection that I am not willing to grant to others.
It has also been stated, and this can ibe proved, that we are creating a monopoly. Well, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. gentlemen in this Chamber, to consider this fact. The figures furnished me by the Bureau of Statistics shows that the Canadian production of wheat is about 300,000,000 bushels per anurn. Now, can anyone conceive, even by the wildest stretch of imagination, how the Canadian wheat producers, with 300,000,000 bushels of wheat, can have a monopoly in the world market where the annual production is over 3,000,000,000 bushels? Our product is sold in the markets of the world in open competition with wheat from all parts of the globe.
This House, I think, is weary of the hard luck tale from the western prairies; it is perhaps tired of the story of poverty and hardship. Having pioneered in the western country twenty-five or thirty years ago, I should not care, with the personal recollection of those hardships, to rehearse the story now. I want to deal briefly with the matter, however, from another angle; I want to take it up from the business point of view, and I hope it will appeal to hon. gentlemen. It is granted, readily, I think, that all, or at least most businesses were unprofitable during the past year; and certainly that is true in regard to the agricultural industry of the West, particularly in the growing of wheat, which has not been done at a profit. But that condition is not confined to last year, and I will submit a few brief statements to show you the cost of producing wheat. Let me quote from the evidence of the Hon. C. M. Hamilton, Minister of Agriculture in the province of Saskatchewan. He is a man who is in a position to know, and he found that on the average farm in that province the total expenditures were $4,107.10 while the revenue amounted to $2,221.40, leaving an annual deficit of $1,885.70. Do hon. gentlemen think that it is in the national interest that such a condition should longer prevail? I want to quote from another authority, 'Superintendent McKillican of the Brandon Experimental Farm. His annual report shows that the cost of producing wheat on a selected pa tch

Wheat Board
of land on the experimental farm is $1.30 per bushel, making no allowance whatever for freight to take it to the markets of the world. If you add freight you will find that the cost is something like $1.45 a bushel, while we know that the average price of wheat during the past year has been much below that figure.


Donald Sutherland: Mr. Hamilton's
evidence was with regard to the average farm of 320 acres. I notice that the returns he gives are confined entirely to wheat and oats. Surely those figures do not represent the total returns from the whole farm.


Robert Milton Johnson: Mr. Hamil ton was speaking of a grain farm, and if my hon. friend knows Saskatchewan as I know it, he will agree that in the vast majority of cases the growing of grain is the only occupation that can be carried on satisfactorily. There are sections where mixed farming can be carried on, but even that is done at an equally great loss.
I want to make one other reference, and it should appeal to business men. Recently in conversation with an hon. member from the Maritime provinces he gave me a secondhand scolding because certain municipalities in western Canada had defaulted on their bonds, and he stated the East had supplied the money for those bonds. That condition is only a reflection of the difficulties and handicaps under which our greatest commodity is produced. Let me give another conversation-this time with a banker in Moosejaw about a year ago. He told me that his headquarters had been protesting against his having valued farms in that district too high for credit purposes. I think he had, for although they were selling there at from $100 to $125 an acre, he had valued them at $100 an acre. I was able to show him a farm which had actually paid a 5 per cent dividend on a $100 per acre valuation, and he felt elated. But last spring in a conversation with him he told me that he had been instructed to cut the valuation of farm lands absolutely in two, and that a $100 an acre farm for credit purposes is now worth only $50 an acre.
Various factors might help the situation, and the wheat board is one. I do not wish to introduce anything irrelevant to this discussion, but I might refer to two subjects which we have heard something about and which will come before us again. Dealing first with freight rates, I find that the average farmer in the province of
Saskatchewan had to pay $206.61 more for freight on grain alone in 1922 than in 1917, or if you take the peak, $270.39. The other item is tariff regulations. When the tariff commission was wandering through western Canada a year or two ago I made a very careful statement covering eight years close bookkeeping on a farm, and I found that that farm was paying $300 per year more than it should pay on account of the customs tariff.
Now I come more particularly to the wheat board. There are several classes of the community who it is said, would be vitally affected if this wheat board is brought into operation. The first class is the consumers, and in this connection I am going to quote from the evidence given before the Agriculture Committee. Dr. Magill, Secretary of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, in answer to the question, "Was the consumer sacrificed?" said:
Well, there is no consumer in the world that I know of who was better treated-none, in my judgment, better treated, so far as most of our consumers are concerned. There was one class of them not protected, but that was not the fault of the Wheat Board.
And he goes on to say that there were certain people living in cities who bought their bread ready made. I will also quote from the evidence of Mr. Stewart, chairman of the old wheat board, who of all others should know the effect that the wheat board of 1919 had on the consuming public. The hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) asked:
Q. The statement has been .made that due to the action of the Wheat Board the price of flour was enhanced to the Canadian consumer, and that if the Wheat Board were reconstituted now it would mean an advance in the price of flour to the consumer in Canada?- A. As a matter of fact, the Canadian Wheat Board have never stated it before, but the price at which the Canadian consumer got his flour was relatively less than that received for the wheat which was exported as raw material; so that the Canadian consumer paid less than the world's price.
Another class that might be affected by the creation of this wheat board is the millers. I have already dealt with them. It has been amply proved in the evidence before the Agricultural Committee that the big millers are well able to take care of themselves, as is apparent in the facts and figures of the dividends they have paid.
As to the dealers, we have (been told that it would practically put them out of business. Let us hear what the Secretary of the Grain Exchange, Dr. Magill, has to say on that point:
Wheat Board

We appreciate very deeply the fact that the representations of the farmers before this committee took a very high level. The farmers argued their case on what they believed to be genuine economic grounds and we desire to do the same. The next remark I wish to make is this: judging from some reports one would imagine that the Winnipeg grain trade and the Wheat Board, the old Wheat Boarc,, stood in the relation of mortal enemies. Now, what were the facts? When the Wheat Board got together under the Defence of the Realm Act what did they do? They negatiated with the Winnipeg grain trade, and the negotiation resulted in the employment by the Canada Wheat Board of nearly the whole of the trade. The Wheat Board when it met had no elevators, and the Government had no elevators to give it. They had no elevator managers or staff. The Wheat Board called in and employed the companies that manager what the farmer members themselves have described before this committee as the splendid, the almost unsurpassed machinery for the handling of grain that we possess in Canada. The Wheat Board called in the grain trade. The Wheat Board used the elevators. The Wheat Board used the managers. The Wheat Board used the staffs and the elevators from the Atlantic to the Pacifl.2. The Wheat Board employed the lake shippers for the loading of boats. They employed the clearing houses. They employed the brokers. They employed the commission men, and they employed the freight shippers and the exporters to take the grain at Fort William and place it at the seaboard for them. The Wheat Board employed, I suppose, 75 per cent or perhaps 80 per cent of the existing grain trade at Winnipeg. Not only did they employ them; they paid them. They paid them a fair and reasonable return for their services, and if we at the present time object to the recreation of the Wheat Board, it is not because of any specific deal; it is not because they did not treat us fairly and reasonably; it is not because we have any belief that they failed in their services-they rendered splendid service,-I am speaking of the Wheat Board-not merely to the producers of this Dominion, but to the whole of this Dominion. It is not for such reasons as that that we appear here to-day to make a case on the other side.
I have never been able to discover what case they did make out, but on the authority of the secretary of the Grain Exchange they were willing to offer their services, and they were employed. It has been said that the operation of a wheat board would have some effect on the transportation companies. Before the Agriculture Committee I made this statement, and I make it again. It was given to me by an official of one of our railways. He said that if they were permitted to handle the wheat crop of western Canada, spreading it out over nine months, instead of rushing it on in the early part of the season, it would save to that company alone 22,000 cars. Surely that is a consideration worth while.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I believe that no section of the community would be injuriously affected by the reinstatement

of the Canadian Wheat Board, but that on the contrary many of those who produce wheat would be saved from absolute destruction. Some one said to-night that if we are so unanimous in favour of a voluntary pool, why, we could have the whole thing anyway. Well, this may sound somewhat harsh, but I know there are hundreds and thousand's of farmers in western Canada whose creditors would not allow them to take advantage of a voluntary pool. The statement which I am going to make may sound like a hard one, but it has been given to me in good faith and I believe it to be true. There are farmers in western Canada to-day to whom a big crop this year would be a positive disaster. That may seem unbelievable, but here is the reason: there are farmers in that country who are so much in debt owing to lack of crops and depreciated values during the past few years that one good crop would not relieve them. If they have a good crop their creditors would come after them, and even if 90 per cent of their creditors would wish to be lenient and the rest did not, the others would be forced in self-defence to come in and make their claim, and that farmer would be sold out.
I will not deal further with the voluntary pool. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) dealt with it this afternoon. If we want a voluntary pool, any few of us can get together for that purpose, if we can afford to do so; we do not require legislation for that. But it would not relieve the situation; far from doing so, it would be a positive menace to the farmers of western Canada.
Reference has been made, I believe by the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), to the question of financial responsibility. In my opinion there is only one logical place to put the financial responsibility, the financial risk, in this connection, and that is right on the people who produce the wheat. I do not know of a single farmer who wants to shirk in any degree his share of responsibility for any loss which may be incurred. But is a loss possible? As a result of the operations in 1919-and that is a pretty good criterion-so far from having a loss the board actually turned back to the government $560,000 and had over $200,000 in their hands besides in the way of participation certificates. It might be all right to put the financial responsibility on the provinces, to let them take care of any deficits that might occur and, of course,

Wheat Board
share also in any surpluses. We have no objection to that, provided the control of the board is safeguarded-that there is to be no divided control. The experience of 1919 taught us one thing more than anything else, namely, that it is essential that there be unified or, practically, one-man control of this institution if it is to be successful. We were satisfied with the 1919 board, Mr. Speaker, and we ask the Government to come as near to it as they possibly can. Then, if the provinces see fit to come in and take advantage of it, that is all we can ask.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish unduly to delay the House at this late hour in the discussion of this report. But I have spent a great deal of time on this question and have given it a good deal of study, and after listening to the evidence I have come to the conclusion, which has beeen fortified and deepened by the study I have since made of the subject, that the proposed wheat board, whether it gets its power entirely from this jurisdiction or partly from this and partly from another jurisdiction, is an unwise proposal, and I am going to ask the indulgence of hon. members while I place before them the reasons why I will vote against the adoption of this report. I will not vote in favour of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), because he wishes to put the whole grain trade of this country in the hands of a couple of men, in the hands of a board, and I am opposed to that as well. Let me as briefly and as succinctly as I can give to hon. members the reasons which have led me to this conclusion.
Now what is the proposal? It is that the old Canada Wheat Board of 1919 be reconstituted; that part of its powers be drawn from this House and part from the legislatures of any of the provinces-which cannot be other than the prairie provinces -that desire to invest it with such authority. Now, what were these powers? Let us examine them for a moment. They had the right-I will not say, to purchase the wheat, but to expropriate it without the consent of the owner. They had the power to order any person holding wheat stored in any elevator or warehouse or railway cars or Canadian boats to sell and dispose of the same to any purchaser named by the board on such terms as the board might direct; and it was provided that any such order of the board should pass to the purchaser the title in the wheat mentioned in any such order. They had the right to require that any wheat sold or purchased in Canada should be delivered to the board or to its order in accordance with such regulations as the board might from time to time make. I know of no other occasion on which such power has been conferred on any one person or group of persons since Pharoah gave Joseph the right to gather up all the corn in Egypt and make the greatest corner in history. But not only is that the fact; they were to have the right to prohibit the export out of or importation into Canada of any wheat or wheat products otherwise than in accordance with the regulations and orders of the board.


William Findlay Maclean: May I ask
the hon. gentleman a question? Did not Joseph save Egypt under those circumstances?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Yes, Joseph saved Egypt, but at the cost of bringing all the people into bondage. If my hon. friend wants that, perhaps he will vote for the reconstitution of the Wheat Board. Now, the power to prohibit importation into or export from a country is a power which this board will have to derive from this House; it can come only from this jurisdiction. By an Order in Council of the 31st of July the board had the right, notwithstanding anything in the Railway Act, notwithstanding anything in the Grain Act, to compel railway companies to provide cars for transportation; and finally, so that nothing should be wanting in the powers which were given, they had the right to legislate criminally and to create offences dealing with any infraction of the regulations of the board. The fact that any persons in this country should at this time seriously propose the reconstitution of a wheat board of this sort is a sad reflection on the value placed on liberty for its own sake, and also a very high compliment to the wisdom and the moderation of the gentlemen who in the past had such great powers vested in them. They must have used those powers with care, wisdom and moderation.
Now, I might anticipate an objection which will be raised. Gentlemen who advocate this wheat board will say: "You are borrowing trouble; we are not asking from this House the right to expropriate; we will get that from one of the prairie provinces." Well, to my mind the man who boldly does a thing that is wrong is
Wheat Board

to be preferred to the man, who, knowing a thing is wrong, steps aside to let another man do it. As a matter of fact, under our criminal law an accessory before the fact is held to be just as guilty as the man who himself commits the crime. It reminds me of the tales we have heard of the past when white civilized races were fighting each other on this continent in the eighteenth century: one would charge against the other that they had abandoned prisoners to their Indian allies to deal with them as they wished. I do not propose, if by my feeble voice I can prevent it that principles I have cherished for years shall be bound to the stake and burnt up by a wheat board.
Now let me say as succinctly as I can, and I trust with perfect accuracy, and I will invite members opposite to correct me if I am not perfectly accurate, what I understand to be the case for the wheat board. As I understand it, the advocates for the wheat board say this: They say that they harvest their crops in the latter part of August and perhaps all through September; that they are obliged through the economic pressure of their creditors to bring that crop to market in the months of September, October, November and December, when they really should be doing their fall ploughing, and when the cost of threshing is high; that by this fact they are obliged to throw such an amount of wheat upon the market that it is glutted and the price pushed down; and that after they have disposed of their wheat the price rises. That, I understand, is the statement of the case made by the advocates of the Wheat Board.
Now my contention is, and I propose to submit to the House, and to you, Mr. Speaker, figures to prove it, that such is not the case; that if you take one special year you may find that the price is lower in the autumn months than in the months of March, April and May succeeding, but that if you take any considerable number of years and compare the prices realized in the fall months of the crop year with the prices paid in the spring months of the crop year, you will find precisely the reverse. I state that the figures will show that taking one year with another it is good business for the farmer to sell his wheat in the fall months. I know I have to prove this to many members of the House who entertain a different notion, and whose business should enable them to have much more accurate information 
than I have, but I have endeavoured to examine the figures with care and to collate them in such a way that I believe I can show to those who will give ear to me that I am right-
There is no use, Mr. Speaker, taking the few past years as the years on which to base your argument, because the few last years have either been war years or years immediately succeeding the war, when the ordinary markets of the world were disturbed. The proposal that I make, Mr. Speaker, is that in fairness to our argument we take the six crop years which ended on the 31st of August, 1914-the crop years 1908-1909, 1909-1910, 1910-1911, 1911-1912, 1912-1913 and 1913-1914. I shall have to cite a good many figures, but I hope the House will bear with me. I have made two comparisons. First I have compared the highest figure in the month of September with the highest figure in the month of March.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Does the hon. gentleman think it is quite fair to make that comparison? Because the basis of our desire to have a wheat board is the fact that we have not yet reached normal marketing conditions and that we are still suffering from the after effects of the war? Therefore, it should be the later years, and not the years before the war, that should be taken into account.


Andrew Ross McMaster: When the board was formed in 1919, there was collective buying in Europe, and therefore good grounds for urging collective selling in Canada. When the suggestion was made, I think, in the session of 1920, that we should have a reconstitution of the Wheat Board it was held then that as there was decontrol to a large extent in Europe there should be de-control in Canada, and my belief is that we are getting back to normal. It is true that getting back to normal has been largely at the expense of the primary producer, but as there is no control in Europe now, practically speaking, as there is no collective buying in Europe, I cannot see any reason for collective selling on this side of the Atlantic, and that being the case I think it is fair to take the normal years prior to the war rather than the abnormal years during or since the war. That is my contention. What do the six normal years prove? I do not know whether I need to go over these figures. I shall be glad to do so if hon. members will not be wearied

Wheat Board
with them, but let me perhaps first take the results of my investigation, and then if anyone doubts the correctness of those results I shall be glad to give the figures themselves.
I have taken the highest figure in September of 1908 and compared it with the highest figure in March, 1909, compared the highest figure in October, 1908, with the highest figure in April, 1909, and the highest figure in November, 1908, with the highest figure in May, 1909, and I do find in connection with that crop year that it would have paid farmers, though not to any great extent, to have held on to their wheat until the spring.


Mr. FORKE:: If it is the year 1908 my hon. friend is taking, the price goes up from $1 to $1.35 in June.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I say that that is the one striking year of these six years when it would have paid the wheat grower to have hung on.


Mr. SPENCER:: Has the hon. member the quantity of grain sold in September? September is not the heavy selling month. Has he also the average selling price?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think I can deal with that afterwards. I propose, first of all, to give these figures, and then treat them in relation to the visible supply, which I think will answer to a certain extent, at least, the desires of my hon. friend who has just put the question. With his permission, let me proceed along the line I have indicated.
I have also taken for this crop year the average price for the month. I think perhaps it makes a better comparison to take the average price during the month of September and compare it with the average price for March, and compare October with April, and November with May. In order to make the comparison equal, I have added 9 cents a bushel for the six months, representing li cents a bushel per month, so that the price in September of $1 would be just as good to the grain grower as the price of $1.09 in March. I think that is fair. On that basis of comparison during 1908-1909, if the grain grower had held on to his grain until March instead of selling it in September, he would have made 2.7 cents a bushel; if he had held on until April instead of selling in October, he would have made 12.5 cents a bushel, and if he had held on until May instead of selling in December, he would have made 14 cents
a bushel. If you took that year by itself, I would say that the protagonists of the Wheat Board had gone a long way to prove their case, but that would be merely another case of the fallacy of arguing from the particular to the general.
If we take the other five years we will find a very different result. I would imagine from the expression on the faces of hon. gentlemen opposite that they believe that the average price gives a truer comparison than the highest point in the months for which I am making my comparison. Therefore to facilitate my argument and save time I will deal with the average prices merely, though I have worked the matter out by comparing highest prices with highest prices as well as average prices. Now, if we take the year 1909-10 we will find that if the grain-grower sold in September rather than holding on till March he would have made 2.2 cents more per bushel; that if he had sold in October rather than holding on till April he would have made 4.3 cents per bushel; that if he had sold in November rather than holding on till May he would have made 11.9 cents per bushel. That year is a strong piece of evidence that it does not pay the farmer-it certainly did not pay the farmer in that year-to hold his wheat, but rather to sell in the autumn months. Let me take the next year, 1910-11. If the grain-grower had sold in September rather than holding on till March in that year he would have made 20.9 cents per bushel; if he had sold in October instead of holding on till April he would have made 14.5 cents per bushel; and if he had sold in November rather than holding on till May he would have made 6 cents per bushel. That certainly is even a stronger year for my contention that the autumn months are the months in which it is wise for the agriculturist to sell his wheat. Now let us take 1911-12. We find that the grain-grower who sold in September rather than holding on till March made 11 cents per bushel; that he who sold in October rather than holding on till April made 6.4 cents per bushel, and that he who sold in November rather than holding on till May made 3.5 cents per bushel; another year in which it was more advisable for the farmers to sell in the autumn months. Then if we take 1912-13 we find that the grain-grower who sold in September rather than holding on till March made 19 cents per bushel; that he who sold in October rather than holding on till April made 8.7 cents; that
Wheat Board

he who sold in November rather than holding on till May lost 1.2 cents per bushel. Then if we take the next year, 1913-14, we find that the grain-grower who sold in September rather than holding till March made 5 cents per bushel; that he who sold in October rather than holding till April lost .6 cents per bushel; and that he who sold in November rather than holding till May lost 1.5 cents per bushel. I say, Mr. Speaker, that if these figures are correct there is no reasonable deduction to be drawn from them other than the fact that the three autumn months which I have compared are better marketing months than the three spring months I have mentioned.
I now come to deal with the point raised by my hon. friend who asked me the question as to quantity. In the committee, Mr. Speaker, I produced certain figures showing the average yearly price in Winnipeg, and the average yearly price in London for these six years on which I base my argument. I found, on these figures prepared for me by the Bureau of Statistics, that, taking one year with another, the carrying charges and profits made on the wheat, established on the difference between Winnipeg and London prices, amounted to 8J cents per bushel over the six years. One of the hon. members challenged the soundness of my conclusion. His statement was that these average prices mean very little because they are often obliged in a month to sell at the Lower prices, and therefore the average price does not give a true reflection of the real situation. In an endeavour to see whether there was anything in this contention I obtained the figures for the visible supply from week to week during these six years. Now I think hon. members will agree with me in my argument, that if it is the placing of Canadian wheat in large quantities on the Canadian market which forces prices down, then when there is least Canadian wheat in sight the prices should go up. That would be a fair deduction to draw. If it is the Canadian wheat which establishes the price we would expect to find, therefore, that where the visible supply increased, prices tended to fall; that where the visible supply decreased, prices tended to rise. That is not shown to be true by an examination of the figures. There is no apparent direct and constant reflection in the price of wheat of the smallness or the largeness of the visible supply. I had prepared a statement taking 296 weeks-that would 
be the six years, 296 weeks, or at least if that is not quite the six years it would be the weeks in which reports of the visible supply are made. There were 296 occasions on which visible supply was compared with decrease or increase in price, and what did I find? Increase in visible supply was accompanied not by decrease in price, as we would expect, but by increase in price 67 times; that increase in supply was accompanied by what we would expect-namely decrease in price- only 61 times; and that increase in visible supply on 6 occasions made no difference in the price at all. Now let us look at what happened in relation to decrease in visible supply. Decrease in visible supply was accompanied by an increase in price-and that is what we would expect-92 times; by a decrease in price, which we would not expect, 66 times; and by no change in price at all 4 times, making in all 162 times. That covers the whole 296 comparisons of visible supply with increase or decrease in price; and my argument is that it does show that there is no constant or necessary relation between the increase or decrease of visible supply and the price.
The conclusion that I am driven to is that we must seek other factors in the situation to explain the varia-10 p.m. tions of price in wheat in Canada, because the decrease or increase of visible supply will not explain the situation. Do the figures on other grain exchanges bear out the contention of hon. gentlemen opposite that there is a glut in the market in the fall months? I have discovered; in fact, it was placed before the Agriculture Committee that, taking the years 1895 to 1914, the supply of No. 1 Northern wheat in Minneapolis averaged in October for those nineteen years 85.3 cents per bushel while the average price in April was 88.3 cents per bushel. If we take the cost of carrying in Minneapolis at the same figure as in Winnipeg,-and I do not think that would be unfair-the grain grower who sold his wheat in October was six cents better off than the man who held his wheat until April; that is, as a general thing, taking into consideration the whole nineteen years. If we take the Chicago grain market, and if we take a period of fifty years,-and that should be a long enough period to give us reliable figures-if the arguments of the advocates of the Wheat Board are right, we should find that in the large majority of the years contained within those fifty years the lowest price would occur in the three au-

Wheat Board
tumn months, because that is when the grain comes upon the market. But what do we find? We find that the highest point on cash wheat was reached four times in September and five times in December; that is to say, nine times in fifty years this has happened. When was the lowest price found? We would expect to find the lowest price generally in those four months but it happened four times in September and five times in December, not the lowest price, but the highest price was reached. I thank hon. gentlemen for having paid such attention to those dry figures and I will now pass to another consideration of the matter.
In the Agriculture Committee, I asked Mr. Riddell who appeared as a witness before that committee, this question. I said: "You were fortunate m your administration of the Wheat Board of 1919. You were able to realise handsome figures for the wheat which passed through your hands and the names of Stewart and Riddell are blessed throughout western Canada. What would have happened if the market had gone the other way?" And Mr. Riddell answered, with perfect frankness and western freshness, that they would have been damned just as much as they had been blessed. The western folk who wish to have the Wheat Board are very anxious that it should be a Stewart and Riddell Wheat Board. They want Mr. Riddell; they want Mr. Stewart, and they do not seem to have any great confidence in other people. That, of course, is a sign of weakness in itself, because any legislation which must depend on the personality of two persons who are open to the vicissitudes of humanity is dangerous legislation. They might both be carried off by an epidemic; they might both be sick or be obliged to leave the country for one reason or another. But the strange feature of the matter is that neither Mr. Riddell nor Mr. Stewart are really enthusiastic protagonists of the Wheat Board. Mr. Stewart hails from Scotland. Not only has he the ability of mind which appertains to the Scottish race, but he is also endowed with no small degree of that nation's caution and prudence. He was asked the question in plain language: Are you in favour of a Wheat Board? And, if you will turn to page 273 of the evidence, you will see his answer which reads:
Q. Mr. Stewart of Humboldt read from the evidence of Dr. Magill in which he maintained that the consumer was well treated under the operations of the old Wheat Board under the conditions that existed at that time. Do you consider that the consumer would be well treated under present conditions if a compulsory Wheat Board were put into operation, and would it reflect to the general benefit of the Dominion of Canada?-A. If I expressed an opinion on that would it not really amount to contempt of court? This committee must determine that. I can only talk from practical experience, and tell you exactly what happened during the regime of the old Wheat Board.
Q. I do not think it involves contempt of court. We call witnesses to obtain their opinion, and there are in this committee a great many men who are very anxious to do the .best thing with regard to the question of a Wheat Board.
I think we have the right to ask your opinion, because you were a member of tne old Wheat Board?-A. Well, the Wheat Board as an economic proposition is a good one: but, on the other hand, the measure of public opinion which would be in favour of such a project would be a matter that would have to be taken into consideration by this committee.
Answers largely couched in the terms of the subjunctive mood. Then we have another question:
It is quite evident that there is a very large body of public opinion strongly in favour of the Wheat Board, and a unanimous body of public opinion strongly in favour of whatever finding is going to be the most beneficial to this Dominion. I am in no way opposed to the wheat pool, compulsory or voluntary. I am looking for information from the witnesses as to which method would reflect the greatest benefit to this Dominion. If it reflects benefit on the wheat grower and is indirectly reflected beneficially on the rest of the Dominion, that is a good thing, and that is the point we would like decided.
Now, listen, Mr. Speaker, to the answer:
I am afraid, Sir, that I have not a sufficiently decided opinion to advise you one way or the other.
This was the star witness brought by the protagonists of the Wheat Board before the Agricultural Committee. Let us now listen to what his partner, Mr. Riddell, said:


Robert Forke: Does the hon. member think that Mr. Stewart was very anxious to give the decisive opinion when he made that reply? Did he not act rather with Scotch caution that he would not be caught?


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is the remark I made, and no douibt the hon. member and myself can appreciate the caution; but after all, when people who are advocating a cause bring a cautious, respectable and even a Scotch witness before a committee or a court, and when that expert witness when brought to the trough, refuses to drink, surely we are entitled to draw a conclusion.


Robert Forke: I was there and I heard the witness give that evidence. I think one could not determine from his reply
Wheat Board

whether he was in favour of a wheat board or against it. He simply evaded the question.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think that is perfectly true, and the point I want to drive home to the members of this House is that if the man who made a great success of the Wheat Board, and whose name was blessed from many housetops in western Canada, refuses to come out and say that it is a good thing to have a wheat board, I think it is unwise for the country to undertake an adventure of that sort.


John Livingstone Brown: Might not that attitude be attributable to Mr. Stewart's modesty?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I have heard the statement that the devil's "darling sin" is "the pride that apes humility." It may be modesty; but I think he had a very good opinion, as most Scotch people have, of his own opinion, no matter how carefully they may conceal it with modesty. Let us now deal with Mr. Riddell. Mr Riddell is not Scotch, and therefore he is not affected with that degree of modesty which affects people of that race. You will forgive me, Sir, if I read a good deal; but this is, after all, I think, of value to the committee. I asked this question myself:
By Mr. McMaster:
Q. It would strike me that if a voluntary wheat board got contracts for, let us say, 95 per cent of the acreage of Saskatchewan in wheat, they would know that they were going to control pretty nearly the whole crop of Saskatchewan, would they not?-A. If you had a voluntary wheat board, with 95 per cent signed up, then I would say that you would be getting very close, so far as selling is concerned, to a complete compulsory system in so far as selling is concerned.
Q. May I ask you one or two questions just arising out of that? Do you or do you not consider it necessary in order to have the beneficial effect that you claim for the proposed measure, do you or do you not require to control flour?-A. In regard to the first portion of your question, Mr. McMaster, I do not know that I have made any claims about the beneficial effects of this system by comparison with what they are doing now.
I would draw the attention of the House to this statement again:
In regard to the first portion of your question, Mr. McMaster, I do not know that I have made any claims about the beneficial effect of this system by comparison with what they are doing now.
"What they are doing now" being to sell wheat by the organizations which now handle it.


Robert Forke: From what page are you quoting?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Page 375.
Q. Well, I will ask you that question directly? Do you consider it would be wise to have this proposed compulsory Wheat Board?-A. Well, sir, I have strictly avoided answering that question. We have been discusing the Wheat Board in relation to voluntary pools. We would open up an entirely new field if we were going to discuss the Wheat (Board in relation to existing conditions. I want to make that clear.
Q. Have you any objection to answering the question? It seems to me a very pertinent one.-A. I stated at the outset, sir, that representations so far as the organization with which I am concerned have already been made to this committee by Mr. Robinson, representing the Canadian Council of Agriculture. This morning you have heard resolutions passed three successive years by the shareholders of our company asking for the reinstatement of the Wheat Board. I occupy a position as a servant of those gentlemen who want that service.
Q. I was thinking that you were here as a citizen of Canada?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. To give us the advice that you could give us by reason of the special knowledge you had of this matter?-A. I am perfectly willing to do that. I have been trying to do that to the best of my ability all the morning.
Q. I am putting you up against this question ; of course if you feel that it would be disloyal to the organization with which you are connected, to answer it, I am not going to insist.-A. Now, Mr. McMaster, that is the lawyer's way of putting it. The suggestion immediately in your remark is that I believe differently from them. I do not admit it.
Q. You neither admit it nor deny it?-A. No sir.
Mr. Sales: iMr. McMaster, that is not fair.
Mr. McMaster: I think it is very fair.


The Chairman:: I think, Mr. Sales, you will have to let Mr. McMaster deal with Mr. Riddell.
Mr. McMaster: I do not want to (interfere. If Mr. ^Riddell does not want to give his personal views on this matter that we have been discussing now for about six weeks, I do not know whether br not the chairman has the right to put him in a tower as a witness who won't answer questions. At one time a witness who refused to answer questions before a Parliamentary Committee was committed to the tower.
The 'Witness: I am not so sure but what I would rather be there than here just now.
Mr. McMaster: I will try, Mr. Chairman, in my questions to avoid any expression or to infer any expression from the witness as to the advisability or the inadvisability of the proposed Wheat Board.
By Mr. McMaster:
Q. But if a wheat board is reconstituted, would it to be effective require to have powers of controlling flour as well as wheat?-A. Yes, sir.
Now, I infer from these citations that neither Mr. Riddell, nor Mr. Stewart is really in favour of the wheat board. Both believe that such a board as is proposed, that is to say, one that will not have the right to control flour, is not effective; and I ask those hon. gentlemen in the House who wish to have a wheat board, is it wise to urge the country to adopt a meas-

Wheat Board
ure that will establish a wheat board which those who know more about the matter than any one else say will be ineffective?
I feel, Mr. Speaker, not false but real modesty in talking to western grain growers about wheat. But I ask myself the question, why is it that the visible supply in Canada is not the sole determining factor in Canadian prices? The answer is found in the fact that Canada is not the only country in the world that grows wheat to fill the world's bread basket. During the months of January, February and March wheat from Australia and the Argentine republic goes on the world'f markets, and that is one reason why it may be wise for the Canadian grain grower of the West not to withhold his wheat from sale during, say, September and October, because if the crops are very abundant in Australia and the Argentine that may tend to depress the price in Canada during the months of the early winter. They also ship in smaller quantities during the summer months. In May, June and July India and Egypt ship wheat, and in Texas the harvest comes on in June. I suppose that the harvest there is commencing shortly. Then it comes northward at the rate of about 20 miles a day up to and through Canada. Kansas wheat is harvested in June. In looking at the grain reports the other day in the paper I saw a statement to the effect that the prices in Canada had dropped because it was expected that there would be a very excellent crop in Kansas. If you will remember, only a few weeks ago Mr. Watts, one of the witnesses, told us-I thought he took a certain unholy pleasure in the fact-that prospects in Kansas were bad and we might expect higher prices for Canadian wheat. The harvest in Kansas is substantial, amounting in 1921 to 128,000,000. Then Nebraska reaps her harvest after Kansas; Minnesota in August, then South Dakota, North Dakota, and so on into Canada. The world does not get its supplies all in a few months. The world gets its supplies not from hand to mouth, but from month to month throughout the year, and contracts months before for the supplies it is going to use. When a great deal of wheat in western Canada goes on the market in the early autumn months, much of it must have been sold before it was more than three or four inches from the ground. I would say that, although supply and demand is the ultimate determining factor in the establishment of price,
the demand is immensely influenced, not merely by the supply that is in sight, but by the judgment of buyers as to what the supply will be, not alone at the time in question but in the months that lie ahead. Hon. gentlemen who belong to the Agricultural Committee will remember how one witness, I think Mr. Richardson, stated that he might be buying wheat and paying certain prices for it on the exchange in the morning that at noon he might take up his paper and find that there had been abundant showers in Australia, and by reason of that fact change his attitude to the market during the afternoon. Is such a business as that is it wise that it should be under the control of a government? I do not think so. I think it is one in which personal initiative and insight should have full scope and play.


Mr. GOULD:: My hon. friend says that wheat is often sold when it is only three or four inches out of the ground1 and that this is one of the factors that go to determine the price. It is also well known that in the past a lot of wheat has been thrown on the market in October or November. If that feature were eliminated would it have some effect in raising the price?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not quite understand my hon. friend's question, but I think I can answer him. I am groping for just what I think he means. If he means that dealing in futures depresses the price, I tell him that I do not think it does. I believe that if you compare the prices of primary products which are dealt with in any country in future markets with the prices of primary products in which markets in futures do not exist, you will find that dealing in futures tends to give a better price to the producer and a less cost to the consumer, and that the middleman can, by careful hedging, protect himself in such a way as not to be obliged to demand as wide a margin as he would if the trading in futures was not practised.


Oliver Robert Gould: Perhaps I can make my question a little clearer. Our being obliged to put 150,000,000 or 200,000,000 bushels of wheat on the market for export in the months of October and November is one of the factors which depresses the price to us, and a wheat board is supposed to spread the sales over a longer period and so eliminate that adverse factor at least.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think Mr. Richardson dealt pretty thoroughly with the ques-

Wheat Board

tion which my hon. friend has just brought to my attention. Mr. Richardson said:
Considerable wheat has been sold to the British buyer during the month of March.
He was giving his evidence on the 26th April.
Recently he has bought grain at values very much higher than he could have bought it last fall. He could have bought wheau for May and June shipment last fall just as readily as he can now, and he could have bought it for a great deal less money.
But what are the facts of the case? The English and foreign buyer does not appear to think that we give our wheat away in the fall of the year because he only buys his current requirements. Now, how can we account for this? It must be that he expected to buy cheaper from the Argentine after Christmas, or he does not watt to load up with our wheat in the fall of the year and run the risk of having his Canadian purchases show him a sharp loss should the Australian and Argentine crop be bountiful and come on the .market early in the New Year at lower prices.
Of course, it is quite possible that with Russia out of the market, if the Canadian crop was a very light one the prices would rise. I do not pretend for a moment that our wheat crop is not a big factor in the situation as far as determining prices is concerned, but I do give as my considered opinion to the members of this House that my study of this question has led me to the conclusion that although the wheat crop of Canada does come on the market in very large quantities during the months of September, October and November, the consequence is not to bear down the price, but that the prices realized during those fall months as a rule, taking one year with another and eliminating those abnormal years through which we have gone in the immediate past, pay the Canadian wheat grower to sell his wheat during those months. That is the conclusion to which I have come, and therefore when I am told that the banker to whom the grain grower owes money urges him to sell his wheat in September or October, I cannot blame the banker because I think he is asking his debtor to realize his property at the best price.


Mr. GARDINER:: Is it your contention that the wheat comes on the world's market with regularity from almost every quarter of the globe?


Andrew Ross McMaster: No. I would say that wheat is largely grown in temperate climes, and that the North American continent and Russia being in the northern temperate clime have a larger production of wheat than similar countries to the south in a

southern temperate clime. I do not pretend that wheat is not a northern as opposed to a southern product. But the figures which I have studied lead me to the conclusion that the price of wheat is not determined merely by the Canadian supply coming on the market in September, October and November, and that the prices realized during those months, comparing them with a similar period six months thereafter are better prices than in the latter period.


Robert Gardiner: Could you explain
the newspaper quotations of to-day as to cash price and futures? The Winnipeg price quoted yesterday for No. 1 Northern was $1.29J cents. I notice the July quotations for futures are $1,221, but for October they are $1.14, and for December $1.12. Can you explain that situation?


Andrew Ross McMaster: No, I cannot. I think a man to give an adequate explanation of that situation would have to be far more familiar with the grain trade than I am. But my point is that the present system of competitive buying-for I believe the buying in Canada is competitive-is a good system. I believe the answer of Mr. James Richardson. I listened with interest to what he said, and I noticed the effect he made on my fellow-members in the committee. He said that he knows of no business which is conducted on as keenly a competitive basis as the export business of wheat, and that his company, which has been established for two generations, is in the closest and keenest competition with great houses in London, Paris and Rotterdam. You will remember he cited an instance where he had been competing with a rival for an order, and finally found that his competitor had got the order by having shaved his price a quarter of a cent per bushel. He did not understand how that could happen until he found there had been just that reduction in the freight rate, and that some one in the office of the shipping company had tipped off his competitor as to the probable reduction, which enabled that competitor to underbid him to that extent. I came to this matter with very little knowledge of the wheat business indeed and, I grant you, with a strong bent of mind against paternalism and paternal legislation, but I trust that did not prevent me dealing fairly and honestly with the evidence. It does seem to me that the way wheat is handled on the Winnipeg grain exchange by competitive buyers and com-

Wheat Board
petitive sellers does give as good results as would be given by pooling, though I am not opposed to pooling on the voluntary system, which I will deal with in a moment.
There have been many investigations into the wheat business. Mr. Richardson quoted an extract from a report made by a royal commission appointed by the Saskatchewan government, the closing words of the report being:
No doubt some bold and fortunate speculative exporters, and some large operators having the best of financial and shipping connections and favourable contracts for lake and ocean space make very good profits, but the commission has no evidence to indicate that the usual margin on which the exporting of wheat is conducted exceeds from one-half to one cent a bushel.
And Mr. Richardson told us that the profit of his business for the six months ending the 31st January was la slight fraction over g cent a bushel, or just about what this royal commission found.
Now, will the co-operative pool be of real advantage? That is something on which I do not wish to offer any advice; it is a matter which has to be decided by the western agriculturists themselves. But I would point out that co-operation in the past, so far as I know, never asked the State to come in to aid it in forming the co-operating body. It does seem to me that when the protagonists of the wheat board say: "We are not in favour of a co-operative pool because we do not believe there is enough co-operative sentiment in western Canada to form such a pool or to keep the members of such a co-operative society in it once it is formed; therefore we must invoke state aid to bring that desideratum about,"-I say that is the strongest argument against the interference of the state in that regard.


Robert Milton Johnson: I do not know whether I understood my hon. friend aright, but did he say that he knew of no co-operative enterprise which had had government assistance to establish it?


Andrew Ross McMaster: No, I did not say
that. What I did say was that I knew of no co-operative institution which had called upon the powers of the state to force people into the co-operation. That is the point I make, and if I may be allowed to say so-being, like most people of Scotch descent, a modest man-I think it is a strong one.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: May I ask what are all our municipal enterprises if they
188i
are not co-operative enterprises by which the state has to come in to give effect to this desire for extensive co-operation?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Regina (Mr. Motherwell), who are leaders in a co-operative movement which took a strong stand against the great abuses which in the past had throttled the economic life of the western prairies.
I think it is dangerous to give the grain trade of a country into the hands of two or three men. If they deal rightly, if they judge rightly; if, I might almost say, they guess rightly, they may make a great deal of money for the country. If their judgment is wrong, if they make a mistake, then that mistake may result in great loss to the country.


Mr. EVANS:: Does the hon. member not realize that it is in the hands of two or three men now?


Andrew Ross McMaster: No; if hon. members can show that the grain trade of this country is in the hands of two or three men now they will not convert me to their proposal for compulsion-I do not think anything will do that-but they will make out a strong case for a voluntary pool. I do not, however, think that the grain trade is in the hands of two or three persons. I believe that the grain trade is subject to competition; if I am wrong, that part of my argument falls. But I would point out that under present circumstances one man may think that the market is going up; another man may think it is going down; and the net result will be much more on a level than if you put the whole grain trade of the country in the hands of two or three men. If you do that; if you put it in the hands of two or three men, you will get a dominant mind and that dominant mind will direct the whole trade of the country. I do not think it is reasonable or right; I do not think it is a fair risk to run, to put the whole grain trade of this country, which is our greatest individual trade, in the hands of one man. I think it is unfair to the present organization. Those who advocate a wheat board advocate it not as a permanent measure but as a temporary expedient; but even as a temporary expedient the upsetting of present organizations will result. I think it is unfair, or may prove to be unfair, to eastern Canada,-and this is the only note of a personal character that I will sound. I try in this House not to consider public matters from the mere point of view of the little county in the Eastern Townships which I represent, because I hold that we are here to consider the interests of Canada as a whole; we are here, elected from certain parts of

Canada, but our first duty is to the whole country. That was discussed in the English House of Commons as early as 1571; it was then laid down as the proper principle, and I believe it is the proper principle. Let me say this concerning eastern Canada; it is our desire to have as much of the wheat of this country as possible go out in the form of flour. It will be the duty of any wheat board that is doing anything of value to the west to try to put that wheat out just in the way in which it will give the greatest return to the western grower, irrespective of whether it goes out in wheat or in flour.


Mr. COOTE:: Is there anyone who is more entitled to all the returns that can be got from the wheat than the man who raised it?


Andrew Ross McMaster: No, there is not; if my hon. friend had waited just a moment I would have dealt with that aspect of the question. I am prepared to see the grower get whatever economic laws will give him. But I say it is not right for the state to interfere with economic law in order that certain wheat which otherwise would have gone out of this country in the form of flour shall go out in the form oi wheat. To the extent that that is done the eastern dairy farmer suffers.
I would say also that the adoption of such a proposal as this would create an enormously bad precedent. If it is right to have a wheat board, why not a potato board, why not a butter board? I know there are some men in this House who are so obsessed with the injustice and the ugliness of our present competitive individualistic system that they say, " Away with it; we can have no hope under it." I do not blame such men; I do not wonder at their advocacy of a wheat board. But men who follow the business of farming, men whose business is built up on personal initiative and on personal thrift-how they could advocate a wheat board which says to certain farmers who do not wish to enter it: " Whether you wish to enter this wheat board or not; whether you wish to pool the results of your labour and your capital with us or not, you have got to do it and the state will see that every avenue for the sale of your wheat except that which the state has created is closed to you,"

how they could advocate such a proposal as that, I cannot understand for it is striking at the very foundation of everything they hold dear.

Wheat Board
I would like to close with just one appeal to the protagonists of the wheat board. They all come from the West, and they, Mr. Speaker, and myself have for many years held in common certain great economic principles.
We have held these economic principles, we have been called idealists and impractical folk and we have suffered all sorts of things, if not at the hands, at least at the tongues of our fellow citizens; but those of us in the East who have held these principles have always looked to the West for hope and encouragement. The people of the West believe in fiscal freedom; they wish it for themselves; they wish it for their children. Let them not by the advocacy of this proposal, which is an interference with trade-it is not protection, but it is an interference with and an infraction of free trader-weaken their efforts to get what I believe will help them in the struggle for economic justice in which all the plain and common people of this country should be united as one man.


William Findlay Maclean: I shall only take up the time of the House for a few minutes. I asked a question of the pundit from Brome as to Joseph, and he could not answer my argument that Joseph had saved Egypt and the world at that time through his foresight, because of his violation of economic truths according to the hon. gentleman.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The hon. member
forgets that we have now public ownership of railways and of ships, and if there was a famine we could bring wheat in from abroad.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon.
gentleman's argument was that this proposal would put the farmers in bondage, just as Joseph put the people of his day in bondage. Joseph saved Egypt and Moses saved the Israelites, and if there is any argument to be drawn from what these two great leaders did, it is that the foresight of Joseph and the patriotism of Moses saved humanity at these two stages of the world's history.
I am rather surprised that no reference has been made in this discussion to what is going on at Washington at the present time. The most powerful political organization that has been found anywhere in the world is operating to-day at Washington to secure some measure of relief from the farming conditions that exist in the western states of the American Republic, and they are coming to the same conclusion
that the Progressives are reaching in connection with their economic problems in the West. They are finding out in Washington that what is essential is that the credit of the nation, through the federal reserve banking system, shall be put behind some central organization for the purchase and the control and the sale, if necessary, of farm products, especially of wheat. We have come to it. We made a success of it in the late war, just as Joseph did. I think it would be a good thing to continue it; I believe in that; I believe in the credit of the nation being behind it. I believe in what the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) said about getting back to normal. The grievance of the farmers in the West is with the conditions they have encountered in normal times. Their experience in connection with the production of farm products in this country is such that they are prepared to try something else, and there will have to be a wheat board, with the credit of the nation behind it. There will have to be an elaborate system of storage in order to stabilize or valorize prices, and it may be necessary, in order that the farmer may get what is coming to him, that a crop like wheat may have to be stored for t>wo or three years ir. order to equalize the price and to keep the farmer in the meantime from being exploited by the gambler. The gambler in wheat, more than anything else, is the menace to farmers getting a fair price for their wheat, and the greatest gamblers in wheat are the millers and the banks which are associated with them in that proposition. That is what they are finding out in the states, and my hon. friend from Brome had better read the evidence that is being presented to-day in Washington if he wishes to see to what conclusions the farmers in the United States are coming. They are going to try something new. We have had two or three years' experience with the wheat board, and I say it is worth a continued trial. The president and the majority of the Senate in the United States are now in favour of rather extensive legislation in the direction of market control and the public control of the price of wheat, and are favouring putting the credit of the whole nation behind it.
When I addressed the House on the budget the other day I brought out this fact, that the coming thing for the improvement of agriculture in this country is improved transportation, improved national banking, improved marketing, and the introduction of the new principle of democ-
Wheat Board

racy and of economics, and that is collectivism. If the men in politics to-day go into the next election, when it comes, ignoring the principle of collectivism, or collective bargaining, call it what you will, by people who are dissatisfied with their present conditions and are going to try and help themselves by co-operation, collective bargaining, collective judgment, or a collective policy, they do not see the signs of the times.
There is just one other thing I want to say. We have the best wheat in the world grown in this country. There is no wheat like the Canadian wheat, and no wheat ought to command a higher price in the markets of the world. But the 'business has to be well handled. The gambler has to be eliminated, the high rate of interest has to be eliminated, and cheap transportation must be provided.. When my hon. friend from Brome says, "Do not offend the East," my answer is, who to-day in the East is standing at the door and telling not only the farmers of western Canada, but all the people of Canada, that they shall not have improved transportation by means of waterways so that steamships crossing the Atlantic may sail right up to the ports on the Great Lakes? The attitude of these grain speculators is: You shall not even have the advantage of the competition of sea-going ships. You farmers of the West must depend hereafter on the railroads, although water transport is cheaper.
In conclusion, I would ask the Prime Minister when he is drafting his bill to read the evidence that is now being presented to that committee in Washington. I have looked through it, and it deals with the question of marketing, with the question of financing crops, and with the question of storage. Storage is the real point, the strength of the farmers case. It does not cost much to store or to carry grain. There must be more storehouse capacity and the nation has to provide especially for the farmers of the West. We must have more storehouses, and the farmers must have granaries at home; they must have more local elevators and storehouses, and there may have to be great storehouses established at the seaports. I am quite convinced that the people of the United States, and especially the farmers of that country, hope to get a solution of the troubles that afflict the farmer over there, because they have troubles in the States just as we have them here. Over there they are trying to remove them, and

trying to do so by co-operation. The best thought in Congress, the best thought in the Senate is being devoted to this question, and the President of the United States is deeply concerned with it. They propose a great national movement over there to improve the price of farm products, to remove all kinds of gambling chances in them, and to provide storage for farm products-not only of wheat but of all grain, cotton and things of that kind. They are in favour of these things, and most of all they are in favour of making experiments. Now the greatest thing in politics is not to respect so-called economic laws but to make experiments. An experiment in politics is a great thing to try out; and as far as I am concerned I am willing to vote in favour of our Government establish-.ng a wheat board, of giving it all the assistance it can, and of having a real experiment made for a few years; especially in view of the fact that the Americans are going to make the same experiment. I believe that if we do make the experiment, having the best wheat in the world, we will be able, by some system of co-operation so to store and finance this good wheat of ours, that we can sell it at the highest price provided we exercise good judgment in that direction.


Hewitt Bostock: Is the House ready for the question?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Before the question is put I rise simply to say that the amendment moved by my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) expresses the policy of those who sit to your left, Mr. Speaker, and who regard themselves as the official Opposition in this House. I do not know that it is necessary to press that amendment to a division. The object in moving it was to acquaint the House and the country with the position that the Opposition take upon the question. How ever, having heard the discussion which has taken place in the House, and which has continued throughout the greater part of the day, I do feel: that if the bill which was promised this afternoon by the Prime Minister is drafted more in keeping with the terms and spirit of the amendment than of the report it will prove to be a better piece of legislation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon. friend state to the House wherein the amendment differs from the report?


Hugh Guthrie: The amendment, if I understand it aright, provides for some-

Wheat Board,
thing in the nature of a voluntary wheat board with such powers as this Parliament has the constitutional right to confer upon it; and if the bill when presented to this House follows more closely the spirit of the amendment, and less closely the spirit of the committee's report, I think it will be found in the end that we will bring forth a more useful piece of legislation than by following the strict letter of the committee's report. I merely cast forth that suggestion as one of my own. It is a prediction I make, that more good will be accomplished in the end if the bill conforms to the amendment rather than to the report. I propose, Mr. Speaker, to let the motion pass until-


Mr. VIEN:: Is it not a fact that the report of the committee has exactly the same effect insofar as it is based on the contention that Parliament has not the right to give compulsory powers to the wheat board, and that such powers must be implemented by the provincial legislature?


Hugh Guthrie: Well, in the latter part of my hon. friend's question lies the weakness of the whole case-supplementary legislation.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand that the amendment is withdrawn by leave of the House.


Hugh Guthrie: No, Mr. Speaker, not withdrawn, lost on division.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just before the amendment is put, I fail really to see the essential difference between the report and the amendment. My hon. friend has claimed that there is a difference between the two but he has not made it very clear. The report asked the Government to establish:
A national wheat marketing agency for the marketing of the wheat crop of 1922.
It also asked to give this agency:
-all the powers of the Wheat Board of 1919 as are within the jurisdiction of Parliament to grant except as they include the direct marketing of flour and other mill products.
That is a voluntary wheat board, and that is what is suggested in the amendment of my hon. friend from South Oxford. I would like to say further, Mr. Speaker, that the members who were in the House and heard the beginning of this discussion will recall that I stated on behalf of the Government that it was our intention, in the legislation which we were bringing in, to establish a board and to give it such powers as this Parliament has a right to endow it with, but to leave it to the provinces to add further powers in accordance with the scope of their jurisdiction. Now there is nothing in the amendment which has been proposed on the other side which adds or takes away anything from what the Government has suggested as its proposal. So I think the amendment is wholly unnecessary, it tries to make a distinction where there is no room for one.
Amendment (Mr. Sutherland) negatived on division.
Motion (Mr. Kay) agreed to.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY

Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a copy of Progress Report No. 3 of the New York State Commission in opposition to the St. Lawrence ship canal and power project.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the Government of Canada agreed with the government of Ontario to appoint a joint Board consisting of four members to regulate and control the outflow of the waters of the Lake of the Woods so as to maintain the level of the lake and also of the waters of Lac Seul and of the Winnipeg river?
2.	Has the Government decided to introduce legislation this session to repeal an Act of the Parliament of Canada, "The Lake of the Woods Regulation Act, 1921", being chapter 38, R.S.C., 1921, and at whose request?
3.	Will the Government lay on the table all documents, letters, correspondence, and any other material dealing with this matter with the government of Ontario, or any other person or persons?
4.	Why has the Government agreed to a settlement of this question which should be settled by engineers?
5.	What International Treaty, if any, is there covering this question?
6.	What interprovincial and international legislation is there in existence on this subject?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The
Government have given notice of 11 p.m. a bill to repeal the Lake of the Woods Regulation Act, 1921.

The several matters referred to by the honourable member can be considered when the measure comes before the House.


IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS
Mr. JACOBS:: 1.	Who is the Deputy Minister of Immigration, when was he appointed, and what is his salary ?
2.	Who performed the duties prior to the appointment of the present deputy minister, and what was his salary?
3.	Has the work in the Department of Immigration increased so largely as to justify the appointment of a deputy minister?
4.	Who is the present Superintendent of Immigration, what are his duties, and in what respect do his duties differ from that of the Deputy Minister of Immigration?
5.	What experience, if any, diiu the present deputy minister have in immigration matters before his appointment to Ms present post?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1.	Mr. W. J. Black, appointed on September 7, 1921; salary $6,000.
2.	Mr. W. W. Cory, C.M.G., Deputy Minister of Interior, was appointed Acting Deputy Minister of Immigration and Colonization in October, 1917, without extra re

Questions
numeration, but during the re-organization of the Department of Immigration and Colonization in the fiscal year 1918-1919 he was paid $1,000 by special Vote of Parliament.
3.	Matter being investigated.
4.	At present there is no Superintendent of Immigration. The former Superintendent of Immigration is at present designated as "Assistant Deputy Minister".
5.	The Deputy Minister of Immigration has held the following positions:-
(a)	Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Immigration for Manitoba.
(b)	President, Manitoba Agricultural College.
(c)	Dominion Commissioner under Agricultural Instruction Act.
(d)	Chairman, Soldier Settlement Board of Canada.


MEALS TO IMMIGRANTS
Mr. JACOBS:: 1.	What rate per diem is charged by the Government at the port of Quebec for meals to immigrants, pending appeals from rulings of the Board of Immigration?
2.	What is the rate per diem which the Government pays to the caterer for sneh food?
3.	What sum has been received by the Government from immigrants for mo. s during the year 1921 at the port of Quebec?
4.	What sum has been paid to the caterer at the port of Quebec for meals supp.ted during the year 1921?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil) :: 1.	(a) Civil Detentions.-Adults, 75 cents per diem for meals, plus $1.00 per diem for overhead expenses, or a total of $1.75 per diem. Children between 1 and 10 years of age, 40 cents per diem for meals, plus 50 cents per diem for overhead expenses, or a total of 90 cents per diem. Infants under one year of age, free.
Medical Detention's.-Adults, 75 cents per diem for meals, plus $1.25 per diem for overhead expenses, or a total of $2 per diem. Children between 1 and 10 years of age, 40 cents per diem for meals, plus 60 cents per diem for overhead expenses, or a total of $1.00 per diem. Infants under one year of age, free.
2.	Rate per diem 75 cents for the season of 1922.
3.	$20,637.94.
4.	$28,313.80 including meals at Detention Hospital and meals to members of the staff.


GOLD IN CANADA
Mr. IRVINE:: What amount of gold was in the treasury- Central Gold Reserve-and in tne chartered banks of Canada during the years from 1914 to 1921?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: Gold in	[DOT]Current gold and subsidiary coin held by
As of	Central Gold	CanadianDec. 31	Reserves	chartered banks1914 ..	.. $4,500,000	$62,569,6881915 ..	.. 6,210,000	67,995,6101916 . .	. . 11,960,000	71,172,1691917 ..	.. 19,680,000	82,032,8631918 ..	.. 8,500,000	79,315,6161919 ..	.. 10,500,000	80,088,1031920 ..	.. 11,502.533	82,687,5591921 ..	.. 10,502,533	78,851,283
Monthly returns of the banks as prescribed by the Bank Act do not show gold and subsidiary coin separately.


NON-TAX ABLE BONDS
William Irvine: What is the total amount of non-taxable bonds issued between the years 1915 and 1921, inclusive?


William Stevens Fielding: $1,284,291,150 are outstanding as of this date of bonds of domestic issues (issued between 1915 and 1921) exempt from Dominion taxation. In addition there are outstanding of New York issues-(issued between 1915 and 1921) exempt from Do-amount of $110,934,000. Of this amount $50,934,000 are exempt from Dominion taxation; and $60,000,000 are exempt except when beneficially owned by persons residing or ordinarily resident in Canada.


UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS
Mr. MARTELL:: For a return showing a statement of all moneys paid by the Government of Canada or any department thereof, to barristers and solicitors of the various provinces of Canada for legal services in connection with the arbitration concerning the Canadian Northern Railway and the Dominion of Canada, and the Grand Trunk Railway and the Dominion of Canada, said statement to set forth retainers, per diem pay, expense allowances, number of days employed and the names of the barristers and solicitors so engaged.


CORRECTION OF DIVISION LIST
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Henry Elvins Spencer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, on page 2912 of Hansard I am reported as having voted for the amendment. That is not correct. On the following page 2913, a correct statement is made of how I intended to vote.


Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (West Edmonton) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the
attention of the House to the fact that my name is also inserted as one of those

Budget Division-Correction
who voted for the amendment proposed by the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), and what I said in connection with the vote when asked to vote is correctly reported on page 2913 of Hansard.


Hewitt Bostock: I am informed that the report of the division is correct in the Votes and Proceedings.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Even in the Votes and Proceedings, the vote is wrongly recorded.


Hewitt Bostock: If the hon. gentlemen have not been properly reported, I will give instructions that the correction be made in the Votes and Proceedings accordingly, as the hon. gentlemen are entitled to that.
The corrected Division List is as follows: TEAS
Anderson,
Arthurs,
Baxter,
Black (Yukon), Bowen.
Chaplin,
Charters,
Church,
Clark,
Dickie,
Drayton (Sir Henry Garland (Bow River Garland (Carleton), Grimmer,
Guthrie,
Harris,
Hocken,
Hubbs,
Irvine,
Ladner,
LeSueur,
MacKelvie,
Mac Bare n,
Maclean (York), Macphail,
Archambault.
Baldwin,
Bancroft,
Beaubien,
Boland,
Binette,
Binette,
Bird,
Black (Huron), Blackadder,
Boivin,
Bouchard,
Boucher,
Bourassa,
Brethen.
Brown,
Bureau,
Cahill,
Caldwell,
Campbell,
Cannon,
Cardin,
Carmichael,
Carroll,
[Mr. D. M. Kennedv
Messrs.
McKillop,
McQuarrie,
McTaggart,
Man ion,
Maybee,
Meighen,
Mewburn,
Ross (Kingston), Ryckman,
Senn,
), Sheard,
), Simpson,
Spence,
Stansell,
Stevens,
Stewart (Hamilton), Stewart (Lanark), Stewart (Leeds), Sutherland, Thompson,
Tolmie,
Whtie,
Wilson,
Woodsworth-49.

Carruthers,
Casgrain,
Chevrier,
Chew,
Chisholm,
Clifford,
Coote,
Copp,
Crerar.
d'Anjou,
Davis,
D6chene,
Del isle,
Demers,
Denis (Joliette).
Denis (St. Denis),
Desaulniers,
Deslauriers,
Desrochers,
Drummond,

Elliott (Dundas), Elliott (Waterloo), Ethier,
Euler,
Evans,
Fafard,
Fansher,
Fielding,
Findlay,
Fontaine,
Forke,
Forrester,
Fortier,
Fournier,
Gauvreau,
Gendron.
Good,
Gordon,
Gouin (Sir Lomer), Gould,
Graham,
Halbert,
Hammell,
Hatfield,
Hodgins,
Hoey,
Hudson,
Hughes,
Humphrey,
Hunt,
Jelliff,
Johnson (Moosejaw), Johnston (Last Mountain),
Kay,
Kellner,
Kennedy (Edmonton), Kennedy (Essex), Kennedy (Glengarry and Stormont). Kennedy (Port Arthur and Kenora),
King (Huron),
King (Kootenay), King, Mackenzie (York Knox,
Laflamme,
La fortune,
Lanetdt,
Lapierre,
Lapointe,
Lavigueur,
Leader,
Lewis,
Logan,
Lovett,
Lovie,
Low,
Lucas,
Macdonald (Pictou), Mackinnon,
Maclean (Halifax), Maclean
(Prince, P.E.I.), McBride,
McConica,
MoCrea,
McDonald (Timiska-ming),
McGiverin,
Mclsaac,
McKay,
McKenzie,
Me Murray,
Marcil (Bonaventure), Marcile (Bagot), Marler,
Martel 1,
Mercier,
Michaud,
Millar,
Milne,
Mitchell,
Morin,
Morrison,
Morrissy,
Motherwell,
Munro,
Murdock,
Murphv,
Neill,
Ouimet,
Pacaud,	*
Papineau,
Parent,
Pelletier,
Power,
Provost,
Pritchard,
Putnam,
Rankin,
Raymond,
Reed,
Rinfret,
Robb,
Robinson,
Robitaille,
Ross (Simcoe),
St. P6re,
Sales,
),Savard,
S&guin,
Sexwsmith,
Shaw,
Sinclair (Oxford), Sinclair (Queens, P.E.I.),
Speakman,
Spencer,
Steedsman,
Stewart (Argenteuil), Stew'art (Humboldt), Stork,
Thurston,
Tobin,
Trahan,
Turgeon,
Vien,
Wallace,
Walsh,
Ward,
Warner,
Woods-171.


SALE AND INSPECTION OF ROOT VEGETABLES
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. R. Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture) Bill No- 33, to regulate the Sale and Inspection of Root Vegetables, was read the second time.
On motion of Mr. Motherwell, the bill was referred to the select standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization.

Criminal Code Amendment
297.3

[Stage Direction]
The House again in committee on Bill No. 93, to amend the Criminal Code, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Sir LOMER GOUIN:: I beg to move the following amendment:
(1)	Section 2 of the said act is amended by inserting the foilowing paragraph immediately after paragraph (14) :
"(14A) 'Feeble-minded person" means a person in whose case there exists from birth or from an early age, mental defectiveness not amounting to imbecility, yet so pr-nounced that he or she requires care, supervision and control for his or her protection ana for the protection of others."
This is a definition of a feeble-minded person. I also beg to move this further amendment:
(2)	Section 219 is amended by inserting the word "feeble-minded" after the word "dumb" in the fourth line thereof, and the words, "or imbecile" after the word "dumb" at the end of the said section.
Section 219 reads as follows:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to four years' imprisonment who unlawfully and carnally knows, or attempts to have unlawful carnal knowledge of, any female idiot or imbecile, insane or deaf and dumb woman or girl, under circumstances which do not amount to rape but where the offender knew or had good reason to believe, at the time of the offence, that the woman or girl was an idiot, or imbecile, or insane or deaf and dumb.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Is the change one of limitation or extension?


Lomer Gouin: Extension.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Lomer Gouin: I beg to move the following amendment. Section 236 reads:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years' imprisonment and to a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars who,-
And so forth. We propose to add two subsections, and I beg to move the following amendment:
iSubseetion one of section two hundred and thirty-six of the said act is amended by inserting the following paragraphs immediately after paragraph (c) thereof:
"or (d) disposes of any goods, wares or merchandise by any game or mode of chance or mixed chance and skill; or
"(e) induces any person to stake or hazard any money or other valuable property or thing on the result of any dice game, shell game, punch board, coin table or other gome of chance or mixed chance and skill or on the operation of any wheel of fortune."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. GOOD:: I move a further amendment to the Criminal Code, as follows:
3.	Subsection (e) and (f) of section 1 of section 235 of the Criminal Code, Revised Statutes of Canada chapter 146 are repealed and the following substituted therefor;
(e)	Engages in pool-selling or bookmaking or in the business or occupation of betting or wagering or in supplying information to any person engaged in bookmaking or pool selling or in the business of betting or wagering which would be of assistance therein, or makes any agreement for the purchase or sale of betting or gaming privileges.
(f)	Advertises, prints,! publishes, exhibits,
posts up, sells or supplies or offers to sell or supply any information to any person engaged in bookmaking or pool selling or in the business of betting or wagering which is afterwards used by such person in book making, pool selling, or in the business of betting or wagering upon any horse race or other race, fight, game or sport, whether at the time ox advertising, printing, publishing, exhibiting, posting up or supplying such information, such horse race or other race, fight, game or sport has or has not taken place.	,


Mr. CHURCH:: I would draw the attention of the committee to the fact that the hon. member (Mr. Good) has on the Order Paper, at page 16, a motion, No. 11, with reference to the subject of his proposed amendment. Under the rules of the House he cannot, with such a motion on the Order Paper dealing with the same subject, move the amendment he now submits.


William Charles Good: This amendment does not cover the matter which my proposed motion deals with.


Mr. BAXTER:: I do not know what the proposed amendment is. It was utterly impossible to hear it, and one cannot properly discuss the point of order without knowing just what the subject is. However, the amendment is long enough to fall within Rule No. 112, which says:
No important amendment may be proposed to any private bill in a Committee of thft Whole House-


George Newcombe Gordon: Order. This is not a private bill. With regard to the point of order raised by the hoh. member for Toronto North (Mr. Church), there is a Notice of Motion No. 11, on the Order Paper dealing substantially with the same matter treated in the proposed amendment. May at page 248 says :
A motion must not anticipate a matter already appointed for consideration by the House whether it be a bill or an adjourned debate upon a motion. A motion is equally out of order, if it anticipates a notice of motion for leave to bring in a bill that Includes the subject proposed to be dealt with by the motion. A matter already appointed for consideration by the House cannot be anticipated by an
Criminal Code Amendment

amendment, while a notice of motion as long as it remains upon the paper, whether for a specified day or not, prevents its subject-matter being discussed by, means of an amendment to a motion.
And Bourinot at page 320, states:
An amendment cannot anticipate a notice of motion on the order paper.
Under the circumstances I rule that this amendment is anticipated by Notice of Motion, No. 11, on the Order Paper and is therefore out of order.


William Charles Good: Will you allow me to speak to your ruling, Mr. Chairman? I simply wish to say-


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. member is tut of order in discussing the ruling of the Chair. Had I known that he desired to discuss the point of order I would have given him an opportunity to do so before ruling upon it. I did not see him rise, however.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend (Mr. Good) was on his feet when the member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) sat down. I think that he intended to speak to the point of order, and I submit that he should be given the opportunity to do so.


George Newcombe Gordon: I regret that the hon. member did not more vigorously draw my attention to the fact that he desired to discuss the point of order.


William Charles Good: But I did say something, Mr. Chairman, and I intended to proceed.


George Newcombe Gordon: I am afraid the hon. member did not sufficiently press his desire in the matter. I did not hear him, and having given my ruling I do not think he can discuss it.


Mr. JACOBS:: Bring it up next year.
Bill as amended, reported, read the third time and passed.


SUPREME COURT ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Sir Lomer Gouin (Minister of Justice) Bill No. 125 to amend the Supreme Court Act was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
Lomer Gouin: Most of the provinces have legislation to authorise references on legal questions to be made to their courts. There is no provision in the Supreme Court Act authorizing an appeal on such decision from the highest courts of the provinces. We were requested by the Attorney-General of Ontario to prepare the
[Deputy Speaker.]
amendment we now introduce. I would ask permission to make some changes in the amendment as drafted. I propose to replace in the first section, subsection 42 (a), for the words "Divisional Court of the Supreme Court of any province, (or by the final court of appeal of any province) ", the words "The highest Court of final resort in any province." This - is in conformity with the amendments made to the Supreme Court Act in 1920. For the same reason I move to strike out the words "Divisional Court (or of the said final court of appeal)", and to substitute therefor the words "the highest Court of final resort." This will apply to all the provinces of Confederation and I think it will be generally satisfactory.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: What is the purpose of the amendment?


Lomer Gouin: To afford an appeal from the highest court of the province on any reference made in virtue of provincial legislation on questions of law. On federal matters we have references to the Supreme Court. The provincial governments have similar references to their provincial courts, but they have no appeal to the Supreme Court unless we amend the Supreme Court Act, and that is what we propose to do.


Henry Lumley Drayton: At their request?


Lomer Gouin: At their request.


Samuel William Jacobs: I notice it is intended by subsection 2 to make this bill retroactive to the 16th June, 1920.


Lomer Gouin: That subsection is dropped.
Bill reported as amended, read the third time, and passed.

House again in Committee of Supply.- Mr. Gordon in the Chair.


MILITIA AND DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
Adjustment of War Claims-Militia and Defence, $7,380,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Chairman,
I had hoped, in common with most members of the late government, that we were getting near the end of these extraordinary payments. There is only a very small decrease this year, and I would ask the minister to be good enough to give the committee details of how this amount of $7,000,000 odd is made up.

Militia and, Defence
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Militia and Defence): We all shared my hon. friend's hope, but there does not seem much prospect that this item will be very materially diminished this year. Last year the vote was approximately $7,000,000, but about $8,000,000 was spent, the reason being that the Militia Department had several credits, and the Finance Department allowed that over-expenditure on account of those credits. It was really a matter of bookkeeping.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose that extraordinary large claim of $3,000,000 was charged up to the demobilization vote last
year?


Mr. GRAHAM:: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then do you not think this is too great a vote this year?


George Perry Graham: Since these estimates
were prepared a credit of approximately $1,000,000 has been made by the British Shipping Board to the Naval Department, so this vote can be reduced to that extent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does the minister mean that because Great Britain has paid us $1,000,000 in connection with war matters it can be used by the department without being covered by a vote?
Mr. GRAHAM. As a matter of fact, the British Shipping Board owed us $1,000,079, and gave us credit for it. Last year the Militia Department expended $1,000,000 more than the total voted by Parliament through credit given by that contra account. I will read the items that make up this total. One large item is that referred to by the ex-Minister of Militia last week, being the claim made by the British Shipping Board against the Canadian government, amounting to about $4,000,000, on account of the hospital ship that was sunk while being used by this government. The former Minister of Militia had some negotiations with the British government, but no final settlement was reached. I may say frankly that I have not had time to go into the merits or demerits of the case, but the $1,000,000 is credited against that claim. These are the items included in this vote: British Ministry of Shipping account, $3,007,105; private steamship accounts, $427,895; unforseen railway-steamship accounts, $200; other transportation claims, $40,000; separation allowances, $158,000; pay and allowances, $192,000;
war service gratuities, $346,000; printing and stationery, $26,000; postage on medals, records, etc., $60,000; ordnance service repairs to rifles, $6,000. Then there is an item for engineer services and works, $30,-
000.	There is a large amount for medals, $535,000. These medals are made by the British government and are paid for by the Canadian government. I may say to hon. members whose friends may be asking why their medals or other decorations have not reached them that they are coming into the department by thousands every month and we are distributing them as rapidly as they are received. There are items for difference in exchange redeemed at par, $86,500, and miscellaneous, unforeseen, $470,000, making a total of $6,880,-
000.	We add to that the $500,000 we discussed the other night, for battlefields memorials, making a total of $7,380,000. As I pointed out a moment ago we wish to drop $1,000,000 from that, leaving the amount to be voted $6,380,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The amount
of $470,000 for miscellaneous unforseen expenses strikes me to be rather a large item, and I would like the minister to give us some particulars concerning it.


George Perry Graham: It is to cover any items not otherwise provided for which may be authorized by the Governor in Council. There is also a balance in dispute, a claim of Vickers Limited, of $219,000. Then, a committee is sitting at present the recommendations of which may necessitate some expenditure. There were upwards of 6,000 soldiers who took their discharge from the Canadian forces in England, many of whom have since come to Canada. The question of refunding the cost of their transportation to Canada has been before the special committee on pensions and soldiers' re-establishment. The amount involved is estimated at $330,000. Provision is made to cover these two items. In fact, . in connection with the committee which is sitting, my fear is that I may have to ask for a supplementary vote to cover any provision the committee may make for payments, and so on.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I agree that
my hon. friend has not allowed very much to cover the recommendations of the committee; the amount would appear to be $231,000. I would like to ask how the claim of the Vickers Company stands at present.

Militia and Defence


George Perry Graham: It has not yet been
settled. There have been some negotiations; I have gone over the file of figures once or twice, and I think my predecessor discussed the claim with the Vickers people when 'he wad in England. The claim must, of course, be paid in some amount, but a definite decision has not been arrived at.


Hugh Guthrie: I do know something about this claim. I went into the matter fully when I was in the department and I was not able to effect a settlement with the Vickers people. They made an offer to accept a certain sum of money to clean up the whole claim. I at one time thought the figure Was not an unfair one, but my hon. friend the then Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) thought it was much too high. I am satisfied that the company have a bona fide claim. We cancelled certain contracts which we had awarded to them at the beginning of the war and they claim to have sustained losses. Some substantial amount will have to be paid in settlement of this claim. But the large item which the minister has given is the one that I would like a little more information about, that is, the one in connection with the shipping claim of the British government against the Canadian government. I was under the impression that last summer, with the able assistance of accountants from the Militia Department and after about three weeks' hard work, we reached a settlement with the British government, of their claims against Canada in regard to all shipping items save one. We succeeded in reducing the account which had been rendered to us by $750,000. But there was still a very large item in regard to a hospital ship that had been torpedoed and in respect of which the British government claimed they had the right to recover from Canada the amount found to be due to the owners by a board of arbitration which sat in England and was made up of three or four prominent ship owners. Upon that board Canada was not represented. In the early stage of the submarine warfare the damages paid by the British government to British ship owners were based on the actual cost of the ship. But as the war proceeded and more and more ships were sunk every month, the cost of shipbuilding rapidly went up and in the later years of the war the boards of arbitration awarded the replacement value of the ships. The British ship in question was in the service of Canada at the time she was lost. Marine insurance rates had become so [Sir Henry Drayton.I
great that no government could carry them; a few months' insurance would eat up the whole value of the ship. Canada, having assumed the risk while the vessel was under charter to her, has been called upon to make good the loss occasioned through the vessel having been torpedoed. My recollection is that the cost of the ship is about $1,000,000 and that the finding of the board of arbitration was that we should pay a replacement value of something like $3,000,000, I think-an enormous figure, at all events. These figures will be found in the department. Last summer we were not able to arrive at an agreement in regard to that item. In reply to my objection that Canada was not represented on the arbitration board, the officials of the Ministry of Shipping said that men had been appointed whom they thought would represent us; that the same board had acted in reference to British, Australian and Canadian ships, ships of every nation, and they were under the impression that Canada was virtually bound by the arrangement. I took the other ground, so the matter stood. But all other outstanding items in regard to shipping were settled, and the document setting forth the settlement must be in the department. I have the impression that the amount was not nearly so great as that stated by my hon. friend to-night.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is right; I have the figures here. Settlement was made of all the other claims, but the amount has not been paid, so it comes under this vote. We have to take $2,243,000 from this item for that purpose. That comes out of this amount to begin with.


Hugh Guthrie: The claim, I think, was three and a quarter million, and they reduce it to about two and a half million.


George Perry Graham: To $2,243,000.


Hugh Guthrie: In addition, there is still outstanding the claim for the lost ship?


George Perry Graham: That is the situation.


Mr. SHAW:: I would like to urge upon the minister the desirability of having these war medals distributed to those entitled to them at the earliest possible date. The men who are entitled to them value them very highly, but if they do not get them soon, they will probably care very little about them. The war is over now almost four years, and I think it is desirable that the distribution of medals should be speeded up. I have received many requests about


Militia and Defence
them, as no doubt have other hon. members, and I would suggest that if it is a question cf manufacture, that the manufacture be speeded up. If it is simply a question of distribution, an effort should be made to get the medals out as soon as possible.


George Perry Graham: The department receives a great many requests too. For a time the department was sending out as many as 25,000 medals a month. We are sending them out now just as rapidly as we get them. We are in communication with the British authorities urging them to speed up production. Just as fast as we get them, we distribute them. The young men and their relatives are naturally getting very anxious to get the medals. Our list is all ready, and we have quite a large staff that is being retained largely for the purpose of distributing these medals. I can assure my hon. friend that we are doing everything possible to speed up the manufacture at the other end.


Hugh Guthrie: I think the record of the department in regard to the distribution of medals is pretty good, when you consider the millions of medals that have to be made for all the men who served in the army and navy of Great Britain and the Dominions. I enquired into this matter last summer and found that they were speeding up in every possible way, but I suppose there must be eight or ten million medals altogether to be made and distributed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: 
George Perry Graham: 
Henry Lumley Drayton: 
George Perry Graham: 
SECRETARY OP STATE
[Stage Direction]
Adjustment of war claims-Secretary of State, $75,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the explanation of the increase?


Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State) :: This amount is required largely for the carrying on of the operations of the clearing house that was established last year. The salaries and expenses last year amounted to a trifle over $60,000, and the vote was only $50,000. Owing to the fact that there is a large increase of the work, and will be during the present year, we find it necessary to ask for this amount.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There were some extraordinary expenses last year in connection with this item. There were difficulties, for instance, which arose in England necessitating our sending the deputy over, not only to England, but also to Germany, with a view to speeding up matters and bringing them to a satisfactory conclusion. The vote last year was probably not sufficient, as the minister says. I would have thought, however, that last year was the high water mark and that we would be reducing the item now. I do not know whether anything new has turned up, but I thought that we had finished with excursions to Germany.	*


Arthur Bliss Copp: Unfortunately, I am afraid
that we shall have to send a delegation to Germany again this year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is very
unfortunate.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The information I received
from my deputy, who has had this matter in charge, is that our clearing office is not in direct connection with the German clearing office. The claims all have to pass through the central clearing office in England, which causes a great deal of delay in getting the claims adjusted. We have been following up these claims just as closely as we could, but it has been impos-
Trade and Commerce

sible during the last few months to get them adjusted satisfactorily. If we could possibly come to any arrangement for getting the returns back and forth direct and settling with our Canadians, it would facilitate matters. Something must be done, because from the information I have received from the officials it has been almost impossible to get these matters closed up in the last few months. Greater energy must be put into the work. I have no desire to ask for any more than is absolutely necessary, I can assure my hon. friend, but my information is that we shall require this amount to make us absolutely safe this year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I know there
has been a great deal of difficulty in the past. We had to work through the British clearing office, which has a great deal of work to do, and it was pretty hard to get these claims adjusted with proper business alacrity, but we looked after that in the autumn of last year by leaving a man there who was familiar with the business of the British office. I hope there are not going to be any more expeditions.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That officer is still there, and has been working there ever since that time, but we have not been able to get action. The time has arrived, judging by the number of letters and telegrams we receive, and by the number of hon. members making representations, when the work of adjusting these claims should be speeded up, ana that is what we are endeavouring to do.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Trade and Commerce Department. Maintenance of terminal elevators and necessary equipment, $95,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the reason for the increase there?


James Alexander Robb: It is to provide for cleaning machinery in the elevator at Vancouver so as to put that elevator in a position to handle grain, more particularly the grain coming in over the Canadian National Railways. Considerable grain was shipped there during the winter, I think around eight million bushels, and it may be interesting to the committee to know that from the province of Alberta it is cheaper to ship grain to England via Vancouver than via the Atlantic ports.


Thomas Langton Church: May I ask the minister what has been done to meet the need for terminal elevators in the province of Ontario? About three years ago there waited upon the government a large deputation composed of the following representatives: City of Toronto, Minister of Agriculture for Ontario, United Farmers' of Ontario, United Farmers' Co-operative Company, Limited, representatives of the Grain section, Toronto Board of Trade, representatives of the Toronto Harbour Commission. The deputation introduced asked that an interior elevator be built in Ontario and we presented a very elaborate memorandum to the government showing the necessity for it. I would like to ask the minister if the time has not come to consider the policy of building one or more of these elevators in the province of Ontario? The government told us in 1918 they would build one when the war was over. At present there are no such facilities in central and western Ontario for the storage of the farmer's crop. It was pointed out that in some cities a large expenditure is being made on harbour improvements. In my own city we used to have these elevators some years ago but now we have not got any. $26,000,000 is being spent rebuilding the port. The urgent need of an elevator at some place on lake Ontario, has been pointed out. I would like to know if anything is going to be done in this direction for the province of Ontario because the government has established elevators in other parts of the country and I think they should do the same for the province from which I come?


James Alexander Robb: As my hon. friend is surely aware there is a greater storage capacity in the province of Ontario than in any of the other provinces. He must be cognizant of the immense storage capacity we have at Fort William and Port Arthur, and I suppose the province of Ontario will claim that those two enterprising towns are within its boundaries. At Port Colborne there is also a large elevator, and there are likewise elevators at Georgian Bay ports. So far as I am aware no complaint has been received of the shortage of storage capacity on the lakes.


Thomas Langton Church: I am going to read from the memorandum presented by the deputation referred to, a few paragraphs with respect to the need of terminal elevators in Ontario, because I am satisfied the minister is not seized of the very im-

Grain Elevators
portant facts embodied1 therein: The purpose of the deputation was thus stated:
The purpose of the deputation is to ask the government of Canada to erect and operate an interior termtinal elevator for the service of Ontario, particularly central and western Ontario. It is assumed that such an elevator would be included as one of the chain of elevators at (present operated by the Board of Grain Commissioners of the Department of Trade and Commerce. The type of elevator should, it is submitted, follow the lines of those at present in operation at Calgary, Saskatoon and Moosejaw in the western provinces, and be modern and well equipped in every particular. Its capacity should be sufficient to meet the needs of central and western Ontario as determined after examination by the experts of your departments. Such an elevator, it is submitted, should be located where convenient transportation facilities are available by road, by rail and by water. While we realize that the selection of the exact location would be contingent on the investigation of the experts of your departments, we are glad to have associated with us in this deputation representatives of the Toronto Harbour Commission Board.
Ontario produces annually approximately 200,000,000 bushels of grain of various kinds. In 1918 the total aggregated nearly 225,000,000 bushels, but this was an exceptionally favourable year for grain crops. It will be seen that in the average year Ontario produces enormous quantities of grain. Very considerable of this grain is used for live stock feeding as the live stock industry is a prominent one in the province of Ontario. At the same time there is no doubt but that millions of bushels change hands each year as grain, being sold either in the local trade, in inter-provincial trade, or for export. At the present time there Is no Government interior terminal elevator in the province at which grain may be officially weighed and graded, as is done m the other provinces. At the present time the Grain Commission is endeavouring to purchase over 500,000 bushels of oats in Ontario, but there is no central point at which this grain can be officially asembled, weighed and graded. The absence of these facilities in Ontario has proven a loss to the farmers, a great inconvenience to those engaged in the grain trade, and a handicap to the Province in competing in these lines with other provinces which have the benefit of such facilities.
This deputation, therefore, desires to lay special emphasis on the public service functions which such an elevator would perform to the agricultural and commercial Interests of the province.
Then follows a summary of the functions alluded to among which appear the following:
It would provide accommodation for the weighing, cleaning, drying, storing and grading of all kinds of grata in the province.
It would be an advantage to individual farmers, by enabling them to ship carload lots of grain which would be officially weighed and stored, and for which there would be issued an official certificate which would be recognized by the bank at once, thus broadening the farmers' market.
It would provide facilities for the storing, cleaning and grading of different kinds of seed
and in this regard would be of great advantage to the farmers of the province, particularly with reference to grass and clover seeds.
It would be of much advantage to the live stock industry of the province by facilitating the distribution of feeding stuffs from one section to another in the case of short crops in the local districts or In the province as a whole.
It would be able to perform a distinct service in preventing the deterioration of certain crops in the province in the years of too much moisture, as is illustrated in the bean crop in recent years. The crop of buckwheat this year has had to be dried because of the wet weather which prevailed at the time of harvsting.
Special emphasis is laid on the fact that such an elevator would be a public elevator and certificates issued would be official government certificates, both of which are advantages affording great protection to the public and not available in the same sense from private enterprise.
Then the commercial side of the question is dwelt upon in the memorandum and the great advantages that would result from the carrying out of the enterprise are effectively pointed out.
I may say that the minister some time ago brought down a return showing the number of elevators there are in
12 m. Canada, and the original cost of each. Among those are enumerated the following:
Consolidated	 $ 594,081
Empire	 556,611
Thunder Bay	 532,383
Port William	 651,089
Ogilvie	 554,823
Western Terminal	 762,737
Canadian Government	 1,315,767
C.N.R. A & B	 1,961,000
G.T.P	 1,949,000
C.P.R. D	 2,156,942
C.P.R. A & C	 505,720
C.P.R. B & E	 855,849
I hope the minister will look into this matter, because I have in my possession a very elaborate brief which has been carefully prepared by the interests that I have named. I know the late Lieutenant-Governor Clark was a man who took a great deal of interest in the farming and grain interests of Ontario, and he was very much seized with the importance of having proper terminal elevators, because the steam railways are not treating the farmers of the province as they should and the fact is that the farmers have no place to take their crop in western and central Ontario. I have a large number of petitions signed by men interested in farming exhibitions, fairs and so on. We have been told that the financial situation has been such that public works could not be built except where absolutely necessary; but for the last year or two the financial situation has been improving, and I hope the minister will give us some relief. I have petitions signed

Grain Elevators

by county councils and various other public bodies that I have named. It is too bad that, in the old province of Ontario, we are not getting the relief that we should get even as regards elevator transportation facilities. On account of the fact that we could not get proper transportation facilities from the steam roads, 368 municipalities became so disgusted with the way they were being treated by the steam roads that they passed bylaws for a large system of hydro-electric railways in Ontario. We are quite agreeable that more elevators should be built throughout the country; but in Ontario they seem to have been eliminated. True it is, that there is one at Fort William and another at Port Colborne; but they are for through waterborne traffic largely, and western Ontario and central Ontario are absolutely lacking in elevator facilities to take care of the farmers' grain crops. We have a very active and aggressive minister; I hope he will take this matter up and give us some relief in central and western Ontario. I do not wish to detain the committee, and I would like to see these estimates go through quickly. I hope the minister will go into this very important matter, meet this deputation again and see if something cannot be done to give the farmers of western and central Ontario a place to store their crop. Why should Ontario not have at the country's expense what every other province has now?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am sure the minister will give us a proper undertaking to this effect.


James Alexander Robb: I shall be very glad to look over the representations made by my hon. friend. Perhaps he might tell me where he would like me to locate this elevator, should we decide to erect one.


Thomas Langton Church: I cannot say that. The memo refers to the site at length. They say that they will leave that to the minister. The Grain Commissioners have certain views in this respect; they presented them to Sir Thomas White, the then Minister of Finance and to the then Minister of Trade and Commerce, and they made a recommendation as to location. I am not prepared to say where the elevator should1 be located. This deputation of the United Farmers said that it should be located in Toronto. I do not care where it is located so long as central and western Ontario get some relief from the intolerable conditions under which they are suffering at the present time. I am

not asking where it be erected, but central and western Ontario should have some relief, and Toronto is the logical place from the economic and transportation standpoints.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I should like to offer a suggestion to the minister regarding the administration of these terminal elevators, and I think my suggestion might appropriately come under this item. At present the administration of terminal elevators owned by the Government, both at the head of the lakes and at points further west, lies in the hands of the Grain Commission. One of the commissioners, indeed, has active charge of the administration of these elevators. I have always thought that was a mistake as regards administration. The Grain Commission is a judicial body created by act of this Parliament for settling disputes that may arise in the conduct of the grain business. It was never intended to be an administrative board in the sense of administering the operation of these elevators. My suggestion to the Government and to the minister-and I am sure it will receive his usual careful consideration-is that his department might well give consideration to the matter of separating the administration of these terminal elevators from the Board of Grain Commissioners altogether and putting the administration in charge of a competent official for that purpose. That would relieve the Board of Grain Commissioners of that duty; it would place them more clearly in the judicial capacity which they are supposed and intended under the act to occupy. As a matter of fact, the Government is operating terminal elevators in competition with private concerns. I have no fault to find with that. I have advocated in the past and I still adhere to the view that it might be better, in the interest of the whole tradte of Canada, if all these terminal elevators were operated as Government utilities the same as the Government elevator at Port Arthur is. But in any case, so long as they are operating an elevator, it should be an administrative function directly responsible to the minister and should not be involved with the conduct of a body that should be entirely judicial in its operations and character.


Mr. McBRIDE:: As regards the elevator at Vancouver, if there is in Canada any place that requires additional elevator facilities, it is Vancouver. I do not represent Vancouver, and if some hon. members from that city were present, they could gc more fully into the matter than I. But

Grain Elevators
when I state that the Canadian Pacific yards at Vancouver were last winter blocked to such an extent that they had to leave 500 cars at Kamloops that they could not take down to the coast until some steamers came in to relieve the elevators, it will be realized that, under such conditions, a much larger sum than $95,000 should be appropriated to extend the elevator systems at Vancouver. This, however, is a step in the right direction.


James Alexander Robb: I quite agree with the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) that there is room for improvement in the administration and management of government-operated elevators, and we shall consider those representations during the summer and see what can be done towards improving conditions. As regards the observations of the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. McBride), we hope to relieve in a measure the congestion of last year when we have the cleaning machinery installed in that elevator, so that it will be able to handle the grain more quickly.


Mr. LUCAS:: When we were discussing the Canada Grain Act the other night, I understood the minister to say that we would be allowed to discuss it again under this item.


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


William Thomas Lucas: I should like to call the minister's attention to a matter regarding the car demurrage rule, which provides for forty eight hours' free time exclusive of Sundays for loading and unloading commodities. The exception to that rule is that, in that portion of Canada, Port Arthur and the West, in which the Grain Act applies, twenty hours' free time only is allowed for loading grain. I understand this legislation was enacted with a view to speeding up the loading and prompt handling of grain in the short time available for handling the crop. This legislation hits directly at the farmer; in fact, he is the only one hit, as the elevators have no limit to the number of cars they can load provided that they can get the cars. The farmer, on the other hand, unless he live**very close to an elevator, is unable to load a car in twenty-four hours, and as help is very hard to get at this time, he usually has to take an extra day to load his car. As a result, the handling of grain is not speeded up; in fact, in 95 cases out of 100 the farmer has to take 48 hours to load a car, and the object for which the rule was passed is not attained". For that
189i
reason, it has occurred to me that an amendment to the Grain Act might be submitted, allowing 48 hours for loading grain from loading platforms only. As I said before, the elevators do not need this, and I see no reason why the farmer with his grain should he allowed only 24 hours when all other commodities are allowed 48 hours. I call this to the attention of the minister and trust that he will see his way clear to bring in an amendment in this direction. It would be a great advantage.


James Alexander Robb: I shall look into the representations of my hon. friend. My impress sion is that this is really a matter that is regulated by the Railway Commissioners, although I am not sure. In passing, may I suggest to my hon. friend that the longer he ties up a car the greater will be the dearth of cars during the season when they are most required. These limited times were provided in order to aid the shippers, because the faster they can load the cars and keep them moving the better it is for all Western Canada. However, I shall consider the representations that have been made.


Mr. SALES:: Do I understand the minister to say that the grain trade generally can be discussed under this item?


James Alexander Robb: That was the understanding on the last occasion.


Thomas Sales: The other evening I raised a question in regard to the private elevators and the Order in Council that was passed in connection with the subject. I do not know whether the minister has had time to look into the matter, or is prepared to state whether he intends to allow that business to be carried on. I think that the Order in Council should be revoked and the private elevators confined to the business they are intended to do. Furthermore, if the depreciating of the grain to No. 3 grade is to continue, I contend that the certificates for the grain passing through the private terminal elevators should bear the word "sample" or the words "mixed grade". The minister said the other night that we should preserve the fair name of Canada. I agree with him; and in order that our grain may continue to bear the good reputation that it has enjoyed up to this time in the British market I think that this mixed grade should have a different certificate from that given for the straight grade grain from the public terminal elevators. I presume the minister is going to allow us to discuss item No. 374
Grain Commission

a little later on. It provides for salaries and expenses of the Grain Inquiry Commission.


James Alexander Robb: We shall take that matter up when we come to it.
Item agreed on.
To provide for salaries and expenses of the Grain Inquiry Commission, $40,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Before we proceed, may I ask, merely for information, how many more votes the minister intends to get through? What is his intention as to the length of the sitting to-night?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is advisable that we should endeavour to bring the session to a close, and if hon. members opposite are agreeable we may sit until possibly one o'clock.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was not complaining.


Thomas Sales: Will the minister explain this item?


James Alexander Robb: This amount is provided to meet any demand that may be made for a grain inquiry by those interested in the trade. There has been a limited demand for grain inquiry. I shall be glad to have representations from those representing the trade of Western Canada as to whether they desire any investigation into the grain trade.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Has this any reference to the resumption of the work of the body known as the Hyndman Commission?


James Alexander Robb: It is not exactly a resumption of that work, but as a result of that inquiry and what was brought out it was represented to us from some sources that there still existed some degree of unfairness, that the matter had not been all cleaned up to the satisfaction of the trade, and we therefore put in this vote to provide for any inquiry, should one be demanded. I may say at once that if there is a reasonable request from the growers for an investigation the Government will be disposed to consider it. Of course, we must bear in mind that there is no trade in this country that has been so often investigated as the grain trade of western Canada. I have been looking into the matter and I find that there have been thirteen different inquiries, royal commissions, and departmental investigations, into the trade of western Canada, and I suppose that an investigation is looked upon as an annual affair. I repeat, we are open to sugges-

tions from our friends who are interested in western Canada, and the Government will be guided by the representations that are submitted to them.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: So far as the work of the Hyndman Commission is concerned, and the causes that led to the appointment of that body, I think it is pretty well within the knowledge of every one who knew anything of the circumstances, that there was no widespread demand,-indeed, as far as I know, there was no demand from any reasonable body of opinion-for the institution of that inquiry at the time it was started. I do not wish to-night to enter upon any extensive discussion of the work of the Hyndman Commission, so called, further than to make this observation, that it was very unfortunately constituted, in some of its personnel, for the work it had to do. I have stated publicly elsewhere, and I repeat here, that the late Commissioner Staples, of the Board of Grain Commissioners, should certainly never have been placed on any royal grain inquiry. There was no useful work that the royal grain inquiry, known as the Hyndman Commission, undertook to do that could not have been done by the Board of Grain Commissioners in the first instance. The Board of Grain Commisioners is expressly clothed under the law with all the powers of inquiry that are vested under part one of the Inquiries Act. I have stated before, and I will repeat here, that the main purpose of the Grain Enquiry Commission was political rather than to seek remedies for abuses in the grain business. However, that may pass now. 'So far as inquiries are concerned, I do think that the minister might well institute some investigation, departmental or otherwise, that would go fully and thoroughly into the operation of the terminal elevators at Fort William, covering the handling of grain from the time it enters those elevators until it leaves. The elevators at Fort William are under the direction and control of the Government in the matter of inspection and weighing. The supervision of the grain handled through these elevators is always under the eye of government officials, and consequently the certificate of weight or of grade issued on grain entering these elevators or leaving them is a government certificate. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Saltcoats (Mr. Sales), there has been a good deal of dissatisfaction, particularly in the past year, with the outward inspection at some of the elevators at Fort William.

Grain Commission
My own judgment is that the inspection work at Fort William has been weak, and not properly looked after. In that respect I have another suggestion to offer to the minister. It is that the whole work of grain inspection covered by the Canada Grain Act 'be placed in the hands of the chief grain inspector, who should be made responsible for the efficiency and character of this work throughout his jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, owing to conditions that existed in Fort William under the administration of the law-which I do not wish to enter into to-night to any extent- the inspection of the elevators was not as closely under the direction and control of the chief grain inspector as it should have been. Theoretically he may have been the official responsible for the efficiency of that inspection, but in actual practice a condition developed at the head of the lakes under which he did not have that control which he should have had. I think the causes for that condition probably do not now obtain, but in my judgment the minister would be well advised to place the whole inspection business under the chief grain inspector and make him responsible to the department instead of to the Board of Grain Commissioners, for the same reason that I urged a few moments ago that the administration of the terminal elevators should be taken out of the hands of the Board of Grain Commissioners. The business of grain inspection is an administrative function, and the best results will be obtained in the administration of this act if that function is disassociated from the judicial function which primarily rests, as it should rest, in the Board of Grain Commissioners.
There is another matter which I wish to make allusion to, because I find that throughout eastern Canada particularly there is a very widespread misunderstanding and misapprehension of the conditions existing in the terminal elevators, and especially in the elevator controlled by the company with which I have been associated. The Royal Grain Inquiry Commission early last June, when it was sitting in the province of Saskatchewan, by telegram authorized its secretary to hold a special session at Fort William, which was in the nature of a secret session. That session was held as was disclosed in evidence brought out in the injunction proceedings at Winnipeg, for the purpose of investigating certain charges against the Grain Growers' administration of their terminal
elevator. The inquiry was held in camera, no notice was given to the parties concerned, and very serious charges were levelled against the United Grain Growers for what had happened eight years previous. I repeat that this evidence was received and published in the newspapers throughout the country without our having any chance to appear at the proceedings and question the witness who gave that evidence, in which serious reflections were made on that company. It was the most unfair and unjudicial inquiry under the guise of a commission that has ever taken place in the Dominion. I wish to place these facts before the House and the country in order that they may appreciate what really took place.
The impression exists, and it was fostered in every possible way during the last election campaign, that the United Grain Growers were afraid of an inquiry into their administration; in a word, that there was something dark and mysterious and sinister that they wished to conceal. Within a few weeks of the time that that inquiry took place at Fort William we asked the Board of Grain Commissioners- who have practically all the powers that the Royal Grain Inquiry Commission had- to investigate as thoroughly and completely as they could all the allegations that had been made against the company. That was not done, although we repeated our request several times. We took the opportunity to clear up as far as we were able these allegations, and, speaking for that responsible company that has been doing business and enjoys a good reputation, I hope that if an inquiry is made by the minister it will cover the particular transactions that I have referred to, because there is no foundation in fact for the allegations which were made at this particular sitting. And, let me say again that secretly arranged session was one of the most discreditable episodes that has occurred in any judicial inquiry 4n the history of this country.
I think some useful purpose could be served by an inquiry into the operation of the terminal elevators. I believe that all the legitimate terminal elevators-and I make no reflections on any of the operators of those elevators-would welcome such an inquiry. I believe that the inspection at Fort William last year was lax, particularly in regard to outward business, but that was the fault of the administration
Grain Commission

of the law, and has led to the criticism referred to by some hon. members here as to the quality of our grain not being up to the standard of inspection when it reaches the markets of the world. It is of the very greatest importance to the farmers and others engaged in the wheat business in western Canada that the high reputation our grain has hitherto enjoyed should be maintained by keeping up the high standard of our inspection, and I have every confidence that this will be done by the chief grain inspector in Winnipeg. I have known him for many years as a man well qualified for the post he holds, and I am quite certain that if he is given the necessary authority he will see that the inspection of western Canadian wheat is kept up to the proper standard and will not permit monkeying with it in any elevator. It should be borne in mind, let me repeat, that the inspection and weighing of grain into and out of these elevators is altogether in the hands of government officials, and I believe if the minister accepts and puts into effect the suggestions I have offered him to-night it will result in placing the administration of those houses on a basis where every person desires to see it placed and maintained.
So far as an inquiry into the handling of grain through country elevators is concerned, it could do no harm, but I frankly say that I do not think any very useful results would accrue from it. If, however, there is a widespread demand for such an inquiry it should be granted. But I would point out again that the Grain Act expressly clothes the Board of Grain Commissioners with all the powers necessary to inquire into any complaints of abuses that may exist in the handling of grain anywhere throughout the three prairie provinces, and I think that board could do the work, and do it to the satisfaction of all the producers who are interested in the handling of grain.


Thomas George McBride: I should like to add a word to what my hon. leader has said. I am more than pleased with the clear-cut statement he has .made. I have not so far taken up the time of the House with electioneering matters, but I think this an appropriate occasion to refer to the insinuations which were cast against my leader from one end of my riding to the other during the last campaign. It was put up to me time and time again that it was hard to understand how I could come down here and support a man who was at the

head of a system the purpose of which was to get away with grain, etc. There happened to come out from Manitoba at the time a gentleman who had known my hon. leader and I got him to come with me from place to place and to contradict the statements which had been made. He said he had known tl)e hon. member for Marquette for years; that he was familiar with the system with which he was connected, and that he could give his word of honour that no one was more anxious to do what was right than the hon. member for Marquette. I am glad, I say, to hear his clear cut statement in respect to the investigation which has been asked for.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I feel but ill prepared to talk about the grain business and the so-called iniquities of the grain inquiry, the impropriety of trying to find out whether or not allegations made are correct, especially at this late hour, and more particularly because I never was very intimately connected with these matters. However, I want to say one or two things. In the first place, let me tell my hon. friend (Mr. Crerar) that there were complaints and are complaints with regard to the manner in which the1 business is being carried on. It may be that as the operator of his terminal company these complaints are not heard by my hon. friend as they are by others. But I had complaints made to me to-day by one of his own followers with regard to the way the farmers are treated, True, he makes no specific complaint as against this elevator company or that, but the complaints are as to prices, as to treatments; they affect the farmer and the grower, particularly those at a distance from railways. He says that one day the price of wheat is so much; he is told he can get so much, but when he proceeds to try to get it he finds that the market has disappeared and he can find out nothing about it. If the leader of the third party, then, does not know that there were complaints, let me tell him that there were many complaints in western Canada as to grain handling, grain marketing, grain practices, and grain prices. There are complaints to-day, and he must know of them. I do not pretend for one minute to know anything about what was done by the Hyndman commission. But I want to say this: I have known my hon. friend for some time, and I was convinced when I saw that evidence that my hon. friend had nothing to do with it and knew nothing about it. But I thought he took the very worst step he could have taken in his own interests in

Grain Commission
saying that the lid had to ba put on; that at all hazards, whether the grain law of Canada was upset or not, the injunction should go and that this country and the grain trade should1 be put in the position in which it now is. Sometimes mistakes are made. In this case I think a great mistake was made, but without the slightest thought as to the consequences entailed; without the slightest thought on my hon. friend's part that he had done anything wrong that he would have to cover up. But it is a mistake when you are one hundred per cent right to put yourself in a position where people can say you are one hundred per cent wrong.


An hon. MEMBER:: They did not say that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: He did not say it, no; but when a charge is made, when evidence is disclosed pertaining to it and many people look upon the person charged as entirely innocent, the very last thing that will cause them to hold to that view is an injunction. Well, the inquiry was stopped. If I recollect aright, the court, notwithstanding everything my hon. friend has said to-day, held that the Hyndman Commission had a right to go on; that nothing had been done in Fort William or anywhere else which would prevent the board from functioning as it ought to function. My hon. friend says he is going to wait for complaints. Surely he knows there are complaints; surely he knows there was dissatisfaction. I am very glad to hear the leader of the third party suggest that an inquiry should be held; in fact, I should have thought he would have been absolutely insistent upon it. He says he finds there are suspicions abroad. That is quite right; and I hope they will be allayed. There were suspicions, and they were made all the worse by reason of the newspaper defence that was put in by the Grain Growers' Company. The defence which dealt with the question of sleeves made the situation all the worse. I hope, I say, they will all be got rid of and that my hon. friends will be able to show that they have had nothing whatever to do with it.
Now, the hon. member for Marquette insinuates that the whole object behind this inquiry was a political one. Well, I know some people do make political footballs of grievances. But if in the carrying on of their business the farmers have had real difficulties, and if in that connection some one should try to find out what was wrong, the mere possibility of a political opponent
being in a position, to use the words of one of my hon. friend's own late colleagues, to "farm the farmer"-that, I contend, does not make any inquiry into those grievances entirely political. I venture to suggest that that is an improper position for my hon. friend to take; it is an unfair insinuation. Whatever investigation is made, I am confident that the honour of my personal friend will remain just where I have always felt it was. But for the protection of that honour, the very best thing that can be done is to continue that investigation which the courts of the country have found to be properly constituted.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have only a word to say in reply to what the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) has just stated. I appreciate the reference he has made to myself; I could have wished that his political friends throughout Canada in the last election had entertained always the same opinion. So far as the work of the Hyndman Commission is concerned and its attitude in the particular instance that I mentioned, I want nothing more than the exposure of the whole facts to the fullest light of day so that they may be seen by every person in this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific. My hon. friend says that I was poorly advised when injunction proceedings were taken to restrain the commission; when the lid was put on. Why were the injunction proceedings taken? If my hon. friend were in similar circumstances and he believed and knew from all the facts of the case, as far as the facts of the case could inform him, that he could not get a fair judgment or a fair show from such a commission, what would he do? He would do precisely what was done in that case, and the best evidence of the fact that the United Grain Growers did not wish to put the lid on, but wished to have the full facts investigated, lies in this, that they asked the Board of Grain Commissioners who had all the powers necessary in the matter, to make a most thorough inquiry into the whole proceedings at Fort William. Instead of any desire to put on the lid, there was the fullest possible desire to have the whole thing exposed to the light of day, but exposed to the light of day in a fair manner, and not in a prejudiced manner. My hon. friend, whom I acquit at once-I am not in the slightest degree reflecting upon him-but let me remind him that not only did we ask that this question be investigated in the fullest possible manner by the Board of Grain Com-
Grain Commission

missioners, who had, let me repeat, all the powers necessary to investigate it, but my hon. friend's friends in western Canada made this matter an issue in the recent election in the prairie provinces. I could take him to the country school-houses and show him literature that was sent out by the hundreds of pounds from the publicity offices of his party in Winnipeg, Regina, and Calgary. The one issue submitted to the people by my hon. friend's friends in western Canada was that Progressives should not be supported, that Crerar was a dangerous man, that he had refused to have his case investigated, that he was under a cloud. These were the statements made by my hon. friend's friends in western Canada. As a matter of fact, not only did we not seek to evade any inquiry, but I repeat, my hon. friend's friends made this an issue m western Canada, and, Mr. Chairman, they got their reply on December 6th.
I do not wish to burk any inquiry. As far as I personally am concerned, and so far as the farmers' companies are concerned, they court the fullest possible inquiry. But I would say this: there have been grievances in western Canada. I have never known a year when there were not grievances, and often legitimate grievances, on the part of the farmers in the handling of their grain, but I ask again, why was the Board of Grain Commissioners created by the late government? It was created for the specific and sole purpose of inquiring into these grievances, and it did inquire into them. If a farmer could not get cars to ship his grain, or was getting unfair treatment from a country elevator, he could report to the Board of Grain Commissioners and under the law they were required to investigate his case, and when the facts warranted they did investigate his case. I regret to say that there grew up a condition in western Canada where there was a great lack of faith in the Board of Grain Commissioners, and I believe the cause of that lack of faith has lately been removed from the board.
This business should be put on a fair basis. I repeat, I think an inquiry could usefully be made in respect to the operation of terminal elevators in the manner I indicated a little while ago and I think the minister would be well advised in undertaking it. If there is a substantial reason why such an inquiry should go further into the prairies and investigate conditions there, I have no objection, but that involves expense. I say, again, if your Board of Grain Commissioners is properly

constituted, and I have a good deal of confidence in the board as it stands at present, they could inquire into all these things and settle them. The board was created for that purpose. The late government showed a great lack of faith in its own board when it did not entrust to them an inquiry into all these matters. I do not wish to make my language too strong. I try to be temperate and moderate in my statements in this House, but I will leave it to any reasonable man in this country whether the whole proceedings, the literature, disseminated by my hon. friend's party in western Canada during the election, literature that reached out into the far province of British Columbia, and the stories that I heard down in the maritime provinces, did not stamp the whole thing as largely political. My hon. friends to my right have certainly suffered a very great deal at the hands of some of their friends in the late contest.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would ask the minister who are the members of the Board of Grain Commissioners at present?


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Boyd, Chairman, Mr. Jones, and we have lately appointed Mr. Matthew Snow, who seems to enjoy in a very large degree the confidence not only of the growers but the handlers of grain in western Canada.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not want to prolong this discussion at all. I want to be absolutely fair and frank. I think my hon. friend is sorry he ever got that injunction. I think he is sorry he upset the Grain Act of this country.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Not correct.


Henry Lumley Drayton: After all the doubts and all the troubles we have had in connection with this recent legislation, which all flow from the work that was done in connection with these injunction proceedings, I am quite sure my hon. friend is sorry that he ever took that step. It strikes one as being so totally inconsistent that one should be so anxious to be tried by this same man when he is one-third of a court, and object to him when he is only one-fourth of the court. My hon. friend no doubt wants an investigation, and I agree that he should have it. I hope it will go on, and that it will be thorough, and I hope that the evidence that was given will be absolutely refuted to the fu:l one hundred per cent that it is possible to refute it. If by any chance it be true

Grain Commission
that there was in the elevator there-it does not make a bit of difference whose elevator it was-any false bottoms, false weighing machines, sleeves or any other artificial dodge by which it would be possible for the grain grower to be cheated, I hope that fact will be established.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have just one observation to make, and that is to point out to the committee that the validity of the Grain Act was questioned long before the injunction	proceedings	were	taken	inWinnipeg last summer. I do not want to detract in any way from whatever strength my hon. friend might bring to the support of a very weak case. But that is a fact that every	one	is well	aware	of:	The
validity of the Act was questioned before those injunction proceedings were taken.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If that is so, I apologize; I did not know it.


Oliver Robert Gould: It is not my intention
to enter	into	the debate	that	hasinterested	the	House	seeing	that	the
laurels rest upon my leader. He has made the statement that often times in the West conditions obtain with which the farmer is not satisfied. Now during the marketing season the whole country is filled with complaints. It is true that some have not proven to be well founded, and others again have not perhaps much weight; but I want to state this-and I have a concrete instance before me to prove it-that it seems to me the grain companies in western Canada frequently take liberties that are not warranted. I may state further that perhaps the individual growers of wheat do not always appreciate the fact that a Board of Grain Commissioners exists for the purpose of investigating such evils as may be existing in the grain trade. Now the particular instance which I wish to cite to the House has to do with a neighbour of mine who shipped a carload of grain down to the terminal elevator with instructions to store the grain, and upon instructions later on to sell that grain he received the return. He sent a copy of it down to me and it seems to me that the company concerned has taken a most unwarranted license with that man's grain. For instance in this case when the grain was stored a wire was sent him advising him that the price was $1.26. Before leaving the station he sent a reply "Accept that price". I can quite conceive that in the time occupied in the transmission of that wire from Winnipeg to his station and the transmission of the reply,
there might be a drop in price; in fact the price did drop li cents. But this grain was in store for 93 days and I believe when it was put into the storage elevator it was cleaned. But the return shows that twenty-six bushels were cleaned out of that carload of grain and for those screenings this man was charged $2.29 storage. Now I do not believe that twenty-six bushels was stored because wheat is cleaned before storing, and yet we find that $2.29 is charged for storage alone for some twenty-six odd bushels cleaned out of that grain. Under the law screenings are sold as feed and computed by the ton and having paid $2.29 for storage my neighbour received just 33 cents for his twenty-six bushels. He absolutely lost the whole value of the screenings as feed, was charged $2.29 for the storage of cleanings which I believe never were stored, and he received only 33 cents. Now someone received that profit of $2.29; I believe that if the matter were pressed it can be proved that this is an unwarranted license and an injustice to (the man who owned the wheat. There are many very similar cases which I might quote, but I thought the recitation of the one instance would be sufficient. It does seem to me that an occurrence of this kind needs to be rectified and possibly it would be a wholesome lesson for companies that in the past-and I can confirm this by my own personal experience for years-take liberties with the grain which they have received for care and keeping. I simply wished to placed this matter on record as one instance of the things that are complained of.


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend from Assi-niboia will send the details of that particular instance to my office I will have it investigated.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is what the Board of Grain Commissioners exists for.


James Alexander Robb: I may say, on behalf of the Government, that we have but one desire and that is to restore confidence in the administration of the grain trade of Canada -we admit there is want of confidence-and also to ensure that the wheat of Canada will maintain its splendid reputation. It is unfortunately too true that in recent times the reputation of our grain has suffered somewhat. I want to tell my hon. friends from the West that no later than to-day, I met the correspondent of a western newspaper, and the western grain grower has no better friend1 than the correspondent in question, who has recently returned from
Grain Commission

the British Isles. He informed me that there is a suspicion over there that our grain is not exactly what it should be, more particularly the grain going out from ports other than Canadian. The trade of the country can help us along these lines. If we wish to ensure that our grain shall go out maintaining its splendid reputation is it not reasonable that we should use our own ports, thus giving the earnings to our own transportation companies? In that way we shall help to maintain1 the reputation of our own products. I am not desirous of delaying the passage of my own estimates, but I just wished to give this assurance to my hon. friend that if we have an investigation-and both opposition parties seem to be desirous that there should he an inquiry-we will grant the fullest and plainest investigation in order that absolute confidence in the administration of the grain trade may exist on the part of all those engaged in this industry.


Thomas Sales: I am very pleased to hear the assurance of the minister with regard to this matter. He said that if there was any demand an inquiry would be granted. I can only assure him of this: That the largest farmers' association in the West, consisting of the Saskatchewan grain growers, that assembled1 in convention last February'-representing between twenty-five and thirty thousand members-passed a resolution asking for an inquiry. I have also received a great many letters since I have been in Ottawa here from local associations urging me to ask for an inquiry, but they all agree that they do not want an inquiry by a commission composed of the same personnel as was the commission appointed by the late government.


James Alexander Robb: There is no use wasting time about that.


Thomas Sales: The minister says there is no use wasting time about it. 1 am very glad indeed to hear his statement. The minister made the remark that there had been many investigations into the grain trade. So there has; but I would point out that there is nothing in the world, within my knowledge, which is quite so easy to manipulate and mix as wheat. There is nothing that lends itself so readily to manipulation; and my experience has been that there is a new trick played every year, Just as fast as we get on to the old trick they adopt a new one the following year.


James Alexander Robb: I shall have to go West and learn some of the tricks.


Thomas Sales: Yes, sir, go as far as Fort William and Port Arthur, and you will learn lots of them. It is pretty hard to quarrel with my hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton) when he adopts that benevolent go-to-Sunday-meeting-tonal, but I have got to disagree with him just a little bit. I have here a sample of the literature which was strewn all over our country at election time. Every day three or four epistles of the kind would arrive at my house. They were addressed to my sons, not to me. I must have been on the black list, but of course, the boys used
1 a.m. to hand them to me, and wherever I went through the campaign I encountered bushels of them.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would like to see one.


Thomas Sales: There were bushels of them and every one contained some reference to "Voting for Meighen."


George Newcombe Gordon: I should like to draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the discussion into which he has entered is not relevant to this particular item. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) had a reason, and a very good one, why he should have an opportunity of making a declaration and an explanation in regard to certain matters that had arisen, and that privilege was granted to him, I think, quite properly by the Chair. But I feel that a discussion of that particular matter is not relevant to the item which is before the committee at the present time.


Thomas Sales: Of course, sir, I will obey your ruling; but I want to point out that, with regard to this investigation, because after all, it is the grain inquiry-


George Newcombe Gordon: What I meant was
that anything that deals with any enquiries made by the Grain Enquiry Commission is relevant to this item and may be discussed; but there was a reason, as I stated, for the hon. member for Marquette being given an opportunity to make a statement regarding something which had happened which more or less reflected upon him and some of his business associates.


Thomas Sales: I am going to point out something which, I think, should be investigated. There was also a charge during the last campaign, but that is only in-

Grain Commission
cidental, and that is the selling of farmers' grain without permission. It was stated that there would not be any more of this if we elected our friends to the right. There never should have been any of it, if the commission had done its duty. The Grain Commission in the past has absolutely failed to do its duty in this respect. Let me point out how this works out. When a farmer sends his grain down to the head of the lakes and it is ordered to be held, he is paying storage on that grain until he sells it. When he has forwarded it, he has probably borrowed $1,000 on a car expecting that that grain will be held in the terminal elevator until he orders it to be sold. Immense quantities of grain have been sold without the farmer's permission, and he has been charged storage that he has not occupied. He has been charged interest on his money when his grain has been sold contrary to his orders and the firms have been using his money. His very object of withholding his grain from the market has been defeated because his grain has been sold contrary to his orders. That is a thing which would be a proper scope for an investigation. It has been proved over and over again. The attitude of our commission men who allow mills, contrary to the farmer's orders to draw grain which is passing those mills, is another matter which should be investigated. When wheat passes through Moosejaw, Kenora, through any of those places where those mills are grinding wheat, large quantities of it are stopped there without the farmer's permission or knowledge, and even cars which have been ordered to be sold are stopped and unloaded there without his permission. It is all this kind of thing which adds to the farmer's-I was going to say-contempt, for a commission which does not work as it ought to do. If the enquiry which is to be carried on, will have in view only one object, namely, the bettering of conditions in the grain trade, it will be welcomed by honest dealers. I am not here to assert that every man engaged in the grain business is a crook by any means. There are as many honest men in that trade as are to be found anywhere else; but there are a few others.
As regards my own company, my leader (Mr. Crerar) said that this investigation will be welcomed by the Farmers' companies. When the last commission was appointed we had no faith in either Mr. Staples, or Mr. Haslam who, in our western country, is considered a joke as regards the grain trade. Mr. Haslam is a man with a great deal of knowledge, but he does not seem to be able to apply it. When, however, we knew that that commission was appointed, our board passed a resolution instructing our officials to give the commission access to our books, documents, to give them all the information they had and all the assistance they possibly could. That was the attitude of the Saskatchewan Co-operative Elevator company. We felt that we had nothing to fear from any investigation into the grain trade, and now that the minister has assured us that the personnel will be different, we shall welcome an investigation, and I am quite in favour of this amount or any other amount which is necessary in order that a thorough enquiry may be had.
Trade commissioners and commeroial agents -salaries and contingencies thereof and miscellaneous expenditures in the development and extension of Canadian trade, $280,000.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: We should have some explanation from the minister as to the scope of this work, as to whether or not it is proposed to extend it in any particular, and the possibilities of the future as regards this particular work. It is a matter of the utmost importance and we should know something about it.


James Alexander Robb: I think the request of my
hon. friend is quite reasonable; but I am quite sure neither of us desires to remain here too long. He will notice, as I am sure he has noticed from the commercial bulletin issued weekly, that the trade agents that we have in different parts of the world are advertising Canada and advising the department here, and that the department is spreading information throughout the country as to the requirements of different countries. In addition to the offices which we already have, it has been represented to us that there are possibilities of trade in Mexico, and the department looks favourably on that. We have a man in training now who understands that language, and it is proposed to send him to Mexico to look into the situation before we recommend a steamship subsidy which seems to be necessary to get much business. There are greater possibilities for the Mexican trade on the Pacific than on the Atlantic coast, because, as my hon. friends will understand, we do not, on the Pacific coast, come into such close competition with the southern States. The southern States have some advantage over Canada on the Atlantic coast; they are nearer to that country. Then it has been represented to
Trade and Commerce

us. that there might he possibilities of extending trade down into other parts of the southern Pacific Dominions, and we have been looking into that as well as into trade with Scandinavian countries.
My hon. friends will observe that there are some increases in the estimated amount required. That is to provide for the additional services which may develop and also to provide for a little more money for our trade missionaries who are out in foreign countries, so that they can better represent Canada. It has been represented to us by Canadians returning from these different countries that Canada heretofore has been a little niggardly with its trade agents outside in the way of providing accommodation. Sometimes they are doing business on a back street when they should be in a more business part of the city. The additional estimates are to give the department an opportunity of helping them to spread out somewhat more and represent Canada as we wish to be represented, as a first class country. I hope hon. gentlemen will allow this to go through. We have had almost a month's debate on trade conditions, and while I do not desire to refuse anything, I see no good purpose to be served by attempting at this early hour in the morning to make a speech on trade conditions throughout the country.


Thomas Langton Church: I hope the Government will take this matter up and deal with it in a big way. The holding of a proper Canadian national exhibition in France would do a great deal to stimulate our trade with that country, and trade should always follow the flag and we should trade with France and our devoted Allies in the Great War and not with Germany. In view of our relations with France in the late war we should seek to develop as extensive a trade as possible with her. A French train was exhibited through Canada last summer, visiting the Canadian National Exhibition and many of the fall fairs. The government of France have for some time been considering erecting a trade building in connection with the Canadian National Exhibition. The French train that went through Canada excited much interest on the part of business men and was a demonstration of what could be done by the Government of Canada towards securing a proper exhibition in France. I hope that the Government will do everything possible to promote further trade with that country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

To provide for Canada's contribution towards the maintenance of the permanent Secretariat at the League of Nations, $150,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The matter of Canada's proper contribution towards the maintenance of the Secretariat of the League of Nations was the subject of correspondence between my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) and the former High .Commissioner in London, and the sum suggested here is in accordance with their recommendation. The item is non-eon-tentious.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is entirely non-contentious, but we should try to reduce it if possible. My hon. friend cannot properly do so now; but our contribution was fixed on the basis of the Postal Conference, which was unfair having regard to our population, etc. It was understood that the matter would be taken into consideration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is at present the subject of correspondence.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian Representation in the United States, $60,000.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Thomas Langton Church: I do not see why we
should have any special Canadian representation in the United States. As far as I can see we have sufficient representation there now. Our representation through the British Ambassador at Washington is one of the few remaining things that bind Canada to the Mother Country. I am opposed to this vote, and I believe the people of the country will take the same view as I do. I do not think there is any special demand for a Canadian representative at Washington. I do not see what he could have to do that could not be done by the British Ambassador.


George Newcombe Gordon: I would call the
hon. member's attention to the fact that the item has been carried.


Thomas Langton Church: It is a large item and
I do not think it is necessary. I object to it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 1.17 a.m. Thursday.

Lake of the Woods
Thursday, June 15, 1922