1935-07-04

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

Mr. TETREAULT:: How many post offices were	(a)	closed;	(b) opened, and	(c) locations changed, in each	
province, and in each county from		December, 1921, to August, 1930?


Mr. SAUVE:: Answers to (a), (b) and (c)	in	so far	as provinces are	concerned:	(a)	(b)	(c)Offices closed	Offices opened	Change in sitePrince Edward Island	.. 8	1	2Nova Scotia	.. 156	87	56New Brunswick	.. 180	114	28Quebec	.. 193	411	55Ontario	.. 317	344	9Manitoba	.. 94	108	7Saskatchewan	.. 211	232	17Alberta	.. 226	245	10British Columbia	.. 131	195	3Northwest Territories	.. 1	13	-Yukon	.. 4	4	-Total	.. 1,521	1,754	187Prince Edward Island	Kings	.. -	-	-Prince	. . 4	1	2Queens	.. 4	-	~Nova Scotia	Antigonish-Guysborough	.. 11	14	12Cape Breton North-Victoria.. .	.. 8	6	18Cape Breton South	.. 2	3	-Colchester	.. 25	1	1Cumberland	.. 21	2	1Digby-Annapolis	.. 9	4	2Halifax	.. 10	5	3Hants-Kings	.. 17	8	1Inverness	.. 16	12	10Pictou	.. 7	1	-Queens-Lunenburg	.. 3	9	6Richmond-West Cape Breton..	.. 6	5	2Shelburne and Queens	.. 10	3	-Shelbume-Yarmouth	.. 2	3	-South Cape Breton and Richmond	.. 7	6	-Yarmouth and Clare	.. 2	5	-New	Brunswick	Charlotte	.. 4	2	1Gloucester	.. 1	22	9Kent	.. 4	18	-N orthumberland	.. 9	16	2
Questions

New Brunswick-Concluded
(a)	(b)	(c)Offices closed	Offices opened	Change in siteRestigouehe-Madawaska	18	1Royal	9	7St. John-Albert	7	Vietoria-Carleton	6	1Westmorland	13	6York-Sunibury	Quebec	3	1Argenteuil	2	1Bagot	1Beauce	4	1Beauharnois	1	Bellechase	7	1Berthier-Maskinonge	2	Bonaventure	19	10Brome-Missisquoi	1	Cartier	Chambly-Vercheres	2	Champlain	5	1Charlevoix-Montmorency	4	Charle voix-Saguenay	16	1Chateauguay-Huntingdon	2	Chicoutimi	15	2Compton	1	Dorchester	6	4Drummond-Arthabaska	3	1Gaspe	
.. ..	31	6George Etienne Cartier	1	Hochelaga	10	Hull	5	Jacques Cartier	14	Joliette	
..	1	Kamouraska	4	2Labelle	11	Lake St. John	4	Laprairie-Napierville	3	L'Assomption-Montcalm	6	2Laurier-Outremont	3	Laval-Two Mountains 	2	1Levis	1L'Islet	12	Lotbiniere	5	1Maisonneuve,	10	1Matane	22	2Megan tic	5	1Montmagny	5	1Mount Royal	6	Nicolet	Pontiac	34	1Portneuf	12	2Quebec	4	Quebe c-Mon tm o rency	1	___Quebec East	4	Quebec South	_	1	Quebec West	
IMr. Sauv6.]	5	2
Questions
Richelieu	
Richmond-Wolfe	
Rimouski	
Ste. Ann	
St. Antoine	
St. Denis	
St. Henri	
St. Hyacinthe-Rouville..
St. James	
St. Johns-Iberville	
St. Lawrence-St. George..
St. Marys	
Shefford	
Sherbrooke	
Stanstead	
Temiscouata	
Terrebonne	
Three Rivers-St. Maurice Vaudreuil-SouLanges.. ..
Wright	
Yamaska	
Algoma East	
Algoma West	
Brant	
Brantford City	
Bruce North	
Bruce South	
Carleton	
Duff erin-Simcoe....
Dundas	
Durham	
Elgin West	
Essex East	
Essex North	
Essex South	
Essex West	
Fort William	
Frontenac-Addington..
Glengarry	
Grenville-Dundas.. ..
Grey North	
Grey Southeast	
Baldimand	
Halton	
Hamilton East	
Hamilton West	
Hastings East	
Hastings-Peterborough
Hastings South	
Hastings West	
Huron North	
Huron South	
Kenora-Rainy River..
Kent	
Quebec-Concluded
(a)	(b)	(c)Offices closed	Offices opened	Change in site. . . -	-	_. .. 5	5	-. . . ~	5	14	-1	-. . . -	14	-. .. 1	-	-. .. 1	1	1. . . ~	5	--	9	_. .. 1	4	-. . . -	2	-. . 1	-	2. .. 2	5	-. .. 1	2	-. .. 1	17	4. .. 4	8	-. . . -	6	1. .. 2	1	-. .. 9	18	--	Ontario	. .. 21	21	1. .. 14	11	-. . . -	-	-. .. 3	-	_. .. 1	-	_. .. 3	-	-. .. 4	6	-. . . ~	1	_. .. 1	-	-. .. 1	-	-. .. 1	-	-. .. 1	2	-. .. 1	4	-. . . -	-	--	5	-. .. 9	16	-. .. 8	3	-. .. 2	-	-. .. 1	1	-. .. 5	-	-. .. 3	-	. .. 1	-	_. .. 1	-	-. .. 1	1	-1	-. .. 1	1	-. .. 10	3	-. .. 2	-	-. .. 2	3	--	-. .. 2	-	-. .. 5	10	-. .. 1	1	-
Questions

Kingston City	
Lamb ton East	
Lambton West	
Lanark	
Leeds	
Lincoln	
London	
Middlesex East	
Middlesex West	
Muskoka-Ontario	
Nipissing	
Norfolk-Elgin	
Northumberland	
Ontario	
Ottawa	
Oxford North	
Oxford South	
Parkdale	
Parry Sound	
Peel	
Perth North	
Perth South	
Peterborough East	
Peterborough West	
Port Arthur and Kenora. Port Arthur-Thunder Bay
Prescott	
Prince Edward-Lennox.. .
Renfrew North	
Renfrew South	
Russell	
Simcoe East	
Simcoe North	
Simcoe South	
Stormont	
Timiskaming	
Timiskaming North	
Timiskaming South	
Toronto Centre	
Toronto East	
Toronto East Centre.. ..
Toronto-High Park	
Toronto North	
Toronto Northeast	
Toronto Northwest	
Toronto-Scarborough.. ..
Toronto South	
Toronto West	
Toronto West Centre.. ..
Victoria	
Waterloo North	
Waterloo South	
Welland	
Wellington North	
Wellington South	
Wentworth	

Ontario-Continued
(a)	(b)	(c)Offices closed	Offices opened	Change:1 9 5	1	-1	1 1	2 1	-15	1 1 10	, 213	20	16	1	3	-	2	1	-1	10	11	7	-27	17	2	4	-2	1 1	-3 6	8	-3	13	-7	10	-4 q	1	-o 4	1	7	2	18	3	-4	1	-7	1 1	-3	17	-5	25	-8	9	1-	3	-4	6	21	1	-2	3	--	6 e	-1	a i	-4	2	2	5	-2	2	-6	2	-3	3	-2	-	-1	2	-5	4	-
Questions
York East.. York North York South York West.
Brandon	
Dauphin	
Lisgar	
MacDonald	
Marquette	
Neepawa	
Nelson	
Portage la Prairie....
Provencher	
St. Boniface	
Selkirk	
Souris	
Springfield	
Winnipeg Centre	
Winnipeg North	
Winnipeg North Centre
Winnipeg South	
Winnipeg South Centre.
Assiniboia	
Battleford	
Humboldt	
Kindersley	
Last Mountain..
Long Lake	
Mackenzie	
Maple Creek.. .
Melfort	
Melville	
Moose Jaw .. .. North Battleford Prince Albert.. . Qu'Appelle.. ..
Regina	
Rosetown	
Saltcoats	
Saskatoon	
South Battleford. Swift Current.. .
Weyfourn	
W illow Bunch.. Yorkton	
Ontario-Concluded
(a)	(b)	(c)
Offices closed Offices opened Change in site
4	14	-7	2	-1	10	-6	13	-
Manitoba
3	1	-5 ey	17	2Z 3	2	110	17	-12	7	-5	17	-14	3	11	5	14	3	-16	8	27	2	-4	19	-2	1	-1 o	3	-Z i	3	2	-	-
Saskatchewan
5	5	-5	8	-15	12	-18	13	-8	5 1	110	1 11	431	22	25	17	14	4	. -5	2	122	45	l15	24	-8	3	2	7	3	6	3	1	4	8	-7	3	113	10	-7	8	-18	13	43	4	2
Alberta
23	12	-11	17	330	16	2
Acadia.. .. Athabaska.. Battle River
Questions

Alberta-Concluded
(a)	(b)	(c)Offices closed	Offices opened	ChangeBow River	13	Calgary East	12	Calgary West	5	Camrose	2	Edmonton East	21	Edmonton West	33	Lethbridge	4	Macleod	4	Medicine Hat	14	1Peace River	56	4Red Deer	11	Strathcona	7	Vegreville	5	Victoria	3	Wetaskiwin	British Columbia	10	Cariboo	60	1Comox-Alberni	22	1Fraser Valley	5	Kootenay East	8	Kootenay West	9	1Nanaimo	15	New Westminster	10	Skeena	28	Vancouver-Burrard	.	4	Vancouver Centre	5	Vancouver North	10	Vancouver South	9	Victoria	4	Yale	Yukon	5	4 Northwest Territories	4	-1	13	_


CANADIAN FARM LOAN BOARD-DECISIONS
Mr. DUBOIS:: 1.	Is the government aware that the Canadian Farm Loan Board has not yet reached a decision with respect to certain loan applications it received some two months ago?
2.	If so, will the government take the necessary steps to require the board to expedite its findings ?


Mr. RHODES:: 1 and 2. The governmenit is advised that loan applications received by the board in the province of Quebec are being disposed of as
[Mr. Sauce.J
soon as is reasonably possible following the receipt of appraisal reports and of such additional information as may be required in determining the merits of the individual applications. Following the appointment of a chief executive officer for the province of Quebec on May 16th last, the work of securing and instructing competent men to handle the largely increased volume of appraisal work in the province has necessarily taken some time to complete. Appraisal operations in the province are, however, now fully under way.

Address to The Governor General


QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSION-AUTOMOBILES
Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	During the last five years of the Quebec harbour commission, under the administration of commissioners Power, Gauvin, Boutin-Bourassa (a) how many automobiles were purchased; (b) of what make were they; (c) what was the price of each such automob le?
2.	Under the administration of commissioners
O'Meara. Bertrand and Leblond (a) how many automobiles were purchased; (b) of what make were they; (e) what was the price of each such automobile ?	.
3.	What was the total amount of travelling expenses allowed to commissioners Power, Gauvin. Boutin-Bourassa during the last five years of their administration?
4.	What was the cost of the upkeep of a garage for repairs to the automobiles of Messrs. Power, Gauvin, Boutin-Bourassa, during the last five years of their administration?
5.	What was the total amount paid under the Power. Gauvin, Boutin-Bourassa administration for the purchase of automobiles, travelling expenses, chauffeurs and other personal expenses of such commissioners?
6.	What was the total amount paid under the O'Meara, Bertrand' and Leblond administration for travelling expenses, purchase of automobiles, chauffeurs and other personal expenses of such commissioners?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: The following information has been furnished by the Quebec Harbour Commissioners ;
1.	(a) Ten.
(b) and (c)-
1926	....Ford	$ 545 00Cadillac Big 6	
5,750	00Studebaker Big	6..	..	3,465	751927	....Studebaker Big	6..	..	3,380	00Chrysler	
2,675	001928	....Graham-Paige	
3,025	00Ford	
625	001929	....Packard	4,215	00Cadillac Sedan.... 6,760	001930	....Lasalle	
5,075	00

2.	(a) Two.
(b) and (c)-
1931	Plymouth	
Studebaker Truck..
3.	S9.785.30.
4.	$15,353.51.
5.	$132,752.42.
6.	$79,507.79.

alcohol tax Mr. POULIOT:
What revenue has accrued from the tax on alcohol for each fiscal year since 1930?


Mr. MATTHEWS:: 
GUARANTEE OF RAILWAY BONDS
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	What amount of cash was paid to Canadian Northern, Grand Trunk and Grand Trunk Pacific Railways, and what amount of their bonds was guaranteed by the dominion government from 1900 to July, 1911?
2.	What amount of cash was paid to these railways and amount of bonds guaranteed by same from July, 1911, to the taking over of each road?
3.	What was the estimated value of each road and amount in cash or kind paid by the government for same?
4.	What is the amount of bonds of the Canadian National system at present held by public, and what are the yearly interests on same?


THE GOVERNOR GENERAL
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, I was about to proceed
with a motion when the first question was called, and I thought it well to conclude that order of business before proceeding with the motion which last night I indicated I proposed to make.
I move, seconded by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) that an humble address be submitted to His Excellency the Governor General in the following words:
To His Excellency the Right Honourable the Earl of Bessborough, a member of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council. Knight Grand Cross of The Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George. Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of the Dominion of Canada.

Address to The Governor General
May it please Your Excellency:
We, His Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects,	 the Commons of Canada
in parliament assembled, assure Your Excellency of our deep and sincere regret at the approaching termination of your official connection with our country as the representative of His Gracious Majesty. At the same time we hasten to add the hope that this official termination will not mean the severance of those ties which have so happily been established between Your Excellency and our country and its people.
During your term of office Your Excellency has never spared' yourself in your efforts to secure accurate and intimate knowledge of all parts of our dominion. You have, accordingly, gained an understanding of our problems and our possibilities, as profound as it has been sympathetic. Your assiduous devotion to the affairs of state, and your deep and human interest in the widespread activities of our people have won for you the warm regard of all Canadians. Your encouragement of dramatic art, an important but often neglected aspect of our national development, will be felt for long years to come.
Your Excellency has been with us during a period of world-wide economic depression and social strain. You have seen the effects of that depression on our national economy. You have, however, also seen its failure to destroy our national morale. Amidst the tribulations of economic distress, as in the stern test of war, Canada has stood firm, and, with renewed courage and determination, is ready again to continue her forward march.
Our expressions of regret at Your Excellency's departure would, indeed, be incomplete if we did not associate in that regret Her Excellency, The Countess of Bessborough, whose graciousness and charm have won for her an affection throughout Canada which is both deep and widespread.
We beg that on your return to your homeland Your Excellency will convey to His Majesty the assurance of Canada's steadfast loyalty to the crown and devotion to his throne and person, so strikingly demonstrated in the recent and unforgettable celebrations attendant upon His MajestyV silver jubilee.
I think it possibly desirable that I should make a few observations before the house adopts this motion. I say that because of the apparent misunderstanding that has arisen in some quarters as to the methods adopted' in the appointment of a governor general and1 the duties and responsibilities connected with that office. It will be recalled by all who are familiar with our institutions that at confederation the British North America Act provided that the executive authority in this dominion should continue to be vested in the queen, now the king, but inasmuch as the king cannot be present in Canada for the discharge of the duties of chief executive of the state, it becomes essential that he should designate and appoint some person to represent him. That person is, by our constitution, designated the governor general, and under the letters patent

issued by successive sovereigns the office is constituted in the terms of "governor general and commander in chief of the Dominion of Canada." Obviously, the appointment of such an official is one of very great importance, for it involves two questions; first, the conclusion by the sovereign that the person designated is one possessing his confidence because it involves an appointment with consequences similar in many respects to those which follow from the granting of a power of attorney to a person whom one may select. Once the sovereign was satisfied that- a particular person commanded his confidence and was in every way worthy in his opinion to be designated as his attorney or as governor general in fact of this dominion, the next question of course was to determine by whom the recommendation should be made for the appointment.
Up until the last appointment the recommendation in point of fact came from the British government, and the recommendation to the sovereign was the recommendation of the Prime Minister of Great Britain. After the conference of 1926 and the statute of Westminster it of course is clear that the recommendation for the appointment of a governor general is no longer made by the Prime Minister of Great Britain but by the Prime Minister of the dominion affected.
A few days ago I was reading a dispatch that came from London, indicating that there was a profound misunderstanding as to the method followed in connection with the appointment of a governor general for this dominion. Henoe I make these observations.
The appointment thus being made the instructions given to the governor general by His Majesty constitute his letters of authority, just as a power of attorney which may be given by one person to another is the document that controls the extent to which the powers and responsibilities and functions are to be exercised.
The additional reason I direct attention to this is because a condition arose when the present governor general took over his duties in Canada quite unparalleled in our history so far as I have been able to ascertain. It will be recalled that in 1926 His Majesty issued his letters patent to Lord Willingdon, now viceroy of India. In the ordinary course of events he would occupy his position until the fall of 1931 or at least until some time in the year 1931. In 1930 when it was apparent that a new governor general would have to be selected I discussed the matter with thie British authorities and it was then believed that there would be no possible likelihood of the office being vacated in Canada

Address to The Governor General
before the expiration of the usual term of the governor general, but later owing to difficulties that need not here be mentioned the British government by cable asked us whether or not there would be any objection to their suggesting the name of the governor general of Canada, Lord Willingdon, to His Majesty as prospective viceroy of India. Lord Willingdon was advised in the sarnie sense, and the government of Canada had to decide whether or not, having regard to the public interest as a whole, it should give its consent to such action being taken as would prevent the usual term of office being completed by the then incumbent. We chose of course, the course that involved the appointment of the Earl of Willingdon as viceroy of India. We believed that with his experience in India as a governor of I think two of the provinces it was desirable that he should serve the greater cause and become viceroy of India. He was thereupon appointed.
It was not possible on a few moments' notice .to appoint a successor, and it is in that regard that I now diesire to make a few observations. When Lord Willingdon left these shores and went to England he still continued to be governor general of Canada, and it was essential that he should so continue until his successor arrived in Canada and took office, whereupon his commission terminated. Lord Willingdon left Canada on January 15, 1931, and immediately the responsibility fell upon this government under the new practice to take immediate steps for the appointment of a successor. Obviously had we not been of the opinion from the information received that that contingency would not arise action would have been taken to deal with the matter in the fall of 1930 when members of this administration were in London. But the matter had to be dealt with, and it was dealt with, as speedily as possible, for Lord Bess-borough arrived in Canada on April 4, 1931. For the first time the .procedure became different from what it had theretofore been. For the first time the recommendation of a governor general had to come from the Prime Minister of Canada, and not from the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and obviously the powers that had always been exercised by the sovereign had to be exercised much more rapidly than had theretofore been the case, because there was no opportunity to discuss matters personally in London with those who were interested.
Names were submitted to His Majesty. So far as I know all of them were satisfactory to the king. But the question of securing the willingness of any person thus named to come to Canada was an entirely different matter.
Lord Bessborough, out of a sense of public duty, and in order to deal with a problem of great difficulty so far as we were concerned, accepted the office, and the recommendation having been made he was duly appointed. For the first time the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs countersigned the commission under which the governor general was appointed, it being handed to him on his arrival in Canada for, as he is sworn in the commission is read, and later published in the Gazette. I mention this because there was an interval of about six weeks only in which it was possible to secure a governor general for this country. The usual practice has been to designate the governor general about six months in advance so that he may be able to conclude his business and make arrangements for an absence from home of what may be five years. To any of us that would be a matter of importance, and much more so to those who may be concerned with business and with affairs of many kinds, and who have to look forward to leaving their own homes for so long a period. However, yielding to the request that was made, Lord Bessborough was appointed and accepted office, arriving here on April 4, 1931. The date has a profound bearing upon subsequent events because in the ordinary course it is not usual for a governor general to arrive at that time of year. It is an inconvenient time for reasons that will at once commend themselves to members of this house. When His Excellency's term of office had reached four years he had to deal with the problem in one of two ways. If our request that he should remain until the spring of 1936 were given effect to, Lord Bessborough would terminate his office here in the spring of next year and remain until the fall by arrangements that could be made and thus permit his successor to follow the usual course of commencing his term of office in the fall. But there were other conditions which made it desirable that the other alternative should be adopted. I think I should say frankly that medical advice indicated that it would be rather difficult for the Countess of Bessborough to remain in this country another winter. His Excellency with the full approval of the government requested the king to permit him to retire this fall. His Majesty, in view of all the circumstances and having regard to the delicate matter to which I have referred, agreed that this action should be taken; hence it is that Lord Bessborough is terminating his office now rather than at a later period.
I mention this for another reason. There was a vague rumour, I am not quite sure whether it was published, that His Excellency

Address to The Governor General
was leaving Canada earlier than, usual because of differences with his Prime Minister and the government. Nothing that I can conceive of could be more wholly inaccurate than that. For many years I have had occasion to have official relations with men in high office and I say frankly that I have never been on terms of greater friendliness and friendship with any official than I have been with the governor general of this dominion. I make that statement because in fairness to him it is not right that a rumour of that kind should find credence or circulation without being denied, His Excellency not being in a position to make a statement himself.
It was essential that a period of months should elapse in which his successor designate should find an opportunity to make arrangements to come to Canada. I shall not deal with that more than to say that the Governor General Designate of Canada, Lord Tweedsmuir, will in ordinary course be here this fall to begin his duties under the new procedure which I have taken some time to describe to the house.
_ The position of governor general of Canada is not an easy one. There is an opinion on the part of some that it consists of the discharge of very few duties and the enjoyment of much leisure. Such is not quite the case. In the first place, the governor general is the personal representative of His Majesty the King, which is indicated to the public by the king's flag that is flown wherever he may be at any time in this dominion. The governor general has great and onerous responsibilities in connection with the administration of government. Proposed measures are submitted to him for his consideration. If he has had much experience, his advice and counsel are of the utmost value to those who are responsible for the conduct of government. In this case, Lord Bessborough had been for years a member of the British House of Commons. On the death of his father he succeeded to a seat in the House of Lords, where, while in England, he had been rather generally in attendance. That gave him a very wide knowledge of the working of our institutions, a very wide knowledge of parliamentary practice and procedure and enabled the prime minister of the day, whoever he might be, to discuss with one who knew by practice and not by theory the difficulties that governments have to encounter in dealing with problems of legislation and allied problems that concern governments in any British country. In this instance the experience of Lord Bessborough has been of the utmost value. I desire to pay my tribute to his interest in everything that concerned the wel- ;
fare of this country from the standpoint of legislation and to his willingness at all times to assist those responsible for government with his counsel and advice and with the benefits of his wide and extensive experience.
I can say that also with respect to another matter. His Excellency had had wide experience in business. Before he came to these shores he was interested in many undertakings and his wide business experience in close association with financial leaders in the city of London have been of the greatest possible value to the Dominion of Canada. By maintaining personal contact, by correspondence with his former associates in London, he is sometimes able to correct misapprehensions and misunderstandings which have existed. When matters of business are discussed with him, as they have been, out of the large experience that he has had in the city of London he has rendered great service to our country. I desire to give my personal testimony upon that point.
As to the interest which Their Excellencies have had in the welfare of Canada, it is not my purpose to do more than refer to the terms of the address itself. They have visited every province in the dominion and have seen conditions as they really exist. They have talked with people on the farms, with the fisherman by his boat; they have talked with those in mill and factory, as well as those working in offices and the financial institutions of the country. They have derived in a large measure first hand information of all that concerns our well-being. In moments of depression it has been the privilege of the governor general to make suggestions that have encouraged the people and enabled them to take up their burdens and task with renewed determination in meeting conditions which confronted them. All these observations as to the manner in which the duties of a great office have been discharged I know are unnecessary for me to make, but I desire in my place here to pay a tribute to the disinterested character of the services rendered by His Excellency to this dominion in times of great difficulty.
I need hardly say that there was a peculiar affection for the Countess of Bessborough on the part of the Canadian people when she first came to these shores. The subsequent birth of a son gave cause for an increased sentimental attachment on the part of our people and the fact that the boy bears the name St. Lawrence is a constant reminder of his having been born in the province of Quebec and of the great part which the river

Address to The Governor General
bearing that name plays in the economic life of Canada. I have trespassed longer upon the time of the house than I had intended but there were some misapprehensions and misunderstandings which I felt should be cleared up. I shall content myself with saying that for disinterested service, for a high conception of the duties of a great office and in the performance of these duties and responsibilities with dignity and zeal, Lord Bessborough will rank among any of his predecessors, and the gracious charm of his consort, the Countess of Bessborough, will never be forgotten by Canadians who have been privileged to make her acquaintance. I move the adoption of the address I have just read.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have much pleasure in seconding the motion just made by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and in associating myself and hon. members on this side of the house with the sentiments expressed in the address which it is proposed to present to His Excellency the Governor General on the approaching termination of his official connection with our country.
As the Prime Minister has indicated, the position of governor general holds for the occupant of that high office, relationships of the greatest significance and importance. The first of these relationships referred to by the Prime Minister is that of the governor general to the crown. There is also the relationship of the governor general to the government and to parliament and, as the Prime Minister has also indicated, there is the relationship of the governor general to the people of the country. I doubt if an incumbent of that high office could wish for more than that it should be said of him at the conclusion of his term of office that, as respects these relationships, he had been faithful to the best traditions which cluster around all three. This, I believe, can truly be said of the Earl of Bessborough. It can be said that, in his relationship to the crown, to the govern-[DOT] ment and parliament, and to the people, His Excellency has fulfilled the expectations of his sovereign, and, as we have just heard, of the government which was responsible for his appointment.
The Prime Minister has referred at some length to the relationship of the governor general to the crown. It is true, as the right hon. gentleman has said, that in common with all our interimperial relations the position of governor general has undergone farreaching and fundamental change with the course of time.
It is not so long ago that the appointment of the governor general was made, as the Prime Minister has indicated, at the instance of the government not of Canada but of Great Britain. The extent to which there has been consultation between the two governments has varied considerably from time to time, but I am sure I am right when I say that the voice of the Canadian government has been increasingly heard and lecognized as the years have gone by. It is a distinguishing mark of His Excellency's appointment that in letter as well*as in spirit the appointment was made on the advice of the Canadian Prime Minister without any intervention on the part of the government of Great Britain. As we are touching on these matters historically it is perhaps permissible at the moment for me to indicate how far that development had gone prior to the time at which my right hon. friend came into office.
The Prime Minister has referred to the appointment of His Excellency Lord Willing-don to the position of viceroy of India. I recall that at the time it became necessary to choose a successor to Lord Byng, then governor general, the British government communicated with the government of Canada in the matter. The British government submitted names which it thought might be acceptable, but the British government was informed by the government of Canada that We would wish to have included, among any names that might be submitted, the name of Lord Willingdon. In a communication to the Prime Minister of Great Britain, speaking as the Prime Minister of Canada, I pointed out that we were not anxious, at that particular time, to raise the question of at whose instance the governor general of Canada should be appointed as between the government of Great Britain and the government of Canada. I stated that if the government of Great Britain was prepared to carry out the wish of the Canadian government in the matter, as had been more or less the case in the past, that question would not be raised, 'but that we maintained the position that the appointment was one for which, like others related to Canada, the Canadian ministry should be responsible. When the imperial conference of 1926 took place in London I brought up the matter there, and one of the subjects I submitted for consideration at the conference was the position of the governor general with respect to the government by which he should be appointed. I took the position that the governor general -should be the ap-pointee of His Majesty's government of the do,minion

Address to The Governor General
in which he was expected to be the representative of the crown. That matter was fully considered by the conference of 1926, and as hon. members who are familiar with its proceedings know, a resolution was adopted unanimously by the conference of 1926 approving and asserting that as the position. With the enactment of the statute of Westminster no further word was needed to make it quite dear that so far as the appointment of the governor general of a self-governing British dominion thereafter was concerned that the appointment would be made on the exclusive reeommtnda-tion and responsibility of the Prime Minister of the day, having always in mind, as the Prime Minister has just pointed out, that whoever is appointed is the representative of His Majesty the King and that naturally His Majesty's own wishes in the matter must also be given the greatest respect and consideration.	.
A further relationship to which the Prime Minister has referred is that of the governor general to the government and to parliament. Of the relationship of His Excellency to the government, I, of course, cannot speak; the Prime Minister alone can .tell us of that. But may I say to my right hon. friend at once, when he mentions that there have been rumours of some difference between His Excellency the Governor General and the Prime Minister, that I for one have heard no rumour of the kind, nor am I aware of anyone who has. There have been many rumours of differences between my right hon. friend and some of those who are very close to him; we know of one that has resulted in a very marked separation. But may I say that so far as the governor general is concerned I have heard of nothing of the kind, and I was not surprised to hear my right hon. friend say, as he did, that in the discharge of his own onerous duties he had found the wide political experience of Lord Bessborough and His Excellency's large financial and business experience as well a very great help to him while he has been in office, and that he had found in the intimate associations which he had been privileged to enjoy with the present governor general much for which he will long cherish a grateful memory and appreciation.
As to the relations of the governor general to parliament, there again it is for the Prime Minister to speak. But as leader of His Majesty's opposition and, in that position, having some responsibility to view generally all situations affecting parliament, I might perhaps be permitted to say a word. I believe that, from the beginning of the time Lord Bessborough came to Canada up to the present

moment, His Excellency not only has sought but has succeeded, as between political parties in this country, in maintaining an attitude that has been scrupulously impartial. And may I [DOT]go a step further and say that I feel that, on many occasions, a word spoken in season, and a kindly act on the part of Lord Bessborough as the king's representative, have gone very far in some situations that were extremely irritating and baffling to help to make a rough place smoother than it otherwise would have been. Here again I join with the Prime Minister in appreciation of the difficult position of a governor general in what is expected of him in the matter of travel and speaking throughout the country, particularly in times of great, depression and stTain. Inevitably there must be a colouring of all efforts of an administration by the character of the times in which the administration is carried on. It has been Lord Bessborough's good or ill fortune to be in Canada in a period when, as mentioned in the address, the country has been suffering great depression, and strain. I think that, the addresses His Excellency has given from time to time, and which have always had about them a note of optimism, of hope and of faith, are deserving of mention and praise. He has sought at all times to give encouragement to the people. We know of his effort .to become acquainted with all parts of the Country, of his effort to become acquainted with the people, of his desire to inform himself of conditions and to identify himself with great causes, and of the extent to which he has been successful in identifying himself with and furthering patriotic and philanthropic as well as cultural developments in our country.
It is wholly appropriate that the address should contain special reference to the interest which His Excellency has taken in dramatic ant. I for one would like to have seen that interest and encouragement find its natural and complete fulfilment in the establishment of a national theatre in Canada. However, that consummation may come in the course of time, and, if it comes, it will owe its inspiration more than anything else to the dramatic competitions with which His Excellency's name will be permanently associated.
There is one other memorial expressive of broad human sympathies which I believe will .prove to be of an enduring character and regarding which I think it is appropriate to say just a word, and that is the great personal interest taken by Their Excellencies in the inauguration and promotion of the cancer fund established at the time of the king's silver jubilee. We know it is due to the magnanimity of His Majesty that the fund is

Salmon Trap Regulations
being used for research in Canada and for the treatment of cancer in Canada, but I believe it is an open secret that the form which the gift assumed owed much to a suggestion of His Excellency.
I believe all hon. members, and the country generally, will appreciate very much, and regard as eminently fitting, the reference which is made in the address to the part which has been taken in all matters pertaining to Government House and His Excellency's social and other responsibilities by Her Excellency the Countess of Bessborough. In referring to Her Excellency's "graciousness and charm" the words of the address have been well chosen. I am sure we all agree that Her Excellency has won, in a very complete way, both the admiration and the affection of the people of this country.
In conclusion may I add that in saying good-bye to Their Excellencies, we shall hope they will carry away from Canada memories as cherished and as pleasant as those which they are leaving in our midst. When again in the old country they will I am sure often think of the days of their sojourn in Canada. In so doing I trust they will always feel there is in Canada an abiding interest in all that pertains to their welfare and that of the members of their distinguished family, and that they have at all times the best of wishes of the Canadian people.
,Mr. G. G. OOOTE (Macleod):	In the absence of the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner), I would like to say on behalf of myself and members of this group that we join very heartily in the kindly sentiments expressed at this time by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) to Lord and Lady Bessborough. I trust Their Excellencies may carry with them the very kindliest remembrances of their stay in Canada, and I am sure we will all be glad to welcome them back to this country at any time they may be able to visit us.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. BENNETT moved, seconded by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King):
That	a message	be sent	to the Senate,informing their honours that this house has passed	an address	to His	Excellency	theGovernor General on the occasion of the approaching termination of His Excellency's official	connection	with this country,	andrequest	that their	honours	unite with	this
house in said address.
And that the clerk do carry the said message to the Senate.
Motion agreed' to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):: I would like to direct a question to the acting Minister of Fisheries. I am in receipt of a complaint from fishermen on Vancouver island in regard to the use of traps on the shone from west of Sooke harbour as far as Sheringham and east of the harbour as far as Beechey Head. I think the chief complaint of my correspondent is that the regulation, that is as regards the thirty-six hours a week close season, is not being carried out. I wonder whether the acting Minister of Fisheries could make a statement in that regard.


Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Acting Minister of Fisheries):: The hon. gentleman wrote me a letter which he handed me yesterday, and also intimated that he wished to ask a question to-day on this matter. The situation is that the regulations call for the observance of the forty-eight hour weekly close season by the traps. A fishery patrolman is placed on duty in the trap net area each season to see that there is compliance with these requirements. In addition to that the district fisheries inspector makes periodic inspections.
Complaint having been made, it will certainly be investigated further, but I may draw the bon. member's attention to the fact that it has been suggested to the fishermen concerned, that if they will, they may recommend the appointment of an honorary fisheries guardian who can represent their interests and make observations continually as they see fit. The department has no reason to object to that suggestion.


VALCARTIER RELIEF CAMP
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: May I ask the Minister of National
Defence whether he has any information he could give the house with regard to conditions in the relief camp at Valcartier where two thousand men are reported to have quit work, and what steps, if any, are being taken by the government?


Grote Stirling: One thousand nine
hundred and eleven men decided yesterday not to work and they are quietly remaining in the camp for the present, carrying on such
Grain Board

camp duties as are necessary for the preservation of the camp and the comfort of the men. It has been intimated to them that if they have a statement which they desire to make with regard to their conditions, a representative of the government will proceed there in due course to listen to what complaints they have to make and to give consideration to them.


LOAN TO NEWFOUNDLAND
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: On Tuesday the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) raised a question as to whether the guarantee which was given regarding a certain advance to Newfoundland had been referred to in the 1934 report of the director of unemployment relief. He will find that the guarantee is referred to and the reference will be found on page 44 of the report. I may say further to my hon. friend that the guarantee was also referred to in the budget speech of this year and also appears in the public accounts. No demands have accrued under the guarantee.


CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee on Bill 98, to provide for the constitution and powers of the Canadian grain board (as amended).
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.
On the short title.
Mr. RALSTON:: about 75,700,000 bushels. In January we bought 1,000,000 bushels; in March we sold
4.000.	000 bushels; in April we sold 1,200,000 bushete and bought 600,000 bushels, leaving a net sale of 600,000 bushels. So it appears that in March and April the net sales were 4;,600,000 bushels. That leaves an amount on hand as of April 22, of 72,000,000 bushels.
Then from April 22 to June 24, 1933, the amount on hand was practically constant, there being just one sale inside of those two months. That was a sale of 850,000 bushels; and there was one purchase of 640,000 bushels, so that for these two months the quantities on hand remained practically constant. Prices at that time were stiffening considerably. From July 1, to July 19, 1933, there were various substantial sales. Twenty-nine miflion bushels were sold1 between those dates. Then, from July 20 to August 12, there were purchases of 34,500,000 bushels leaving a net result on July and August operations of 77,000,000 bushels on hand. During the fall there was purchased 56,000,000 bushels of wheat, so that the total special wheat as of December 31, 1933, stood at
133.000.	000 bushels, phis the pool wheat standing at 76,000,000 bushels.
Then, from January to the middle of June, 1934, we sold 38,000,000 bushels of wheat, and there were very substantial liquidation operations. For the two months from the week ending June 16 to that ending August 11, there were no sales, and prices were still going up. In fact there was a purchase of
3.000.	000 bushels. From August 11 to December 31, 1934, we purchased 61,000,000 bushels, and up to May 31, 1935,-the end of the present year-we sold 6,000,000 bushels, leaving a total, as I have said, of 152,000,000 bushels of special wheat phis 76,000,000 bushels of pool wheat.
With those -figures before the committee here was the situation which presented itself: What appeared to be the position was that although there may not have been a misunderstanding, it did seem as though there had been a misunderstanding or some misapprehension as to the task which the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited should carry out. In any case what had happened was, as is shown by the figures, that from time to time the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited not only did not sell wheat but in fact went into the market and bought it. These figures are given in more detail in the report of the committee. That wheat was bought not necessarily from producers but it was bought on the market and from the public at large. As was stated by Mr. McFarland before the banking and commerce
fMr. Ralston.]
committee of last year the purchases in the latter part of July, 1933, were purchases back from speculators who had taken wheat and whose hands, I presume, were regarded as being too weak to hold it. The result was that about 34,000,000 bushels was bought back.
That is the situation the committee found. And as a result of recognizing that situation and the danger in connection therewith the committee has made the first and I believe the most important restriction appearing in the bill. I believe the restriction about which I shall speak represents the most important difference between the bill sent to the committee and the one now reprinted and before us. Provision has been put in the bill stipulating that the Canadian grain board is absolutely prohibited from purchasing wheat from anybody but a producer. I repeat, the grain board is prohibited from purchasing wheat from anybody but a producer. In other words, it is no longer possible for the grain board to go on the market and with whatever idea they may have in mind-either of stabilizing or supporting a market or purchasing wheat and holding it for a higher price- buy wheat from anybody but the producer. I believe the committee was unanimous in feeling that that provision was quite necessary. At least if it were not made it seemed to us, I believe to all members of the committee-I am speaking at least for the hon. members associated with me-that a Canadian grain board would get an entirely wrong impression of its job, and that we might again witness a series of operations in purchases and sales which might result in a further accumulation of wheat purchased from other than the producer.
What appeared w'as this, that somehow or another the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, backed by government guarantees, had failed to appreciate the magnitude of the task undertaken by it, in attempting to stabilize and support the market, or to carry on the operations they were carrying on. What I mean by that is this:	The
real object I think of this House of Commons and of the people of this dominion was to endeavour to see that through these times of stress and strain it might be possible for the producer to get a fair price for his wheat. It was the producer the country had in mind in connection with the legislation, and it was hoped that it would be the producer that would be had in mind in connection with this whole transaction. But no matter what the motive was, what turned out was this, that in the endeavour let us say to assist the producer, or in the endeavour to support the market, or in the endeavour to stabilize the

Grain Board
market, or in the endeavour to bring out the financial transactions on the right side of the book, the result has been that the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited instead of dealing directly with the producer and paying him so much money for his wheat has felt that the only way they should operate was by acting almost as Atlas and attempting almost to support the world price by operations on the Winnipeg grain exchange. That may be one way of doing it, but it has turned out to be I think a disastrous way.
Let me give a reference from a memorandum that was read by Mr. Mclvor to indicate to the committee the magnitude of the task which seems to have been undertaken. Mr. Mclvor who is assistant sales manager I think of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited said this:
In stabilizing the futures market as he has done Mr. McFarland has been required-
Note this:
-to stabilize not only the wheat in Canada being delivered by the farmers, but the flour in Canada, the flour in the United States, the flour afloat, the flour in the British Isles and foreign countries, Canadian wheat in United States in transit, and in non-reporting mills and feed plants in bond, wheat out of bond, wheat on ocean passage and in British and foreign ports, wheat in non-reporting mills in process of grinding, other grains hedged in wheat futures and spreads with other markets.
That is a pretty colossal task, and regardless of the sincerity with which the task was approached it seems to me that the task as set out there was a task too great for any organization, and particularly too great for any one man. The way it appears now-some may say this is hind-sight-it would seem that the best way to endeavour to get the best price for the producer would be to deal directly with the producer. It will be agreed by members of the committee generally that the plan which is now provided in the bill now submitted to this committee of the whole is largely along the lines of the Argentine plan; that is to say, where the board stands by, is ready to purchase from the producer at a minimum price, but at the same time permits the ebb and flow of commercial transactions so long as the producer is assured that he has that back log at all times if he wants to approach the board as a purchasing agency dealing with the producer, and not attempting to assist the producer by supporting the structure of world prices. Because after all it is a pretty big job even with Canada's proportion of the supply of wheat in world markets for Canada to attempt to regulate the whole structure of world prices. So that is the first and I think perhaps the greatest improvement
92582-26S
that has been made by the committee in the bill as it is now presented to this committee of the whole. No longer will we have to support world's markets. It may be that the board will have to take a loss in its operations ; that is to say, in selling its wheat. That is another matter. But so far as the producer is concerned the board deals directly with him.
What is the next change? The next change is in the 'matter of sales policy. I feel satisfied from what was said 'before the committee that there was some misunderstanding of the method at least which was to be adopted in connection with the handling of this transaction. As I endeavoured to point out on the committee the orders in council would seem to me to plainly provide for the marketing of the 1930 crop, and the operations which were to be conducted subsequently seem to be ancillary and supplementary to that first job. But quite a different idea was held by Mr. Mclvor. That was apparent from the transactions as disclosed to the committee, the high lights of which I have given to this committee of the whole this morning.
What seemed to be wanting, and what has been remedied I think by this bill, is the matter of a sales policy. The original bill, it will be remembered, provided that the board should undertake the orderly marketing of wheat, ibut it gave unlimited power to buy and sell. This bill, as I have pointed out, gives only the power to buy from the producer, and this bill expressly contains provisions indicating parliament's desire and direction that sales shall foe made.
Many of the witnesses who were heard before the committee felt that the lack of what they called a sales policy was one of the principal causes of our difficulty at the present time, operating as it did to cause the carry-over which we have to-day. One witness, Mr. Smith, at page 155 of the evidence, spoke of the operations of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited and said he would continue the policy of handling this business through the open market in the same way that Mr. McFarland had done, "with the addition of a definite sales policy which apparently has been lacking." It seems to me that that was the whole core of our problem. A sales policy had been lacking in connection with the operations of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited. The same witness at other places in the evidence spoke of the same thing, and other witnesses spoke of it as well. What has been assured in this bill is that what we tell this board is that they are to sell, and not to buy except from the producer.

Grain Board

What has been the result of this lank of sales policy? Well, there is some difference of opinion with regard to it, and I do not propose to enter upon the controversial stage of it 'this morning because I think this bill represents what has been referred to in the press and around the corridors as more of a compromise, and I am hoping a helpful compromise in order to deal with a very serious problem.
It has 'been pointed out repeatedly in the country, and I feel that the committee should have this before them, that the result of not having a sales policy, that the result of not selling, has not been beneficial to our market. Some of the witnesses were not prepared to agree with that. Some of the witnesses suggested 'that it was after all a cold-blooded business, that you sold to a man if you offered him the goods at the lowest price. I have here Broomhall's weekly letter of April 10, 1935, and this is what he says with respect to Canada's sales policy:
Canada has sold more wheat in the past week, but her prices are too high to enable her to get a good share of the international trade, and this applies to the buying of British millers and still more to be continental trade, although official returns of exports, indicate that Canada's trade with the continent is not so stagnant as it often appears from market reports. Canadians are hound to recognize that they are not selling sufficient to reduce their stocks to anything like a normal quantity by 31st July next-as we said in our review of 26th March we are doubtful if the total shipped during the current season will reach our estimate of 30.690.000 quarters, especially as we hear that some British millers recently made a further reduction in the percentage of Canadian in their gristing mixture-
The committee will note that:
*-especially as we hear that some British millers recently made a further reduction in the percentage of Canadian in their gristing mixture, being encouraged to do so by the better gluten content of this season's Plata- we recently published a letter from a Liverpool miller suggesting that Canadian wheat, in view of its high price, ought to be quoted per fine ounce.
Which was a bit of biting sarcasm. Broom-hall's letter of March 27 says:
If any country puts its wheat out of the reach of buyers, that country loses trade and its shipments fall short of our estimate. Canadian prices recently have been held so high that continental countries have gone without ir bought elsewhere, and United Kingdom millers are using as little as possible of the relatively dear Canadian northern grades. We do not apologize for our estimates, but put the blame upon whom it belongs.
And on the next page of the same letter:
It is. however, a very debatable point as to whether Canada's best interests are served

by a policy of splendid isolation. If Mr. McFarland were to approach the trade in a spirit of friendly cooperation, and adjust his prices to a reasonably competitive level, it is quite probable he would be agreeably surprised at the amount of business waiting to be done.
As I pointed out in the committee and as I wish to emphasize here, apparently the result has been that we have been losing our place in the British market to the Argentine. The point has been made repeatedly that Canada is maintaining her percentage of British imports of wheat, that is so but the point I wish to make here, and as I indicated to the committee, is that while Canada is maintaining her percentage of British imports, the United States has lost her place in the British market and that place has not been taken by Canada but by the Argentine and other countries. I have a table here I should like to present to the committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that from the evidence?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, I read it to the
witness, Mr. Mclvor. For the five year period 1923-24 to 1927-28 Canada's percentage of imports of wheat and flour into the United Kingdom was 34-5. For the same period the United States percentage was 28-62; the Argentine percentage, 16-26; Australia, 11-55 and others, 8-88. For the five years period 1928-29 to 1932-33 Canada's percentage was 33-04; the United States, 13-21; the Argentine, 20-7; Australia, 17-91 and others 15-1. This period included 1932-33 when Canada had fifty per cent of Great Britain's imports. These figures therefore give Canada the full benefit of any enlarged proportion of British imports. The percentages for the year 193334 were 35-36 for Canada; -18 for the United States; 24-4 for the Argentine; 21-24 for Australia and 19-13 for other countries. For the nine month period from 1934 to April 30, 1935, the percentage for Canada was 36-56; for the United States it was -23; for the Argentine, 31-4; for Australia 20-64 and for other countries 11-14. A comparison of the five year period, 1923-24 to 1927-28 with the period 1928-29 to 1932-33 shows that Canada lost 1-46 per cent in the proportion of British imports. In 1933-34 our percentage rose to 35-36, an increase of two per cent and for the nine month period 1934-35 it rose to 36-56, showing an increase for the five year period of three per cent. For the five year period 1928-29 to 1932-33 the United States furnished 13-21 per cent of the imports; this dropped to [DOT] 18 per cent for 1933-34 and rose slightly to -23 per cent for the nine month period 1934-35. In that time the Argentine raised her proportion from 20-7 per cent to 24-4

Grain Board
per cent in 1933-34 with a further increase to 31-4 per cent for the nine month period 1934-35.
It seems to me that those figures indicate that the Argentine is taking Canada's place when it comes to the matter of getting the business which Great Britain has to give. If one wants further confirmation it is to be found1 in the figures placed on Hansard by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) at page 3645. These figures show that Canadian imports of wheat into British markets dropped from 52,957,000 bushels in 1930-31 to 48,103,612 bushels for the nine month portion of 1934-35, whereas the Argentine exports to Great Britain jumped from 30,594,000 bushels in 1930-31 to 47,474,791 bushels in the nine month period of 1934-35. In other words, Canada was down about ten per cent, while the Argentine in- , creased by about fifty per cent. I submit that those figures indicate that the sales policy which Canada has been following or the want of a sales policy has not been good for this country. If I wanted further corroboration of this I would remind the committee of what the Prime Minister said when he came home from the wheat conference in 1933. I think it was in the first speech which he made in Montreal, when he said that he was surprised at the activity of European countries in regard to the matter of raising wheat. He pointed out that the question was the restoration of international trade in Canadian wheat and he is quoted in the Montreal Gazette as follows:
One solution was through harmonizing the interests of the two groups and he was glad to say that common sense and reason had prevailed and an agreement had been signed on August 21st last which went towards the solution of the problem.
63 cents in gold-Liverpool for four months. "Wheat import countries by their greater acreage had demonstrated clearly that they did not again intend to be placed' in a position where they would face either starvation or have to pay ransom prices."
My right hon. friend pointed out at that time that because of the fear which these countries had they had increased their production of wheat from 900,000,000 bushels in 1930 to
1,220,000,000 bushels in 1933. That increase had been brought about by a fear of starvation and also a fear of ransom prices. I am afraid that the sales policy which has been pursued by Canada has contributed to some extent to this increase. I should also like to refer to a statement made by Sir Edward Beatty in January of this year. In a characteristically temperate statement Sir Edward reviews the whole wheat situation and says:
I disagree with those who suggest that it is improper for this country to attempt any 92582-268J
measures to protect its wheat producers against fall of the price of their product to the lowest depths. Wheat is far too important in the economy of this country for us to accept unmoved the prospect of its price falling to the levels where its producers are beggared. I believe, however, that it is equally dangerous for us to believe that we can prevent the price of wheat, as recorded by a great world market such as Liverpool, from reflecting even a temporary condition of overproduction, or that we can persuade buyers abroad to pay premiums larger than justified by superior quality for Canadian wheat compared with wheat from other areas. The subject is one of overwhelming importance to this country, and to every citizen. It is to be hoped that our policy will be framed with full realization of this fact. I feel that this task should be given to the best available skill and experience in this matter, and that the most careful examination should be made of the views of our customers, rather than that we should take the risk of drifting into a state of hostility between buyer and seller.
Perhaps that statement will have more weight with some hon. members than, with others but it does stand to reason that if we hold our wheat above world prices these countries will turn in self-preservation to raising their own wheat or to buying wheat from other countries. What is the situation in Canada? Does it need any argument to convince anyone that the thing to do in this country is to get our wheat moving? Wheat lying in elevators, wen though it is backed by the guarantee of the government of Canada, will not assist in paying transportation charges or wages on steamboats or railroads. It is not going to assist in the income of mem at terminal ports, nor is it going to assist in the general activities which are incident to the constant movement of traffic across the country. It all will help. It may be said by some that we cannot afford to sell our wheat too cheaply even for that purpose, but I think the committee came to the conclusion that we cannot afford to hold our wheat indefinitely in the hope that something will turn up. The fact that this wheat has been rolling over and over and has now reached the enormous quantity of 225 million bushels is something that brings home to our minds more forcibly than anything else the importance of adopting some policy. And so there are inserted in the 'bill subsections (b) and (c) of section 8, which tell the board definitely what its job is. Subsection (b) is:
to market from time to time all wheat or contracts for the purchase or delivery- of wheat which the board may acquire, for such price as it may consider reasonable, with the object of promoting the sale and use of Canadian wheat in world markets.
So far as I am concerned, that means what it says. It means that you are to sell wheat
Grain Board

with the object of promoting the sale and use of Canadian wheat in world markets; and that involves the selling of Canadian wheat at the world price in order that we may promote its sale and use in those markets. There have been many times when the spread between Canadian and Argentine wheat has been such that it would seem to some that there would be an opportunity of disposing of Canadian wheat if we were prepared to take what the world considers a fair price. While I am on this question of world price, I may observe that in connection with the Ottawa agreements one of the conditions is that the 6 cent preference shall apply only if we are willing to sell our wheat at the world price; and with respect to the inquiries made in the House of Commons in England rather recently as to whether or not they were going to continue to extend the 6 cents preference to us in view of what they thought to be the Canadian attitude in regard to selling Canadian wheat at world prices, at the time the question was raised as to what the world price was, Mr. Hore-Belisha indicated that the world price was the quoted price at Liverpool. So that when we direct the board to dispose of Canadian wheat, for the purpose of promoting the sale and use of that wheat in world markets, we must be prepared to take what is regarded generally as a fair price for wheat. Subsection (c) of section 8 is:
to sell and dispose of stocks of wheat and contracts for the delivery of wheat acquired from Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited and the wheat represented by such contracts as speedily as may be reasonably possible, having regard to economic and other conditions.
That does not mean that we are to hold wheat indefinitely or add to our stocks of wheat by buying; it means, so far as I am concerned, to dispose of our stocks of wheat as speedily as may be reasonably possible. No one is talking about a fire sale; the endeavour is to get rid of our wheat, making the objective of our activities the reduction of the excess rather than the increasing of it. I believe that these sections will commend themselves to the committee of the whole as they did unanimously to the special committee.
Subsection (j) is:
to offer continuously wheat for sale in the markets of the world through the established channels: Provided that the board may, if in its opinion any existing agencies are not operating satisfactorily, take such steps as it deems expedient to establish, utilize and employ its own or other marketing agencies or channels.
That again is another indication to the board of what parliament desires with regard to the carrying out of its duties. Now these,

in my opinion, are two substantial changes with respect to policy which are made in this bill, and I submit that they are farreaching and should commend themselves to the committee and to the country. I will not at this time discuss the question of responsibility. What we are trying to do is to deal with the situation as it exists. The next point that comes up, and one to which I will not direct very much attention, is the point with regard to the minimum price. I may say frankly- and here I am speaking to my western friends 

that it did seem that perhaps this provision for a fixed price and a participation certificate might be regarded as erring on the side of adequacy-let me use that word. But thinking the thing over, I feel that Canada has this obligation. This accumulation has piled up and we have a special situation to deal with, and I can only hope that the board will have wisdom and judgment to be able to satisfy the western producer and at the same time to do justice to itself in relation to its responsibilities. I am prepared to concede that there he a fixed price and that at the same time there be a participation certificate, so that if the board succeeds and its operations are profitable any profit may be distributed to the producers.


Mr. KENNEDY (Peace River):: Is there any provision in the bill that ensures that the minimum price will be a fair price?


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend can read the bill as well as I. The provision is that there shall be a fixed price.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I ask the question because my hon. friend has said something about a fair price. My question is this: Is there any provision in the bill, except a hope, that the minimum price shall be a fair price?


James Layton Ralston: The words "fair price" are not used in the bill. The provision is that there shall be a fixed price, a price fixed by the board and approved by the governor in council; and I expressed the hope that the board would be able to fix a price fair to the producer, at the same time doing justice to its responsibility in the discharge of its duties imposed upon it under the act. I realize that the board has a difficult task; I realize also that my hon. friends from the west are faced with a difficulty. I am discussing practical difficulties. At the same time, if my hon. friends from the west will permit me to say so, when I spoke as I did I wanted them to feel that the east-at any rate I am speaking as one from the east- while realizing the difficulties felt that there
1"	JULY 4, 1935	4231
Grain Board
was a great measure of adequacy in this provision for a minimum price plus a participation certificate; and I am sure that if the fishermen of the east, the lumbermen, the cattlemen and the buttermen of the east had the same provision some of them at least would be exceedingly happy.


An hon. MEMBER:: And the west too.
Mr. RALSTON; My hon. friend is quite right-the west too. But it is because of the situation that exists, which I in common with ever3-one else in the house wish to see remedied, that I am in favour of this provision and will give it my support.
And now I come to the final point. In view of the very adequate provisions of this bill-* some of my friends shake their heads, but in my view it is a pretty comprehensive bill-I for one feel, and I so expressed myself in the committee, that we ought to deal with the situation as an emergent situation and should not tie anyone down forever to a permanent policy with regard to Canadian wheat. This bill on the face of it and without some reservation of some kind indicates that the Canadian government is going into the wheat business unless another parliament takes positive action to repeal the act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not suggested that one parliament can bind another.


James Layton Ralston: I thought I made myself absolutely clear; I do not know why the right hon. gentleman should interject that remark. The very fact that I said that this bill is to be in force until another parliament repeals it is evidence that I dio not think for a single instant that one parliament binds another and that a subsequent parliament cannot repeal this act. But I am saying that it seems to me that we should not in the dying days of this particular parliament decide on a permanent policy for Canada when the policy we are adopting is being dictated to a large extent by the emergent situation in which we find ourselves having regard to that accumulation. Other emergency bills, as I am reminded, have been limited to a year. For instance, -the relief acts were passed year after year, made to expire, and unless renewed, expiring entirely. Those are emergent measures. I submit that this is an emergent measure due to the situation in which we find ourselves, and to some extent perhaps an experiment, one which will have to be tried out in order that we may find out whether it is the best for all' concerned.
There are three classes of people who are concerned in connection w-ith this legislation: first, the customers, who fear a monopoly.
If we indicate to the world now that we are labeling this bill as a permanent policy for Canada as far as wheat is concerned, we do not improve our situation- with our customers in the world market. They wil at least be reassured if we put some limitation on this bill to indicate that it will expire at a certain time unless it is further extended. Second, the taxpayers will accept in the name of an- emergency many things that they -will hesitate about if they are regarded and imposed as a matter of permanent policy. Third, last and .most important, it seems to me that the producers themselves might well wish to reconsider this matter at the end of one or two years. It may be that a fixed price will prove a deterrent to -the commercial -trade and at the same time may not give the producer a fair return. In other words, with the government seeking to back this legislation and with the board making a fixed price, the trade may feel they are out of the situation; and if the minimum price should not be regarded as sufficient, the result will- be that the producer loses entirely the benefit of the trade competition, the advantage o-f the marketing connections which the trade has in- the markets of the world and the benefit which an active, vibrant, self-reliant trade could bring about in the way of increasing prices.
Before this bill comes out of the committee, I think the Prime Minister (Mr, Bennett) who is in charge of the measure, should reconsider the proposal made to him in the committee and insert some clause in the bill to indicate its nature, namely, that it is an emergency measure; that it is for the purpose of dealing with the situation in which we find ourselves; that it is to bridge the gap; to provide, as suggested in the committee, that the bill should be in force for one year, giving the governor in council power to extend it for a second year and providing at the end of that second year that it should automatically lapse unless it is further extended by parliament. That is the feeling which I have with regard to this matter.
There are one or two other points to which I should like to refer when we come to the particular clauses of the bill. I believe if the government could insert an amendment of that kind, it would be possible for us to present an absolutely united front in connection with this measure to deal with the situation in which we find ourselves and after all to attempt to help to make western Canadg, what we all want it to be, the habitation of a prosperous and contented people, the place where -men and women who have endured a good deal during the past
Grain Board

three or four years may be given hope and an opportunity to play the part which they are destined and qualified to play in the development of this dominion, because we all realize-and this cannot be repeated too often-the importance of the great west, and of t<he wheat producers to the whole of the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. LUCAS:: As a .member of the special committee dealing with Bill No. 98, I think I am within the judgment of all the members of that committee when I say that we all received a great deal of very useful information from the various witnesses who appeared before us. But in my opinion the greatest justification for the setting up of that special committee was the fact that it enabled the representatives of the pools to place on the official record an. absolute refutation of the false propaganda that has been circulating throughout not only this country but the world in regard to the selling policy of the pools, suggesting that the situation facing Canada now in not 'being able to dispose of her grain has been entirely due to that policy. I will deal with that a little later by means of some of the evidence, and I think it is very important because a strong opinion prevails among a large number of people that the setting up of a government board to take over the handling of Canadian wheat is more or less a continuation of the pool policy, and therefore if that policy were false, then of course a number of people believe the board would be carrying out something that would not be in the best interests of this country.
One point- we should bear in mind is that the marketing of Canada's wheat is no longer a local or farmers' problem, but haa now become a national one. When one considers not only the importance of our crop but also the fact that the government of every important wheat producing .country in the world is giving some form of support to its wheat producers. Canadian farmers can not be allowed to shift for themselves. Another factor in this regard is the value of the crop as it is set forth at page 3563 of Hansard. This gives the figures from 1920 up to the present time, running into not hundreds of millions but billions of dollars, and it shows that Canada is now the largest single wheat exporting country in the world. Wheat is the most important commodity in the export business of Canada, amounting I believe to almost one-third of our export, business. When the final chapters of Canadian history are -written, I believe none will foe more interesting than that dealing with the opening up and development of the great western plains.
fMr. Ralston.]
I think I am safe in saying that there is no man in the house who is more familiar with the struggles, disappointments, hopes and ambitions of the farmers in trying to get a fair price for their product than is the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) who has been out in that part of the country from its pioneer days- and who took a prominent, part in leading and encouraging the farmers to organize, in order to get a .more fair return for their products. Those efforts were not for the purpose of taking from somebody else what was his but to try to get for the farmers themselves tha-t which rightly belonged to them and to give them a fair return for their toil. I am sure nobody can object to that.
I am not going into early history, because the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) when the bill was before the house on second reading gave a very interesting account of the early development of the farmers' movement. We are all familiar with the Canada Grain Act. That act first came into being because of petitions from the farmers and as a result of commissions set up to investigate the problem. Finally' the Canada Grain Act was put upon the statute books. Its main purpose was to prevent abuses and protect the farmer. Then came the war, and then in 1919 what was known as the Canadian wheat board was set up. I think it is fair to say that when the 1919 wheat board was established there was a good deal of antagonism among the farmers because there was a belief largely prevalent among them, whether or not it was erroneous, that this wheat board was not established for the purpose of getting the farmer more for his wheat but of stopping the price of wheat from going up. However, when the year was finally closed the results were so satisfactory, as well as the handling of the wheat during that period, that there was a complete change of attitude, and a great effort was carried on in the succeeding years to have the 1919 wheat board reestablished. In 1922, a measure was passed in this house providing for the establishment of a wheat board. We are all familiar with what happened. While agitation for a new wheat board was being carried on, the Saskatchewan government appointed a commission under James Stewart and F. W. Riddell to look into the matter and report. The first question that this commission was asked to decide -was as follows:
Is it possible for any kind of pool comprising less than the whole of the western wheat crop to market the crop to the same advantage from the producers' point of view as a system of national marketing of the whole crop by a Canadian wheat board?

Grain Board
In answering that question they had this to say:
During the early months of the season, when a large volume of wheat is offered for sale, there is a natural decline in prices. This system of competitive selling permits of no intelligent regulation of supplies of either the farmers' wheat or that owned by the elevator companies. To the extent, therefore, that the marketing of wheat outside the limits of the pool is continued, on this basis, the marketing of the wheat within the pool would be affected detrimentally. Therefore the object of the pool, which would be the stabilization of prices by a more even distribution of supplies, would be adversely influenced.
There is hardly a favourable basis of comparison between the advantages accruing to the producer of wheat through a pool under national control, and any other form of pool attempting to control an- unknown portion of the crop in competition with the balance of the crop in an open market. It is perfectly obvious that under a system of national control, where only one seller exists, and buyers are numerous, the advantage in trading is with the seller.
Now, when the farmers could not get the government ryheat board reinstated, they determined to handle their own wheat, and organized the pools. The operation of those pools in western Canada brought satisfaction not only to many farmers, but to the general business of the country. It relieved the farmer of the worry of deciding when he should sell, and I think any hon. member from western Canada will agree with me that it is veiy difficult to know when to sell, with the market fluctuating each day and no stability, for it must be remembered that the farmer gets only one crop and when it is sold that is his only chance of getting a return for that year. By the wheat pool he was given an initial payment, and following that he received interim payments which enabled him to carry on his business, and at the end of the year when the crop was all sold he knew he was going to receive a fair average price. For my own part I sold wheat to the pool from the very beginning of its organization, and I am still selling wheat to the pools. I understand that the banks and the business men were w-ell satisfied, because the farmer had money distributed to him through different periods of the year, and so was able to finance much more satisfactorily.
However, when those pools were organized they came into conflict with the organized grain trade. It is just as natural as can be that that trade, seeing some of its business likely to be taken away, set out to oppose the pools. This was done by circulating all kinds of propaganda against the pooling method.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.
,Mr. LUCAS:	When the committee rose
at one o'clock I was dealing with the fact that when in 1921 and 1922 the producers could not induce the government t'o reestablish a wheat board similar to that of 1919 they decided) to organize themselves as voluntary pools, and endeavour to sell their own wheat. In doing this they had to face the opposition of the organized grain trade. At page 209, of the evidence, we find that Mr. Brouillette stated:
There is another point that I think you as a committee should satisfy yourselves about before you go out of your way to make changes on the supposition that there is something of such importance in this open market that would warrant keeping it operating. There have been a lot of charges. You take the first year we started to operate the pool when the market price was $1.49-$1.51 on .August 2, 1929. We continue on operating. We make a dollar initial payment. We decide some time in March or April to make our first interim payment. The 2nd or 3rd of March the open market is $2.05 and a fraction. Unfortunately, we decide on making an interim payment of 35 cents. That brings your total payment up to $1.35. Inside of a month the price on the Winnipeg market goes from $2.05 and a fraction down to $1.38! on the 2nd or 3rd of April. Then within a month following that it rebounds up to around $1.70.
Hon. members will observe that there was in this instance a drop of 67 cents a bushel in the market price of wheat in one month and I think all hon. members will agree that that drop was not due to world causes, because within a month the price rebounded back again. While it may be difficult to prove I a.m satisfied that there was an actual attempt made by the grain trade not only to embarrass the pools but to pratic-ally put them out of business. Our pools began operating first in Alberta in 1923, and in Saskatchewan and1 Manitoba in 1924. They had only got nicely into their swing when in August of 1925 the market price of wheat had reached $1.51. At that time the pool set its initial price at what was considered to be a safe figure of SI per bushel. On March 4, the market price was $2.05|, and1 the pool deciding to make an interim payment to their customers had their cheques written out when the price dropped 67 cents, or from S2.05J .to S1.38f. The fact that the pools had made an initial payment of $1 and announced an interim payment of 35 cents put them in an embarrassing position:	When
the market .price came down to SI .38 the pools found themselves in difficulties with the bank due to the fact that their credit was gone, because they were supposed to keep a margin of 15 cents a bushel. How-
Grain Board

ever within a month's time the market price rebounded: to S1.72J. The only thing that saved the pools was that before they had their cheques sent out the tremendous drop had taken place and in order to protect themselves they withheld) the cheques which had already been made out from the producers. That is one place where the exchange made a mistake. They brought about the drop in price too soon. Had they waited until the cheques 'had gone out to the producers they certainly would have placed the pools in an awkward position.
The statement 'has been made that the policy of the pools antagonized foreign buyers and for that reason they are responsible for the carry-over. In this connection I shall quote from the evidence of Mr. Milner, president of the Winnipeg grain exchange. At page 66 of the evidence he is reported as follows:
Q. Well now, is there any other cause you want to mention as an example of past experience in centralized control; or, have you any in mind-A. I have the Canadian pools.
Q. Well, what do you mean by that, just explain that-A. Well, the result of their operations was a large carry-over.
That is the propaganda that has been broadcast throughout the .country until it is firmly believed that the pools were entirely responsible for this large carry-over. I believe it is fair to say that if the pool policy had created antagonism and they were unable to sell, it would have shown in the amount of wheat he'd by the pools and the trade. What are the facts? I turn to page 208 of the evidence and find that in answer to questions by Mr. Ralston Mr. Brouillette gave the following evidence about carry-overs.
Q. We ought to know?-A. Yes, we should know. I think this is the best proof we can get of it. Our Mr. Bredt, who will be appearing before this committee, will go into more detail; but for the four years when we were operating on the largest scale, 1926, 1927, 1928 and 1929, the total deliveries of grain in the three western provinces were 1,455,252,835 bushels. The percentage of that total delivered to the three pools was 755,719,373 bushels, or 5T9 per cent of the total. The total carryovers at the end of each year for that period of four years was a total of 402,000,000 bushels. Now, if we sold more or less of our share in that period' it would show up in our share of the carry-over, would it not?
Then, following further questions the witness stated:
The Witness: Yes, the pool's share of all that -that is what we carried at the end of each year, totalled for those four years on the same basis as the figure above referred to was 170,000,060 bushels, which was 42-3 per cent, and we were entitled during that period to 51-9 per cent, to have carried our fair and equal share on that basis.

Dealing with the same question of carryovers Mr. Bredt is reported at page 236 of the evidence as follows:
The Witness:	In 1929-30, the Canadian
carry-over again was 127,000,000 bushels. The pool share of that carry-over was 50 per cent, and the pool handlings in that year of the total were 5T3 per cent. It is rather a coincidence that the carry-over of the pool handling and the total are identical; that is, 127,000,000 carry-over and the pool handles 51-3 per cent. Does this indicate that the pools were responsible for the large carryover? They had 41 per cent in the one year, 50 in another; they handled 51-3 per cent. Now, surely they cannot be accused of not selling, withholding, refusing to sell or holding up the price, because if they had, they would not have sold so much. They sold more, comparatively, than the trade did. They only held 41 per cent of the carry-over in the one year when they might have held off 50; and in the second year they held 50 per cent and they handled 51-3 per cent.
I believe those figures should set at rest for all time the allegation that the pools were responsible for the carry-over.
Then, again, there was a story circulated that when the Hon. J. H. Thomas, a minister of the British government came to Canada he communicated with the pools and tried to make negotiations for a large quantity of wheat, but that- the pools had refused to sell.
I want to deal with that for a moment. It will be found on page 221 of the evidence, where I asked this question of the witness, Mr. Brouillette:
Q. Some time ago there was a statement circulated widely in the press that the Hon. J. H. Thomas, minister in Great Britain, had come before the pools and made an effort to buy a large quantity of wheat, and the pools refused to sell to him. Is there any truth in that statement?
The answer was:
There is no truth in that statement whatsoever. If there is any wide circulation of such misunderstandings in this country it might be worth while to read from our records covering exactly that situation.
Further on this same witness said:
Aside from speaking from this record, I was present at the conference at the time the Hon. Mr. Thomas met our central board, if not the executive. This was in September, 1929.
Now I wish to put this statement by the Hon. Mr. Thomas on the record. The evidence continued as follows:
Q. Hon. J. H. Thomas?-A. Yes.
At the request of the British government, conferences were arranged with the right honourable J. H. Thomas, Lord Privy Seal in the British Cabinet, and representatives of the wheat pools on September 2nd and 3rd, 1929, at Winnipeg.	....
Discussions took place on the possibilities of facilitating the interchange of commodities

Grain Board
between Canada and the United Kingdom, having regard in particular to the desirability of ensuring an even flow of outward and return cargoes between Canada and the United Kingdom.
At the first conference with wheat pool officials, it was evident that Mr. Thomas was under the impression that the Canadian wheat pools had been refusing to sell wheat at prevailing prices. The situation was fully explained to him and Mr. Thomas expressed himself as quite satisfied th at the Canadian wheat pools were anxious to dispose of their wheat, and were freely offering it to consumers at prevailing prices. When quoted some months later as criticizing the policy of the pools, Mr. Thomas, in an official interview, sent to the Canadian Press by the British High Commissioner, made the following statement:-	_
My attention has been drawn to comment in Canada upon a statement made by me in the House of Commons on the 1st of April. The suggestion that the statement was based upon any feeling that the pool had been attempting to hold up wheat is wholly baseless. My statement was made in reply to an opposition supplementary question and was based on assurances given me, by you, at Winnipeg in September, that the pool had been anxious to sell at prices substantially lower than those prevailing. I fully accepted these assurances, and welcomed them as evidence of a friendly attitude towards my plans for encouraging more regular interchange of goods between Canada and Great Britain. I trust you will give full publicity to this explanation. As you know, I fully appreciate the difficulties with which the pool has been confronted', and
1	earnestly hope the situation may soon rectify itself to the advantage of both countries.
I quote that because only last week I was talking to a business man in Ottawa who referred to this very question, that the pools had refused to sell to Great Britain when Mr. Thomas was trying to negotiate with them. The statement also was made that placards were displayed on delivery wagons in London advising against using Canadian flour. This has also been refuted. It has also been claimed that the pools held the price above the market and of course therefore could not sell, but what are the facts? I want to call the attention of hon. members to a table that appears on page 282 of the evidence, exhibit "C" which absolutely refutes that charge. It was filed by the witness, Paul T. Bredt, Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, and gives the export offers and comparison with market prices for July, August and September, 1929. Here is the summary of that table. Out of 76 market days the pool offered wheat below the market on 52 days and sometimes over 6J cents a bushel below the market; on 14 days out of the 76 it offered wheat over the market; on
2	days at the market, and on 8 days there were no offers. A study of this table is most
illuminating and absolutely refutes the statements, that the pools held their wheat above market prices.
It was also claimed that because of this supposed antagonism against the pools they were unable to sell their fair share of wheat in Great Britain and in other markets. What are the facts? At page 261 evidence will be found to this effect. The total Canadian exports to Great Britain are given, and the pools' share of those exports. In 1926-27 the total of Canadian exports was 62,979,000 bushels; the pool's share was 50,152,000 bushels, a percentage for the pool of 79-8. In 1927-28 the total Canadian exports were 67,430,000; the pool's share was 36,181,000 or a pool percentage of 53-7 per cent. The 1928-29 total was 69,895,000 bushels; the pool's share was 34.665.000, a pool percentage of 49-8. The 1929-30 total was 43.214,000, the pool's share was 22,980,000, a percentage of 53-2.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that with those facts before us the charge that the pool has been holding up prices and has refused to sell and has antagonized foreign buyers will be disposed of for all time.
I am in favour of Bill No. 98, to establish a Canadian grain board, but I would have much preferred to have seen sections 9, 10 and 11 as part of the bill rather than to become operative only by order in council. Those clauses 9, 10 and 11 are of course the ones which it was claimed would put the grain exchange out of business, and that there were compulsory features in connection with them. It was claimed that the farmer would lose a great deal of his freedom. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the farmer fully understands this question, and that so far as his freedom is concerned it is very limited. So far as prices are concerned, the farmers all know that prices are sent out twice each day, formerly by telegram but now by radio, and it is upon these prices that the farmer is paid and the same price is sent to all elevators. So far as taking away liberty is concerned there was nothing in those clauses had they become operative to prevent a farmer selling wheat any day he liked, to any elevator he liked. The competition in services would have been the same. Talk about the farmer's freedom! About the only freedom he has left is to draw his grain to the elevator and there his freedom ceases, and when his grain has been dumped down the chute he kisses it good-bye so far as he is concerned.
The producers feel that speculation on the market is not in his best interests. I would like to read a quotation from E. A. O'Neal
Grain Board

which is found at page 185 of the evidence, but time does not permit. Mr. O'Neal appeared before the agricultural committee in the United States and dealt with this question very effectively. He points out that it appears that the Exchange can only carry on when special licence is given to what he calls the big boys, and while speculation may boost prices it also depresses prices.
It has been admitted that the futures market cannot carry on without the speculator, but to-day the ^peculator is gone; that is the small speculator that is necessary to carry on this market. It has been admitted on all sides, and evidence before the Stamp commission also brought out the fact that the majority of these speculators lost money. I want to ask this question: Is it fair to encourage these people to speculate when they are sure to lose their money? From what I know of the farmer I would say that he does not want to get a price by this means if in so doing he is robbing those who can ill afford to lose. It is an unsound foundation upon which to base prices. It is common knowledge to everyone that in this futures market bear raids are sprung periodically, and the small speculators of limited means are closed out and mans- of them ruined. In addition a lot of farmers' grain is sold on these severe drops in the market. That is not only a serious thing to the farmer, it is a serious thing to the country. As I stated earlier in my remarks, a farmer has only one crop of wheat in a year and he depends upon the return he receives from that crop to carry him through. When he is forced to sell on a low spot it means a reduced standard of living for the rest of the year.
A lot of people think that the wheat market is similar to the stock market. I have no objection to a man speculating in mining stocks or in shares of other concerns. When the price of automobile shares, for instance, goes up on the market there is no change in the price of automobiles or the rate of wages paid. A speculator on the wheat market is permitted to sell future wheat without owning or controlling one bushel while a speculator on the stock market can sell only shares which he has borrowed from the owner and which he can deliver when called upon to do so. The price of foodstuffs of the world should not have to depend upon speculation in futures. I cannot imagine a manufacturer standing for a situation whereby hundreds of automobiles could be dumped on the market by speculators who did not have one automobile and the price depressed. Yet that is the situation with which the farmer is confronted.

It has been said that there is no public opinion for a national wheat board, a compulsory wheat board or anything of that nature. I have not time to quote all the resolutions which have been passed in this connection but the attitude of the organized farmers of Alberta is well known and was placed on Hansard a few days ago by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner). I would refer hon. members to the Western Producer of June 20, 1935, which contains a whole page giving particulars of resolutions which were passed by various organizations in favour of a wheat board during the period from 1930 to 1935. The first I will quote refers to a resolution passed on April 14, 1931, by the Manitoba legislature, not a farmers' organization, and reads:
The Manitoba legislature unanimously approved formation of a wheat board similar to that of 1919 last Tuesday. Without a division the legislature went on record as favouring such a board, which would set minimum prices and carry the western farmer through the present period of depression.
J. R. Griffiths, government member for Russell, moved that the legislature favour the forming of a wheat board along the lines of the 1949 board. There was no debate on the motion and immediately after Mr. Griffiths' motion was introduced it was unanimously approved.
The next article refers to Saskatchewan and reads:
Falling in line with recent action of North Battleford, the Saskatoon city council on January 30 approved a resolution suggesting to the federal government that it give consideration to a request from argieultural interests to establish a national wheat marketing board.
The next article is dated March 9, 1933, and reads:
Delegates to the annual convention of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities passed a resolution, unanimous but for two votes, asking the dominion government to set up a national marketing board on which producers would be adequately represented, to control sale of Canada's entire 1933 crop.
The next is dated March 30, 1933, and
reads:
The report of the special committee on agricultural relief was received by the Saskatchewan legislature and referred to the government. Among the committee's recommendations was one supported by all the members favouring establishment of a national marketing board.
The next is dated March 7, 1935, and reads:
The Alberta legislature last week unanimously adopted a resolution welcoming Premier R. B. Bennett's announcement that a national wheat board is to be formed.
By an overwhelming vote of 53 to 1 the Alberta legislature endorsed government's support of the federal marketing legislation.

Grain Board
We must recognize that this action is necessary because of changed conditions. Every important wheat producing country in the world has had to adopt measures of a similar nature. It has been said that the refusal of the pools to sell wheat has lost us our markets, but I should like to refer to the evidence of Mr. Melvor, which appears on page 376 of the proceedings, as follows:
Let us examine the situation in France, Germany and Italy. From 1924-25 to 1928-29 these countries imported an average of 215 million bushels annually. From 1920-30 to 1933-34 these countries imported an average of 95 million bushels- an annual reduction of 120 million bushels in the latter period as compared with the former.
Let us look at the situation last year. France, Germany and Italy imported a total of 20 million bushels. Germany, in fact, became a net exporter of approximately 5 million bushels. What has this situation meant to Canada Assuming that we received 40 per cent of the imports of these three countries prior to 1929-30 (a moderate percentage) a market was afforded for about 85 million bushels of Canadian wheat. Last year if we had secured the entire market of these three countries (and we did receive a very large share) we had an outlet for only 26 million bushels. This is one phase of the export problem which must be realized.
The former demand for our wheat does not exist. We might as well be frank about this matter. Mr. James Richardson stated in his evidence that last year he visited all the important countries of Euiope and after visiting Germany he decided that there was very little business to be done. He said that he secured his money but that others who had sold later had not yet been paid, and that there was practically no market for our wheat in either France or Italy. I want to take this opportunity of saying that I believe that the stabilization efforts earned on by Mr. McFarland have been of tremendous benefit to the farmers of western Canada. I think the government should receive some measure of congratulation for supportiflg Mr. McFarland. All the witnesses who appeared before the committee admitted that if there had not been some form of stabilization, prices would have been very much lower. Last October 18 million bushels of wheat were dumped on the market inside of three days. The president of the grain exchange was not as frank as we would have expected in. giving evidence in this connection as upon cross examination he could not remember anything about this incident although it was a very serious event in the life of Canada. I think it is safe to say that most of the papers carried headlines on this matter, and nearly everyone was familiar with it, yet .after referring to it in a written statement the
president of the grain exchange could not remember anything about it when he was being cross examined.
There is one other point to which I should like to refer. It is sometimes thought that low prices mean increased consumption, but I should like to refer to the evidence of Mr. Melvor, as appears on page 363 of the proceedings. Mr. Melvor, quoting from a speech made by Mr. McFarland before the Canadian Club of Winnipeg on April 11, 1935, said:
The lowest price in over 499 years occurred in the season 1932-33, and Stanford university shows the world consumption of wheat in that year of record low prices was less than in either of the two preceding years, and was only a few million bushels greater than the disappearance of last year, which is clear evidence that record low prices did not increase world consumption. It is also a proof that there is a saturation point, even for the most essential product.
There is one important fact which many people appear to overlook and that is, "Exports increased by reason of price sacrifice," do not all go into immediate consumption, but also go to create increased reserve stocks, visible and invisible, in some other country.


Mr. ROBERGE (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, when Bill No. 98, now under discussion, has been amended in the manner that I shall suggest, it will certainly be the best measure the government has ever presented to the house. At the close of my remarks, I shall submit an amendment the effect of which will be to give to the farmers of all provinces bonuses similar to those that the government grants to the western farmers.
That does not mean that I am opposed to the government spending money to help the western farmers. On the contrary, I think governments never do enough for the farmer, and in order that the country might emerge from the present depression we must begin by helping the farming class instead of spending millions on the militia.
Last winter, at the beginning of the session, the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) received a large number of petitions from farmers of the province of Quebec asking him to bonus certain of their products or to have the government take control of their marketing, as it did for western wheat. I myself have received many petitions from farmers of my county and of the new county known as Megantic-Frontenac. I shall read to the house the petition I transmitted to the right hon. the Prime Minister on January 22, 1935:
Mr. Prime Minister,
Whereas one of the chief causes of the present unfortunate position of the farmers of the province of Quebe'" is the low price of their products; and
Grain Board

Whereas the remedy to the situation would consist in the government:
1.	Fixing a minimum price for farm products on the following basis: Butter, 30 cents per pound; cheese, 15 cents per pound; eggs, 20 cents per dozen; pork, 10 cents per pound; potatoes, 50 cents per bag;
2.	Granting to dairy farmers an export bonus of 5 cents per pound on cheese and 10 cents per pound on butter;
The undersigned believe that with these minimum prices and this export bonus the agricultural situation, which is the foundation of our economic system, would appreciably improve, with resultant advantage to the general business situation of the country.
We therefore respectfully ask you to bring down the necessary legislation to give effect to our request.
To this petition I joined the following letter:
Allow me to transmit to you a petition from the farmers of the parish of Thetford Mines, county of Megantic, requesting either a bonus or fixed prices on products such as butter, cheese, eggs, pork and potatoes. These farmers claim that you have granted to the western farmers a special bonus of 5 cents a bushel on wheat and I believe that the province of Quebec should enjoy similar treatment.
Hoping that I may be able to transmit a favourable answer to the petitioners and assuring you of my highest regard, I am,
Yours very truly,
Eusebe Roberge,
Member for Megantic.
This letter was addressed1 to the right honourable the Prime Minister, from whose secretary, Miss Berube, I received the following answer;
The Prime Minister has instructed me to acknowledge receipt of your letter to which was attached a petition from citizens of Saint-Alphonse-de-Thetford'-Mines, asking the government to establish a minimum price for farm products and to grant an export bonus on butter and Cheese.
You may rest assured that the matter will be seriously considered by the proper authorities.
Believe me, dear sir,
Yours very truly,
M. T. Berube,
Secretary.
My colleague, the hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska (Mr. Girouard) has also received many similar petitions. On April 9, 1935, he spoke in this house as follows, according to Hansard, page 2568:
The farmers of my constituency-and those of Quebec generally-have signed a petition addressed to the Prime Minister of this dominion, asking the government to fix a minimum price for a number of products and to establish an export bonus on butter and cheese. As this petition is very important, perhaps the house will allow me to quote it. After describing their unfortunate plight, these farmers requested the government, in January last, to fix-

... a minimum price as follows on the following products: butter, thirty cents per pound; cheese, fifteen cents per pound; eggs, twenty-five cents per dozen; pork, ten cents per pound; potatoes, fifty cents per bag.
You will observe, Mr. Chairman, that the farmers who signed this petition are very moderate in their claims.
What was their surprise then at seeing the resolution moved by the Prime Minister in this house on the 4th of March last. They had expected it to include some of the farm products of the other provinces. The resolution, which I find in the orders of the day, read as follows:
March 4-The house in committee on the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to establish a board to be known as the Canadian Grain Board with power to purchase, receive and take delivery of wheat, oats, barley, rye and flax-seed, or any one or more of such grains for marketing and to sell, store, transport and market such grains, and to provide for the appointment of such clerks, employees and assistants as may be necessary, and to provide for their remuneration and for the expenses of, and arising out of, the operations of the board.
Mr. Chairman, ever since 1930 the government has been 'helping the western wheat producers. Here we are to-day with this resolution and a bill before the house respecting all grains, that is to say the production of 50 per cent of the farmers of western Canada. It is well known that not more than 50 per pent of the western farmers practise mixed farming. Therefore, when the government takes over the products of half the farmers of western Canada, would it not be fair and reasonable to include in this bill some of the products of the farmers of eastern Canada, in accordance with the terms of the petitions to which I have just referred? The province of Quebec supplies nearly one-third of the federal revenue and it should therefore be entitled to its share of the bonuses granted to farmers by the federal government. When the government paid a bonus of 5 cents a bushel on wheat, at a cost to the Dominion treasury of $12,720,121, the province of Quebec furnished nearly four million dollars of this amount.
I will be told, Mr. Chairman, that the supplementary estimates just voted contain an item of one million dollars for the cheese industry. I congratulate the government for this, its first grant to the eastern farmer; but why not place the cheese producer on the same basis as the wheat producer? When the government granted a bonus of 5 cents a bushel on western wheat, they did not say: When the expenditure has reached one

Grain Board
million dollars, there will be no more. They paid 5 cents a bushel on all the wheat produced in the western provinces. Why does the government not dlo likewise in respect of all the cheese that will be produced, and why does it not pay a bonus on all the butter produced? That would be only fair and just and it would make up to a certain extent for what the province of Quebec has done to help the farmers of western Canada.
That is not all, Mr. Chairman. What has been the cost of the government's venture in wheat? Some say 50 or 60 million, others say 100 million, and1 of this sum the province of Quebec has to pay approximately one-third, that is to say, about twenty million dollars.
Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to quote the opinion of the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) given at page 3088 of Hansard:
We have speculated in wheat to the extent almost of hundreds of millions of dollars and we do not know how much we shall lose- possibly twenty, thirty, forty or fifty millions.
I consider that the hon. member has been very indulgent for those who have speculated in wheat, for in view of the large number of bushels of wheat overhanging the market today, the lose will be much heavier. On the same page of Hansard is to be found the following statement of the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell):
I have listened to the inquest of the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), but I would ask him this question. What condition would this country have been in had we not gone to the rescue of the farmers in the west when we could hear in the lobby talk about twenty-five cent wheat? What would have happened if we had left all these things go to the wall?
The hon. member for East Hamilton was probably unduly pessimistic, as wheat at 25 cents is too cheap. The price would have been higher.
I shall quote the prices given by the Prime Minister when he spoke on the subject, as reported at page 3565 of Hansard:
Fiscal year:
1925-	26..
1926-	27..
1927-	28..
1928-	29..
1929-	30. .
1930-	31..
1931-	32..
1932-	33..
1933-	34. .
Average price per bushel .	$1	51.2.	1	46.3.	1	46.3.	1	24.	1	24.	64.2.	59.8.	54.3.	68.1
Had the government not taken over the marketing of wheat, the price would have
remained at the average figure, probably 54 cents, the inquiry having revealed that the cost to the government was a fraction over 85 cents. I do not blame the government for the price paid to the farmer; what I do blame it for is the high price of wheat sold for domestic consumption, when it should have been sold at market price and no more.
Here are the prices paid in the province of Quebec for flour and other products, from 1931 to 1935, as compared with those prevailing 'both before and after the government assumed control of wheat marketing. Baking flour, delivered at stations in the province of Quebec, sold at $2,021 in 1931 and $2.12i in 1932. In 1933, when wheat was at 54 cents, flour was selling at SI .60, in 1934 at $1.80 and in 1935 at $2.25.
The reason of the high price of flour in 1935 is that the government took charge of the marketing of wheat.
Bran, in 1931, sold at S1.03J; in 1932, at $1.18; in 1933, at 75J cents; in 1934, at $1, and in 1935, at $1.35. Meal, in 1931, sold at S1.031; in 1932, at $123$; in 1933, at 80i cents; in 1934, at $1.05, and in 1935, at $1.40, a difference of 594 cents. Middlings sold in 1931 at $1.18$; in 1932, at $1.33$; in 1933, at $1,054; in 1934, at $1.20, and in 1935, at $1.60, which figures out at 54i cents per bag.
The 32 parishes of the county of Megantic bought at least two carloads a day of these products, and with the average extra price of about 60 cents per bag which we have had to pay, we have, since the government took over the marketing of wheat, paid an extra price of $612 per day, which makes $18,360 a month or $220,320 a year. Therefore, the 65 counties of the province of Quebec have contributed $14,320,800 more than they should have done.
Farmers are not the only ones who buy flour and other wheat products; the workingmen and other residents of cities have had to pay an extra price of 2J cents a loaf for bread since the government took charge of the marketing of wheat.
There you have, Mr. Chairman, the cost to the province of Quebec of the bonuses paid to the farmers of western Canada. The 5 cent bonus on wheat has cost the country at least 12 million dollars, and the two years of government control of wheat marketing have added another 28 millions for flour and other wheat products only, making a total cost of 52 million dollars.
In order to convince some of my hon. friends who may think I am mistaken, I have obtained five invoices from the Ogilvy
Grain Board

Flour Mills, of Montreal, which is perhaps the leading flour manufacturing company in Canada, and I now lay them on the table of the house.
Mr. Chairman, the government has maintained the price of flour at such a high level that we find ourselves to-day importing flour from various countries, as is shown by the answer of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hanson) to a question of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) given on page 560 of Hansard of February 7, 1935:
Mr. Reid:
1.	What quantities of flour were imported into Canada during the calendar year 1934?
2.	What were the various quantities from each country?
Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury):
1.	Canada's total quantity of wheat flour imported during the calendar year 1934 amounted to 178,175 barrels.
2.	Canada's total quantities of wheat flour imported from various countries, during the calendar year 1034, were:-
Imports from:	Barrels
United Kingdom	 105,431
United States	 3,338
Alaska	 1
Australia	 69,380
Hong Kong	 25
The government has thus maintained the price of flour at such a high level that Canadian merchants have imported some when all the while the country had on its hands an enonm-ous surplus of wheat it did not know what to do with.
In view of the help given to the west by the province of Quebec on this occasion, I hope our western friends will support the following amendment I am going to move in order that the eastern farmers may receive their just share;
Mr. Roberge moved, seconded by Mr. Girouard:
That Bill No. 98 be amended in the following manner:
(1)	That the title of the bill be the following: "An act providing for the establishment and definition of duties of the Canadian Grain and Other Farm Products Board."
(2)	By substituting the following section
for section 1.	"1. The present act may be
cited under the title: An act respecting the Canadian Grain and Other Farm Products Board, 1935."
(3)	By adding at the end of subsection (1) of section 2 the following paragraph:
"(f) other products of the farm" means in the present act:	butter, cheese and maple
sugar.
(4)	By substituting the following subsection for subsection (1) of section 3:
"3 (1) a board to be known as the Canadian Grain and- Other Farm Products Board is constituted; it is composed of three members appointed by the governor in council."
[Mr. Roberge.1
(5)	By adding the following subsection at the end of section 7:
"(3) the board may grant a bonus of 5 cents a pound on the sale of each pound of butter, cheese and maple sugar, sold by farmers who have no grain to sell or who do not benefit by the present act in any other way."
(6)	By adding the following subsection at the end of section 13:
"(2) the board may also adopt regulations respecting the application of subsection (3) of section 7."


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gobeil):: Shall I translate the amendment?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no duty cast
upon you, Mr. Chairman, to do so. If the amendment is as I understand' it, it is wholly out of order, but we can deal with that perhaps later.


Samuel Gobeil: The
amendment will stand for a few minutes until it is translated.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: There is an amendment before the committee. It is in French and it ought to be translated- at once to enable the committee to continue the discussion.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: If I cor-reetly understood the hon. member for Shel-burne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) this morning when he was speaking on this bill, he gave us again that old story about the antagonism to the pools and the antagonism to orderly marketing or anything that looked like an attempt on the part of the farmers of western Canada through the pools or by the assistance of the government to get a reasonable price for their produce. It has been argued again and again-


James Layton Ralston: Is the hon. gentleman referring to what I said?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Yes, the
words I caught were "starvation and holding up to ransom."


James Layton Ralston: Those were the words used by the Prime Minister.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: That does not make any difference.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend will
permit me to correct him-he said I had said something about the pools. I do not think he will find, from the start to the finish of what I have said, anything about the pools.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Well, the same argument has been applied to the pools by the grain trade ever since there was a

Grain Board
pool in 1923. Whether that was said by the Prime Minister or anyone else, it was quoted by the hon. member here to-day, and I presume he accepted it.


James Layton Ralston: I am not accepting anything. I quoted it for just what it is, a statement by the Prime Minister in regard to the situation which he found existing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the whole
of it.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: At any
rate we are told directly or indirectly, as we have been told ever since 1923 by the private grain trade, that if we were not very careful we would get in bad with our customers in Europe. The suggestion is that the farmers of western Canada did hold up the people of Europe, and that is the reason why there is not the demand for Canadian wheat that there ought to be. Now, if I understand the matter correctly, and I shall quote authorities for my view, just the reverse of that is true. The position of Europe to-day, with its tariffs and so forth, is a result of other conditions entirely. The situation as it has developed since 1925 arose from fear of a deluge of cheap wheat, not because of any attempt of western Canada or other exporting countries to hold up the people who wanted their food products. I have a statement by Sir Arthur Salter, I shall not take time to read it in detail, but in a speech made in England appearing in The World's Economic Crisis and the Way of Escape, he pointed out that if there had been no general depression there would in all probability have been an agricultural depression, because of the mechanization of grain production. Then he went on to point out that while there may be an unlimited demand for general products-a man who has a buggy can use a car and a radio- there can be no such increase in the demand for food products, because no matter how prosperous people may become their stomachs do not become any larger, they do not eat any more. The only possibility of increasing the demand for foodstuffs is by an increase in population. In fact he shows that as people become increasingly prosperous they tend to eat less breadstuffs and more of more expensive foods. That argument appears on pages 26-27 of the book I have mentioned.
Another writer, Mr. G. D. H. Cole, writing on the European agricultural situation, a book published in 1933, has the following to say at page 437:
Naturally, apart from the complicating factor of external debts, which has been of outstanding importance especially in the case of Germany, the countries which have suffered most acutely as a result of the world slump have been those which rely for the means of paying for their imports on the sale of the agricultural goods and raw materials which have declined most sharply in value. Of all commodities that which affects the largest number of countries is wheat; and it is on wheat above all other classes of goods that attention has been concentrated in the attempt to restore the position of certain of the struggling countries of eastern Europe.
Then at page 440.
In these circumstances there has been strong pressure from the countries chiefly concerned in the export of wheat to secure a preferential outlet for their surplus in the European markets. These countries want of course not merely a market for their exportable supplies of wheat, but a market with a price substantially above that ruling the world as a whole. For this price, determined partly by the more favourable conditions of production in the new world, and still more of late by the existence of large stocks of unsold wheat which have hung continuously over the market with a permanently depressing effect upon prices, is far too low- to enable the peasant cultivators of the European producing countries to exist at a tolerable standard of living above all in face of the heavy burdens of debt by which they are weighed down.
The first statement dealt with the international position; this statement deals with the peasant position. At page 422 he continues:
Nor is this situation at all surprising in face of the fact that in July, 1931, when the price of wheat was about 12 gold francs a quintal at most, the import duty in Germany had already reached nearly 31 gold francs a quintal. In fact, in those states where domestic w-heat growing is important but not on a sufficient scale to meet the entire demand, the home consumers are being compelled in the interests of farmers threatened with ruin to pay exceedingly high prices for the absolute necessaries of life.
If we want perhaps better authority than either of these let us turn to the publication of the League of Nations, issued from Geneva in 1935 on agricultural protectionism. Briefly the story is that after the war when millions of men went back to their homes, migration was no longer possible on the old scale. The need of reestablishing these men was just as great in European countries as in this country. We had to adopt the soldier settlement scheme. There was no opening for all these men in industry so an attempt was made to reestablish them on farms and keep them employed in that way. It is remarkable that it seems so difficult to grasp the fact that it is possible to overproduce foodstuffs. During the war it required the British blockade to bring Germany into submission through a scarcity of food. If it had not been for that, notwithstanding the number of men engaged
Grain Board

in the war there seemed to be ample foodstuffs to keep the whole world going. Then when twenty million men came back and the progress of mechanical invention turned to the uses of peace, there is no doubt that the world should have expected a tremendous increase in production in all lines. This happened in agriculture as well as in other lines, or even more so. Here is what this League of Nations publication has ito say on that point, at page 6:
The attached description of the evolution which has occurred since oversea production began to make its appearance on the European market shows what were the origins of agricultural protectionism as practised before the war.
It is unnecessary to recall here how the war, by taking millions of workers from the fields in the belligerent countries just when the armies were demanding more and more foodstuffs, gave an impetus to oversea agricultural production-particularly cereals-the effect of which is still apparent to-day.
For several years indeed after the close of hostilities, Europe continued to import considerable quantities of agricultural products

particularly cereals and meat-her return to her former productive capacity having been retarded by a series of concomitant causes, such as the Russian revolution and numerous agrarian reforms. But directly her producing capacity was again restored about 1925, the balance between supply and demand was broken; prices were already on the down grade, and the full force of the collapse was felt from 1930 onwards.
Exporting countries with a surplus of goods had to bear the full shock of this catastrophe, against which they possessed only one means of defence-a useful means at first, but one which was later to constitute an additional danger-namely, to slow down the marketing of their crops by accumulating stocks ...
True, the moment is in sight when, thanks to the increasing extension of technical progress, half the agricultural population of any given country will be amply sufficient to supply a demand which, unlike the demand for industrial products, can after all only increase at the same rate as the population itself.
Here is an additional reason, a very important one, why Europe was anxious to rehabilitate her men on the land and keep them there.
But it is clear that no country in which the peasant class plays a fundamental part- and that is the case in almost all countries-can agree to allow this evolution to proceed so rapidly as to produce highly dangerous upheavals. One has, moreover, to reckon with the idea, somewhat obscure but not devoid of foundation, that the farmer for a series of reasons independent of his will, such as atmospheric disturbances or diseases of animals and plants, is exposed to more sudden and dangerous risks than other classes of producers. It will seem natural, then, in the main, that in countries in which the historical development and dominant conceptions in the life of the people demand such an effort, the population as a whole should be prepared to afford special
| Mr. D. M. Kennedy.]
assistance to the agricultural classes-generally in the form of protective duties-and that such help should be considered more and more imperative in proportion as agricultural prices collapse and the depression continues to exercise its effects.
For social, historical and psychological reasons, the preservation of agriculture appears to the majority of countries as an absolutely vital question, and one which cannot be considered as a purely economic problem. The peasant class, which is an element of order and stability and an admirable reserve of energy, forms, at any rate in the countries of the old world, the basis of the social edifice and plays an essential part in reconstituting and rejuvenating the physical strength of generations worn out by life in industrial and large urban centres.
It seems to me that we have here entirely different reasons from those advanced by the grain exchange or arguments advanced either in or out of this chamber, about holding of wheat by the pool and which we have heard in western Canada for the last twelve years. Europe proceeded in a new way to protect its peasant class, its farmers, to protect agricultural prices so that peasants could live, carry on and pay their debts. In addition to that they were protecting themselves against a large influx of imports as against exports because of the recent cutting off of exports of capital from the United States. I have before me a statement concerning the cutting down of capital exports to Germany and other countries about the year 1929. At page 422 of Cole's book I find this;
The effects of this withdrawal of American capital can be seen in the figures showing the import of capital into the leading European countries. In this connection by far the greatest significance attaches to the situation in Germany. In the five years from 1924 to 1928 the total import of capital into Germany is estimated to have amounted to over 3,500 million dollars, of which over 1,000 million dollars was imported in each of the years 1927 and 1928. In 1929 the import of capital into Germany fell sharply to 550 million dollars, and in 1930 to less than 150 million dollars, thus bringing the movement of German rationalization abruptly to an end.
That deals with the general situation. The argument has been advanced however that we ought to have sold more of our wheat in competition with the Argentine, for instance, on the British market. In face of the fact that five western Canadian crops have been sold at less than the cost of production I do not see how we can be accused of holding up anybody anywhere. If we cannot get away from the charge of holding people up when we are selling at less than the cost of production it seems to me that we will have to turn around and find some other way of making a living. We cannot develop the country and we cannot create conditions

Grain Board
which make it worth while for our people to endeavour to carry on until the prices equal the cost of production. After what Great Britain did through the Ottawa agreements in connection with the stabilization of prices and the cutting down of the influx of meat products into that country I cannot believe that the people of Great Britain or its parliament would want to drive a bargain which would mean ruin to the farmer of western Canada. The only people who have said so are those who have associated themselves with the grain exchange; it is an argument of the private grain trade.
Now then, should we have sold against the Argentine? As I understand the situation the Argentine has no granaries, elevators or a storage system. A country which has not a storage system has to sell immediately the crop .is off the ground; it must sell as rapidly as possible so that the crop will not rot on its hands. If we were determined to sell our wheat against the Argentine and had adopted no policy of stabilization where would the price have gone? Would there not have been cut-throat competition? Would it not have driven the price lower?-indeed the evidence discloses that when that policy was attempted the price did go lower. Surely on the whole the policy of stabilization was better, and saved us from ruin.
Various estimates have been made as to the advantage of the stabilization policy to the farmers of western Canada, and the figure of 10 cents or 15 cents per bushel has been indicated. I understand the estimate was given to the committee by the assistant manager of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, Mr. Mclvor. Various questions were asked regarding the present price of Canadian wheat as compared with the Argentine wheat, having in mind the intrinsic value of both wheats. I believe the statements submitted tc the committee on behalf of Mr. McFarland indicated that there was a difference of 7 or 8 cents. I believe the spread to-day is about 26 or 27 cents. According to the statement of Mr. James Richardson about 16 cents is accounted for,-10 cents per bushel intrinsic value in favour of Canada and a preference of 6 cents. In his evidence Mr. Richardson stated there would have been a good market for Canadian wheat, and that probably another 100,000,000 bushels would have been marketed at from 70 cents to 85 cents. His statement however was rather vague. In another place he stated that a British miller had said he would increase his milling of Canadian wheat at a price 18 cents below the present price. In the light 92582-269
of these statements the 10 cents down would at least be necessary in order to sell the wheat Mr. Richardson mentioned. He does not say it would go into consumption. It is safe to say however according to the information of Mr. Richardson and George Mclvor that because of stabilization the difference in price level to-day would be around 10 cents. I submit that if we were selling and forcing this wheat on the world market regardless of the consumer demand we would drive the price down another few cents. I submit that the statement that stabilization has resulted in a benefit of fifteen cents a bushel was not so very far wrong. During the last few years the farmers have been selling wheat, No. 1 at about 30 to 60 cents, an average of about 45 cents at the elevators. About 20 per cent of the wheat delivered and inspected during the last three years, 1932, 1933 and 1934, for which we have records in the report of the board of grain commissioners was below No. 4, and I submit that if there had been no stabilization we would have taken care of the surplus in this way:	An amount equivalent
to the surplus would not have been worth hauling to the elevators and would have been left to rot on the farm. So I submit it was a far better policy to enter into stabilization, even though it was an arduous task to raise the price and put some value into that wheat. We have exported some six hundred million bushels of wheat during the last few years, and with the ten or fifteen cents a bushel increase, which was still a reasonable price to consumers, stabilization gave us more for that six hundred million bushels than we would have got for the whole of the wheat if delivered at ten cents a bushel less. So I submit that whatever may be said against this policy it has that much to the good so far as the farmers of Canada are concerned, and if it ultimately costs the country something I do not believe it will cost as much as a policy of cut-throat competition would have done, throwing our wheat on the markets of the world.


Mr. GOLDING:: Then why not continue that policy?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I want to continue it. The wheat surplus became dangerous according to reports about 1929-30. The wheat surplus was gradually accumulating from 1924. It did not become really noticeable until we saw those tremendous efforts at deflation, and intense protectionism spreading throughout the world, and the cutting off of credits to Germany and other European countries in 1929 and 1930. The wheat surplus rose from 471 million bushels in 1921, which

Grain Board

was the approximate wheat stocks in important areas in that year, to 904 million bushels in 1931. That was the world surplus, and it went later to over one billion bushels. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that that surplus has been coming down at about the same rate as it went up, and' that we are holding in Canada a little less this year than we did last year up to the first of August and a little less last year and the year before, if I remember correctly. So it seems to me that the world wheat situation is not such a hopeless proposition as has been stated. The increases in the surplus went up at the rate of about 40 million bushels a year from 1921 to 1931. They are coming down at about the same rate by decreases in acreage and from various other causes.
I hold in my hand the monthly bulletin of agricultural statistics for May, 1935, and at page 152 is shown the world's visible supply of wheat and) flour, and the source of these figures is BroomhalFs. The table gives the figures of the visible supply on April 1 for each year from 1932 to 1935, as follows:
World's Visible Supply of Wheat and Flour
April 1,	1932	
595,830,000April 1,	1933	
577,640,000April 1,	1934	
532,980.000April 1,	1935	
445,599,000
From 1921 to 1931 the world surplus piled up, and I have these statistics from the report of the imperial economic committee on the wheat situation, 1931: In 1921 the surplus increased 31 million bushels; in 1922 it '*'"creased. 46 million bushels, in 1923 it increased 117 million bushels, in 1924 it . decreased 159 million bushels, in 1925 it increased 63 million bushels; in 1926 it increased 69 million bushels; in 1927 it increased 69 million bushels; in 1928 it increased 68 million bushels; in 1929 it decreased 49 million bushels, and in 1930 it increased 95 million bushels. The decreases are as follows: 1932-33, 18 million bushels; 1933-34. 44 million bushels; 1934-35. 87 million bushels. Those figures are set out at page 105 of the twentieth report of the imperial economic committee on the wheat situation, 1931, and later figures issued by the dominion bureau of statistics in its monthly bulletin of agricultural statistics for May, 1935, at page 152.
So I submit that stabilization has been of tremendous advantage and there is no indication that our present trouble is in any way permanent at all so far as I can see, not if we have common sense. I submit therefore that the arduous job has been done and done well, and that we are better off than we would have been if we had followed any other policy that has been suggested as an alternative-better

off in dollars. If this country loses some money as a result of this carry-over it at least indicates that the farmers of western Canada have benefited to some extent.


Mr. SPOTTON:: To a great extent.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I want to deal for a moment with the amendments that have been suggested and accepted. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) this morning called attention to the bill, paragraphs (b), (c) and (j). If I followed him correctly-he was looking the other way and I did not catch every word he uttered-he called attention to the language of paragraph (b) which says that the board may market wheat "for such price as it may consider reasonable, with the object of promoting the sale and use of Canadian wheat in world markets." Then he referred to paragraph (c), which reads:
(e) to sell and dispose of stocks of wheat and contracts for the delivery of wheat acquired from Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited and the whe \t represented by such contracts as speedily as may be reasonably possible, having regard to economic and other conditions.
And then paragraph (j)
(j) to offer continuously wheat for sale in the markets of the world through the established channels.
The hon. member said that the pool had not a sales policy. He criticized the sales policy as not being a sales policy, criticized the government and the pool acting through John I. McFarland. But as a matter of fact they have marketed since 1930 about one billion bushels directly and indirectly, and about 600 million bushels in the last few years, and they have piled up a surplus of roughly 100 million bushels since 1930. Can it be said that that was holding wheat and not selling it? I do not think that is a fair statement at all. But the dangerous thing is this, Mr. Chairman. I do not know any witness who appeared before the committee and suggested that it would be a good thing to throw this surplus rapidly on the market. I think they were all opposed to it, but the danger is that the country and the world will interpret the hon. member's statement on these clauses as meaning that we are going to dispose of this surplus as rapidly as possible, and I hope that when the Prime Minister speaks on this section he will indicate, as he indicated in his speech some days ago, that they have no intention of dumping the surplus.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: When did the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) say anything of that kind?

Grain Board


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I un saying that his statement is capable of that interpretation.


Charles A. Stewart: Please stick to the statement.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: He was contrasting these sections with what John I. McFarland had been doing during the last few
years.


Mr. VALLANCE:: You are all wrong.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I hope that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) speaks he will indicate that that is not the intention of the government.


George Spotton: They are always for and against, they are going and coming all the time.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: It would be a disastrous policy.


James Layton Ralston: If there is anything in my statement which indicates that I said that this wheat should be thrown upon the market, I will withdraw it. But I say to the hon. member that he will find no such meaning in any remark which I made, either in this committee or anywhere else. I said that we should sell our wheat as fast as is reasonably possible, and I pointed out the wording of the section, having regard ito economic and other conditions. My hon. friend must not misinterpret my remarks. The Prime Minister did put those words in the bill. The suggestion which I made was that the wheat should be disposed of as speedily as was feasible and that there should be provision in the meantime for stabilization operations. That was changed to provide that it should be disposed of as speedily as was reasonably possible, subject to economic and other conditions.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: If I understood the hon. member, the interpretation he placed upon these sections was that they meant something vastly different to what Mr. McFarland was doing. If I understood him correctly, he interpreted the policy of the government put into effect through John I. McFarland as being one of holding rather than of selling wheat.


James Layton Ralston: Quite right.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: And this is contrary to that.


James Layton Ralston: We cannot forever hold wheat, we must dispose of it reasonably.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Forever is a long time.
92582-269J


James Layton Ralston: Four years ago we started with 75 million bushels and to-day we have 225 million bushels.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I am glad the hon). member has made that point because I followed him very carefully and I got the impression that he was trying to indicate that this wheat must go on the market under greater pressure than has been exerted during the last few years. I think he indicated that very definitely. I am against such a policy as I am of the opinion that the wheat has been put on the market as fast as it could have been without bringing ruin to the producers.
Another suggestion was that it should be for one year only. I do not know if that meant that we could get rid of this surplus in one year and I shall not place that interpretation upon it. Notwithstanding the fact that the world's surplus is decreasing and that Canada's holdings are decreasing I do not believe that we can dispose of our surplus in one year. You cannot separate the surplus from the general crop as they must be both marketed in the same market. If we could ship our surplus to China or to Mars, it would be a separate problem to that raised by future crops, but we cannot do that. Our surplus is part of the same problem and it must be handled in the same way. There is a reasonably hopeful situation in the world to-day so far as wheat is concerned as a result of the policies which have been put into effect but I do not think this situation can be cleaned up in one year. As far as I am concerned I am opposed absolutely to ahy suggestion that this is emergency legislation for one year only.


Mr. CHURCH:: Mr. Chairman, like the
hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat I would like to have seen the original bill stand. The history of the world is the history of minorities and the history of Canada is the history of compromises. I came into the house about the same time as the hon. gentleman who has just spoken and I can tell him and the other hon. gentlemen who sit opposite that back in the years 1921 to 1926, when the Drury administration was ruling in Ontario a great protectionist newspaper spent a large sum of money to send skilled experts through the west. These experts recommended that there should he public ownership of Canada's greatest asset, the grain growing industry. At that time there were Liberal Progressives, Liberals and Progressives but when the elections came along they were all Liberals. This protectionist paper, the Toronto Evening Telegram, formerly edited by the great battling editor and patriot, John R. Robert-
Grain Board

son, emphasized the fact that grain growing was Canada's greatest industry. They demonstrated that it was not a north and south industry but an imperial industry, as our markets were in England, in the allied countries of France and Italy and the foreign country of Germany. The greatest "carryover" the poor grain grower is suffering from was the free trade policy of hon. gentlemen opposite.
Where were hon. gentlemen opposite on that occasion? The greatest liability the poor grain grower has to face is the previous policies of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), his colleagues and his former allies, the. Progressives. We must look at this situation as it is to-day. Facts are facts. I said, in 1924 that the best friend of the western wheat grower was the policy of protection. I said:
The best friend of the western wheat grower is the policy of protection, as that policy has been and should be extended and administered by the founders and soldiers of the National Policy, the Conservative party of Canada. The western wheat grower has eaten the sour grapes of free trade. No wonder the western wheat growers' teeth are set on edge. The western wheat grower has taught himself to believe, or has allowed so-called leaders to persuade him, that wheat growing in western Canada is a continental industry, an industry that must prosper by reason of the admission of the roduct to the United States market or perish ecause of its exclusion. I submit that wheat growing in western Canada is the most truly national, the most widely imperial of all Canada's great industries. The markets of the British empire mean more and the markets of the American section of the north American continent mean less to the wheat growers of Canada than to any other class of Canadian producers.
The government is to be congratulated for the policies it has put forth and this will be recorded in history as one of the greatest things ever done. This party has been consistently a grain protectionist party. A further investigation was made following investigations made by the paper to which I have referred and that disclosed that there was bootlegging in Canadian hard wheat, not only in the elevators of Buffalo but in those of Baltimore, New York and Philadelphia. As I say, this government has been very much handicapped when they came into office in 1930 by the free trade policies of the Liberal party and the Progressives and I am glad to see that the Progressives who were formerly under the leadership of Mr. Crerar and Mr. Forke, and they were all real Liberals, 'have at last come to their senses and are admitting that the grain growing industry is and never was a north and south industry but an east and west and over the sea. and purely British.

The poor grain grower has had to suffer from the hit and run policies of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) and t/he Liberal party. Did you ever hear of the Argentine selling its wheat with the aid of brass bands? No; there has been too much of the brass band buying and selling policy of wheat asked for by hon. gentlemen opposite.
I commend the Prime Minister for what he has done; it is the most forward step that has been taken in the British empire or the overseas dominion in matters of this kind. In 1924 the Conservatives in this house proposed such a national policy in connection with grain-a public ownership control policy-in buying, selling and marketing of wheat through a public ownership of grain; it was laughed at in the house at that time. I would refer hon. gentlemen, however, to the history of cheap light and power in the province of Ontario. They want to go back to the condition that prevailed with regard to light and power in 1905 so far as the wheat business is concerned. At that time our natural resources were being given away, and Sir James Whitney and others who took the view that he did were described as amateur anarchists and socialists because they proposed to preserve the natural resources and water-powers of the country for the people. We contended that the same principle of protection should be applied to the grain growers, and what did Mr. Drury do? He was head of the national council on agriculture, and on the 2nd of April, 1924 he came here on behalf of that body and presented a memorandum to the cabinet, intimating that protection was an unmitigated evil and that the farmer had been exploited and plundered by those who enjoyed special privileges. They asked to be relieved of the artificial burden imposed upon them and a declaration was made in favour of reciprocity with the United States and the immediate abolition of the tariff. Their demands were all along this free trade line. But Ontario got one obstacle out of the way on June 24-I refer to the so-called Drury Farmers government, as I said in this house on May 5, 1924-though the policy of the Ottawa branch of that party continued to hinder the growth of the country. That party is the worst enemy of prosperity in this country, an enemy to its own supporters engaged in grain growing and other forms of agriculture in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. If its free trade policy had been persisted in, and if hundreds of thousands of new grain growers had gone into the prairies as they wanted, creating overproduction, where would Canada have been when the depression came in

Grain Board
1930? Who is to blame for all this surplus production? The Liberals and free trade.
The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth the other night used some strong language which I think was unworthy of him; referring to the leader of the government he used the words "bluff" and "bluster." Well, if there is bluff and bluster anywhere it is to be found in the support now of protection on grain as a policy of the Liberal party to-day. After professing free trade they have been veering round to all sorts of protection, supporting now stabilization, subvention and subsidies and bonuses. After going through the country denouncing the Conservative party as the enemy of the grain grower, what did they say in Ontario? They said that the greatest enemy the grain growers of the prairies had was to be found east of the great lakes in the manufacturers. Let me tell them that the greatest enemy the western grain growers had was wrest of the great lakes; that enemy was in the grain exchanges, the Winnipeg grain exchange, the elevator combines, the transportation combines and all the middlemen and profiteers who for many years past have had the poor grain grower by the throat. I say, therefore, that if this government has done nothing else to win the support of the people, it will merit that support for the progressive stand it has taken with regard to the nationalization of the grain industry. It has taken a national patriotic stand. There is no doubt that an emergency and a necessity had been created and the government could not have done anything but follow the course it has; it has "hedged" the grain and brought the whole credit of the country to the support of these "hedges" or bankruptcy faced Canada. Every part of the country is interested in the bill, and the other night in my constituency, referring to this legislation. I said that it would forever eliminate the operations of the middlemen, profiteers, the grain and elevator and transportation combines and all the other gamblers in futures who have had a stranglehold on the poor grain farmer. It will remove the middlemen andi the profiteers and give the farmers a higher price for their wheat. I said* further that the day was not far distant when we would have a national policy in connection with our hard wheat, a milling policy, a policy that would handle our wheat right through this country and mill it in Canada, ship it overseas and place it on the markets of the world. It is fortunate for this country that we have at the 'head of the government today a statesman who has brought about this reform. I have every respect and great
admiration for the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth, whom I have known for a great many years; I knew him and his partner before coming into this house. But when the hon. gentleman advocates an inquiry into this particular Canadian cooperative wheat association let me say this to him and to the Liberal party in this house. Years ago they were not so anxious to have a grain inquiry. What did Mr. Crerar do? When the Union government made a strenuous and brave effort in 1921 to come to the support of the prairies, to help the poor grain grower who was being fleeced by the middleman and profiteers out of a fair price per bushel for his grain, where were the Liberals and the Progressives? Let me read what I said on May 5, 1924, in Mt. Crerar's presence in this house:
It cannot be too plainly stated or too often repeated that the United States is now a relatively small factor in making world wheat prices. Canada is a much larger factor and European markets are receiving large quantities of wheat at lower prices than even Canada is making. Moreover, Canada and other countries are able to produce wheat at lower costs than those ruling in the United States. The wheat council in the United States bases its appeal for a higher tariff upon a showing that costs are much lower in Canada.
Let me read what I said in that parliament on that day of the way the Liberals and Progressives blocked grain inquiries:
I believe in free trade, especially free trade in grain inquiries. The Progressives and their leaders proved themselves believers in protection, yes, in the worst kind of protection, the protection that surrounded the alleged robbery of the western wheat growers, and protection against an investigation into the workings of that system of robbery. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) and others combined courts and lawyers and injunctions into a prohibitive tariff against inquiry into the methods of the big interests that handle wheat, not excepting the big interests in this country represented by the hon. member for Marquette. I was never an extremist in my enthusiasm for Union government. But the Union government honestly tried to protect the western wheat producer against the big interests. The western wheat producers have fulfilled in their experience with the hon. member for Marquette and his followers in this house, the words of scripture, "A man's foes shall be they of his household." The worst enemy of the western wheat growers is the policy of the Progressive party, its leaders and its representatives in this house. The next opponent of the western wheat grower is the present policy of the Liberal party, its leaders and representatives in this house and in the capitals of the prairie provinces. The best friend of the western wheat grower is the policy of protection.
I have lived to see the day when a policy such as is proposed in this bill has been
Grain Board


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I am not going to spend many minutes on this bill, but I should like first to say a word of commendation of the committee of nine for having worked out so relatively successful a solution of this knotty wheat marketing problem as that embodied in this amended bill. I never saw a perfect bill in my life, and especially in the case of one which is the result of compromise, although that is a policy we all have to follow if we are to arrive at anything like reasonably unanimous or resultant conclusions. What use would it be to thrust this measure into the arena in any other than a compromise form? The government had the power to force the original bill through if they desired; then we should have had a great political conflagration on the prairie which would do no good to anyone concerned. That is why I feel like supporting this amended bill, not as a complete solution of the problem but as an improvement on the old bill and as likely to better the conditions that have prevailed. I welcome the spirit of compromise that evidently actuated the committee all through and I feel like accepting this bill as the best obtainable with the limited time and opportunity at our disposal. Of course if there are further improvements and amendments offered in committee, I reserve my liberty to support them. It will be observed that none of the conflicting interests and parties who gave evidence before the committee are getting in this bill all that they would like to get, but all of them are getting some of their desires, and that is the very essence of compromise. If I were more desirous of continuing a grievance than attaining even a partial betterment of present conditions I also might talk against this amended bill. But that is not my desire; my desire is to find the best solution we can get under the present circumstances, and the only way to get that as I see it is to support the amended bill. No one has the old original bill before him, and no one is advocating the continuation of the present holding policy. It was successful in a degree in its time but I always thought Mr. McFarland was given an impossible task, to stabilize the price to the producer and at the same time sell our full share of wheat at com-
Grain Board

petitive prices with other comparable wheats and no one lose any money thereby. This bill looks to a betterment -of such selling conditions, and in this hot July weather, the beginning of the dog days, I do not see why we should continue to argue it; rather let us get along with it. Reserving my right to approve of what I consider further amendments by way of betterment that come from any side of this house I shall discontinue my remarks for the present.


Mr. GARDINER:: I shall only take a few minutes in discussing this bill as amended by the special committee. It is not my purpose to follow the argument made by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) but I should like to call the attention of the committee to a statement which the hon. member made when he was discussing the budget, which statement has some reference to the exchange of words which took place this afternoon between the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) and the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth. When my hon. friend was discussing the budget last March, dealing with the wheat situation and the volume of wheat held by Mr. McFarland very largely on government account, he made the following statement which I shall read, and let the committee determine the rights and wrongs of the argument which took place this afternoon. The statement is found at page 2116 of Hansard.


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Chairman, I am perfectly ready to stand by anything I have said at any time but I would point out first that my hon. friend is out of order because he cannot refer to a debate which took place during this session, and second that to-day I was dealing with a specific bill and not with the budget. I do point out that the policy which I advocate is the policy embodied in subsections (b) and (c) of section 8, and which was accepted by the whole committee.


Robert Gardiner: As my hon. friend takes exception to my quoting from his budget speech-


James Layton Ralston: No, I am only pointing out that it is out of order. My hon. friend knows the rules.


Robert Gardiner: Well, in his statement made at that time my hon. friend drew attention to the attitude and policy of the Argentine government as compared with the attitude and policy of this government in relation to wheat. He pointed out that the Argentine had to all intents and purposes

cleared out its bins, and had done it through the policy of putting its wheat on the market and getting rid of it. He said that the policy of the present government seemed to be more or less holding wheat off the market, and consequently accumulating a very great surplus. As far as the past policy of the government is concerned I must confess that I am very sympathetic towards it, simply because as a practical grain grower in western Canada, unless the government had done something along the lines they did or put some other policy in its place which would have been equally effective, I do not care to contemplate what the condition of the farmers of western Canada would be to-day.
Now I wish to spend just a few minutes on the bill. When I spoke on the second reading of Bill No. 98 as presented by the Prime Minister I said that I accepted the principle of the bill but that there might be some need for amendment when the bill came before the committee of the whole house. At that time I gave an outline of the efforts of the farmers of western Canada to improve the marketing and handling of grain. I say again that during all my thirty-three years experience in western Canada I do not remember a year when the farmers were not interested in trying to secure a better method of handling their grain. I indicated then the very substantial progress the farmers had made in that regard. Through the various institutions which they brought into being they have been able to remove many of the difficulties under which they marketed their grain. But in recent years the farmer has come to the conclusion that so long as you permit the price of the commodity which he produces to be governed largely by speculative interests he has very little hope of securing a stable market and a stable price for his grain. So far as that point is concerned I am satisfied that 95 per cent of the farmers who produce and sell grain in the west would be very well satisfied to see that speculative element eliminated altogether from the selling of Canadian grain. I see no reason why any producer should permit the product of his labour to be subject to speculation. Just look at the cost, for instance, of the Winnipeg grain exchange. Look at the stately homes which these men have been able to build out of their operations on the exchange. Just think of the costs that are added to the handling of grain by virtue of these organizations being in existence. We farmers of western Canada producing grain desire the most orderly method of handling

Grain Board
grain that the brains of man can devise, but more than that we want to be sure that every unnecessary expense in connection with the transportation and handling of grain from the time it leaves the hands of the producer until it reaches its ultimate destination, namely the bins of millers in other countries, shall be eliminated. We want to be rid of the superfluous cost added to the handling of western grain. I am satisfied that the farmers of western Canada would support any policy which had that object in view. I can assure this committee that that is my earnest belief.
After second reading the bill was referred to a special committee, and along certain lines I believe that committee has done excellent work. It gave interested parties an opportunity to come before the committee and present their schemes. It is not my purpose even to touch upon any of the evidence heard. I should like to observe however that very substantial amendments were made to the bill while it was before that committee and it is to those amendments I shall address myself for a few moments.
If lion, members will turn to the last section of the reprinted bill they will find it reads as follows:
17. This act, except sections 9, 10, 11 and 16 shall come into force when assented to and sections 9, 10, 11 and 16 shall come into force on proclamation of the governor in council.
What does that mean? It simply means that the real heart of the bill, the thing that is vital and of real importance, will not become effective merely on the assent of the governor general, but will have to await the pleasure of whatever government may be in power, such government having the power to determine by order in council whether sections 9. 10, 11 and 16 will come into force. That, Mr. Chairman, is the heart of the bill. If those sections are not proclaimed and are not made part and parcel of the bill then I must confess that in my judgment the legislation will be of very little value to the farmers of western Canada. If these sections are not made effective any board created for the purpose of handling wheat or grain will to all intents and purposes be a nonentity. They would have practically no powers to step in and handle the farmers' grain in an efficient manner. It is true that they will function, but provision is made in the redrafted bill that the board may recommend to the government a set price. The government may accept that recommendation and pass an order in council determining that that may be the minimum or set price. There is no question about that. The action taken by a
government in that regard would depend entirely on whether it were sympathetic to the legislation. The set price may be below the market price, it may be the market price or any other price. I would not suggest a set price would be above the market price at a particular time, but it is very likely to be below the market price, having in mind the anticipation that when the wheat is finally sold if the set price is less than the market price at the time of the price setting there may be some funds available for participation when the crop is sold. Under those circumstances and knowing the economic pressure being exerted on western farmers, I maintain that if the set price is below the market price, even if the government of the day passes an order in council making the set price below the market price the board will get very little grain to handle unless sections 9, 10, 11 and 16 are made effective. That is so simply because when the farmer delivers his grain his financial position is so precarious he will be forced to take the market price, as he is doing to-day. It will be a state of financial compulsion, not on the part of the trade but brought about by the financial condition of the farmer. If that is so, of what use will the board be in stabilizing or in creating an orderly market when the bulk of the grain may go into the hands of the grain trade primarily because the set price may be a figure below the market price at the time of setting it? Of what advantage would it be? So far as 1 can see there would be no adr vantage. If when the governor general gives assent to this legislation sections 9, 10, 11 and 16 are included and become effective, I am prepared to accept the legislation as a reasonable beginning towards finding a better way of marketing western grain. But if we have to depend upon government action to bring these sections into force by proclamation, through orders in council, I say that as it stands the bill is without significance and is of no value to the western grain grower. The decision whether this will be simply another piece of legislation with no real value will depend upon the attitude of the government which may be in power.
I appeal to the Prime Minister to make the necessary change whereby when the legislation passes it may become effective, so that we may know exactly where we stand, and so that the farmers of western Canada may know whether or not the legislation contains any hope or whether that hope is deipendent upon the attitude of future governments.
Grain Board


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Smith, Cumberland) :: Earlier in the afternoon an amendment was moved by Mr. Roberge. As translated it reads as follows:
That Bill No. 98 be amended in the following manner:
(1)	That the title of the bill be the follow, ing: "An act providing for the establishment
and definition of duties of the Canadian Grain and Other Farm Products Board."
(2)	By substituting the following section
for section 1.	"1. The present act may be
cited under the title: An act respecting the Canadian Grain and Other Farm Products Board, 1935."
(3)	By adding at the end of subsection (1) of section 2 the following paragraph:
"(f) other products of the farm" means in the present act:	butter, cheese and maple
sugar.
(4)	By substituting the following subsection for subsection (1) of section 3:
"3 (1) a board to be known as the Canadian Grain and Other Farm Products Board is constituted; it is composed of three members appointed by. the governor in council."
(5)	By adding the following subsection at the end of section 7:
"(3) the board may grant a bonus of 5 cents a pound on the sale of each pound of butter, cheese and maple sugar, sold by farmers who have no grain to sell or who do not benefit by the present act in any other way."
(6)	By adding the following subsection at the end of section 13:
" (2) the board may also adopt regulations respecting the application of subsection (3) of section 7."
Obviously the amendment is out of order. It deals with several sections of the bill which are not at present before the committee, and I am bound to declare that in my judgment it is out of order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a money measure.


John Vallance: Mr. Chairman, I have paid a great deal of attention to the discussion that has taken place on the bill that is now before the committee, and I can hardly follow the reasoning of the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) when he says that this board will be almost inoperative unless clauses 9, 10, 11 and 16 of the original bill are included in this bill. If he has read the bill, and I assume he has, I am sure he will agree that any power that was given to Mr. McFarland was given to this board; indeed the board has even greater power, because when it comes to the fixing of the initial payment the board has power to do whatever it chooses. Whether clauses 9, 10, 11 and 16 were in the bill or not, the board has still the same power to set the price, and the fact that these clauses are not in the bill does not mean that the board will act any differently from what they would if they were in the bill. So I do not see very much in that point.
1 Mr. Gardiner.]
The hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas) compared the functions of this board with those of the pools. I do not think it is fair to make such a comparison, because this board, to begin with, has the financial backing of the government. It has that financial security; it will not be under the dictation of the banks and subjected to the many other influences to which the pools were subjected. If the fears expressed by the hon. member for Camrose were realized and became a factor in the operation of this act, the board itself would have the power to set aside certain sections of this act which would give the board all the necessary power it required subject to the approval of the governor in council.
All governments and every member of the committee, whether politically minded or not, are agreed that something must be done, and regardless of the political affiliations of the members of the committee I believe that this bill represents the best intentions of the committee to deal with the present situation. We believe we have got something in this bill that can be recommended to this house and to the Canadian people. I will say this without fear of contradiction, that in my opinion there was no political thought in the framing of this bill or in the discussions of the committee, more especially when we got in camera. On the contrary there was a desire, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell), on the part of all members of the committee to frame a bill that would be acceptable to all concerned.
I listened to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) this afternoon and I could not follow his logic at all. When Mr. Mclvor was giving evidence he said that the cost to the government of the volume of wheat now held by Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited amounted to 85-9 cents per bushel. Surely my hon. friend is not arguing that the farmer got that 85 cents, because some of this wheat has been carried for three years, and it costs 10 cents a bushel a year to carry it. As Mr. Mclvor pointed out, the 15 cents excess that the farmer had got because of the operations of Mr. McFarland was, to use his own words, hypothetical. The question was hypothetical and the answer was hypothetical. I know that all the members in the southeast corner of the house who have taken any part in this discussion are themselves farmers. Are they going to tell me that many of the farmers in Peace River and northern Saskatchewan and Alberta who took less than 15 cents a bushel in 1932 are going to find any consola-

Grain Board
tion in the fact that they have 15 hypothetical cents in their pockets?
: There has been some discussion as to the control of production. We are probably all to blame for the extent to which production has increased. Ever since I have been a ..member of this house the hon. member for Peace River has insistently in season and out of season advocated the building of a railroad out of Peace River, and what would such a railroad have meant to the possibilities of production in that great country from which he comes? He knows, as every hon. member knows who has given any consideration to the problem of lessening production, that there are large areas in the western prairies which are useless for any purpose other than the growing of wheat, and where if the people were not producing wheat ninety-five per cent of them would have to leave that part of the country.
There are other factors that enter into the carry-over of wheat. I think the farmer members who addressed this house before I did will agree with me that if live stock had been at a little better price, or even at to-day's prices, the carry-over of wheat would not have been as great in Canada as it is . to-day, but you cannot feed wheat at 45 cents a bushel to 3 and 3|-<cents a pound hogs.


Mr. MULLINS:: Does the hon. member
know that they are 10J cents on the Toronto market?


John Vallance: That is to-day. I said
that if prices were what they are to-day a lot of the surplus wheat would have been fed to hogs and cattle.
It has been pointed out that the Argentine must sell her wheat because she has not storage facilities. Is the hon. member for Acadia going to argue that because the Canadian farmer has been so efficient in building up great storage facilities, which he has built and paid for, he shall be crucified on that account? Is that any argument? Why should the Argentine or Australia build more storage facilities to. take care of their crop, as we have done, if they can get rid of their wheat? That argument is simply ridiculous.
As one of the members of the committee, having in mind the huge carry-over and the general position in which the wheat producer finds himself in Canada, and having in mind also the larger world picture, this Bill No. 98 in my opinion is one of the best efforts that could be made in the present circumstances, having the whole world picture in mind.
I do not propose to go into the evidence that was submitted to. the committee. What
are the difficulties that we are facing? 1 think that the greatest difficulty with which we are faced is the large carry-over of 228 , ipillion bushels.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is hardly correct.


John Vallance: At the least it has been put at 180 million to 200 million bushels; but whatever the exact figure is, it represents a large carry-over, and we have to compete oil the world market with both Australia and the Argentine, our greatest competitors who have year after year a fixed policy with regard to wheat.
Coming back to my friends in the comer of the house, let me say that I am one of those who believe as they do, that Mr McFarland through his stabilization effort* did render to the Canadian wheat grower a service, but let me ask them this question: If Mr. McFarland1 has been so efficient, why this bill? Why the original bill? It has been, said1 that Mr. McFarland was not as successful as he should have been, but I do not propose to go into the ramifications of his actions. It will not do any good to go that, far back to consider the many periods through which the wheat grower has gone. However, I do propose to discuss this bill as it is applied to the problems with which we are faced.
I should like again to direct the attention of t'he committee to the type of organization in existence in the Argentine. When the resolution was before the house, the house seemed to be of the opinion that there was more	than	one marketing agency in	theArgentine. I hold in my hand a publication put out by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hanson) dealing with the grain situation in the Argentine, and giving a resume of the activities of the control board for the past year. In order to make my point	that	they do	have more than	oneagency, I should like to read one paragraph of this report. I might mention that I drew	this	report to	the attention of	thecommittee in order to convince the chairman,	if he needed	convincing, that	the
Argentine had met only the control board. The paragraph reads:
There has been only average activity on the market here during the past month. Prices have remained fairly steady, with a slight upward tendency towards the end, when the millers wrere competing for parcels of good quality to meet current needs. The announcement of the control board that whilst it would buy new wheat at the same rates as last year it would buy no more of the old crop.
I think that proves beyond a doubt that the system in the Argentine is similar to
Grain Board

that being proposed by this bill. Australia has a board and provides subsidies to her growers of three pence, or six cents, per bushel marketed and three shillings, or seventy-five cents, per acre sown. In the face of the necessity of meeting competition of that kind I was convinced that it was necessary to take some action at this session. I suggest that the bill now before us is about as good a compromise as could be arrived at. There are some features of the bill which I should like to see improved, but taking it all in all, I think it must be commended. If the hon. member for Acadia will read section 7 of the bill he will find there set out the powers of the board and I believe he will agree that they are greater than those ever held by John I. McFarland. Mr. McFarland was subject to order in council the same as this board will be. One of the powers of this board is:
(a)	to receive and take delivery of wheat for marketing as offered by the producers thereof.
That is a very essential section. The definition of producer is as follows:
"Producer" includes, as well as any person actually engaged in production of wheat, any person entitled, whether as landlord, vendor, mortgagee or otherwise, by contract or operation of law to the wheat grown by a producer or to any share therein.
It will be remembered that the five cent wheat bonus was paid only to the actual grower of wheat. I might interject here that I am a farmer but as I was not actively working the 'land behind the plough and the harrow it was not my privilege to receive any of that bonus, even though I was paying the operating costs and carrying the whole load.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But your tenant did.


John Vallance: Yes. Under this definition it will be possible for an owner as well as a tenant to take advantage of the bill. Section 6 of the bill is also to be commended. There is a belief abroad in Canada that some of the mistakes made by Mr. McFarland, provided that we admit that mistakes were made, might have been prevented had a board been set up instead of a one man commission. We have gone even further in this bill; we propose to set up an advisory committee. The section reads:
The governor in council may appoint during pleasure an advisory committee to advise the board, which committee shall consist of not more than seven members of whom four shall represent wheat producers.
[Mr. Vallance.1
The section then goes on to define the functions of this committee. The committee may be called at least once a month and it must report to the minister. Section 7 deals with the powers of the board. It reads, in part:
(e) to pay to producers delivering wheat at the time of delivery or at any time thereafter as may be agreed upon such fixed price per bushel,-
There were some who thought that a clause should be inserted to provide that the fixed price should cover at least the cost of production. It would be very difficult to determine the cost of production of a bushel of wheat. In some portions of the west the average crop will be between 30 and 45 bushels per acre, while in other portions the average is around 12 bushels. The average for the whole province of Saskatchewan is 16 bushels per acre, so it will be seen that it would be very difficult to arrive at the cost of producing a bushel of wheat.
We come now to section 8 which further defines the duties of the board. This section reads, in part:
(k) to make such investigations as from time to time it may deem necessary of the operations of the Winnipeg Grain and Produce Clearing Association and the Winnipeg Grain Exchange in their dealings with wheat and other grains where such wheat and other grains are the subject of transactions affecting interprovincial or international trade, and for the purposes aforesaid the board shall have, without the issue of any commission, all the power and authority conferred upon a commissioner appointed under the Inquiries Act, being chapter ninety-nine of the revised statutes of Canada. 1927, and shall from time to time report to the minister the result of such investigations.
I think this section gives us a weapon to investigate the transactions of the grain exchange. It will be noticed that the board can buy only from producers and that it has no right to buy hedges. The trade itself will have to depend on some other organization to take up their hedges. I contend that the very apposite result to that referred to by the hon. member for Acadia will result from the operations of this board. I believe that the board will have such control of the market that the trade will take very little grain. In my opinion the board will take seiventy-five per cent of the grain offered.
I do not know that I can say anything further. I am like the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell): if anyone oan suggest an amendment while we are taking up this bill clause by clause which will benefit the producer any more than he is benefited by this bill, I shall support it.

Companies Act-Senate Amendments


Richard Bedford Bennett: If agreeable to hon.
gentlemen opposite, I was going to ask that the committee be allowed to rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again to-day in order that the Secretary of State might, by leave of the house, -move concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to the Companies Act. With one exception, they are of a minor character. He will not be here this evening.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aes.
Progress reported.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I asked my hon. friends opposite to agree to have the committee considering Bill No. 98 rise and report progress in order that the Secretary of State, who is compelled to be absent this evening, might move concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to the Companies Act. The Secretary of State, with the leave of the house, will proceed accordingly; he has discussed them with the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston).


COMPANIES ACT, 1934, AMENDMENT CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: With the consent of the house, I move that the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 85, to amend the Companies Act, 1934. be now read a first and second time and concurred in. These amendments are not important, except that in one or two sections I doubt whether the language of the amendments is an improvement on the language we decided upon in this house. For instance, the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth and the Prime Minister agreed upon the words, "a just and adequate consideration therefor," -and the Senate amendment strikes out these words and substitutes the following: "the fair equivalent of cash to the total nominal amount of the shares proposed to be issued."


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: An insult to this house.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The original bill imposed a
penalty on directors who might speculate in shares of the company. The Senate has retained the penalty against speculation but it has struck out the definition of speculation. There are one or two verbal amendments. It is made clearer that certain provisions apply to public companies and not to private companies. That was agreed upon by the committee of the whole of this house.
If I may be allowed to refer to a discussion that took place in another place, I agree with the purport of the remarks of the leader of the opposition in that place when he said that after careful consideration he believed that this bill as amended was the best that could be agreed upon at the present time under present conditions, and for that reason I ask this house to concur in this motion.
Perhaps it would be well to go over the different amendments. Section 2 of the bill amended section 5 of the act, and a. new provision, subsection (4), is added:
"(4) If any company-
(a)	carries on any business which is _ not
within the scope of the purposes or objects set forth in the letters patent or supplementary letters patent, or	_
(b)	exercises or professes to exercise any powers which are not truly ancillary or reasonably incidental to the purposes or objects set forth in the letters patent or supplementary letters patent, or
(c)	exercises or professes to exercise any powers expressly excluded by the letters patent or supplementary letters patent,
such company shall be liable to be wound up and to be dissolved if the Attorney-General of Canada upon receipt of a certificate of the Secretary of State setting forth his opinion that such company has carried on business or exercised or professed to exercise powers as in this section provided, applies to a court of competent jurisdiction for an order that the company be wound up under the provisions of the Winding-Up Act."
The language is slightly changed. I do not think there is any difference in intent, and I think the section as amended may be adopted. Section 3 of the bill referred to the purposes and objects which it is intended that the company shall actively pursue. They have struck out the word "actively" so that it reads "shall pursue." In line 20 on page 2, section 4 of the bill, they have changed the word "shall" to the word "may." Perhaps "may" is the more appropriate term.


James Layton Ralston: The Secretary of State
was good enough to send me a memorandum showing these amendments. There is one to which attention is called:
2. Page 2, line 4. Leave out the underlining of line 4. Underline lines 6 and 7.
Is that purely for the purpose of assisting us in considering the amendments?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes. The only change was the striking out of the word "actively." In section 5 a change is made by substituting for the words "just and adequate consideration therefor" the words "the fair equivalent of cash to the total nominal amount of the shares so issued," and a provision is inserted that an application may be ex parte on summary peti-
4256	COMMONS
Companies Act-Senate Amendments
tion to a judge to determine whether such consideration was the fair equivalent of cash to the nominal amount of the shares so issued.
Then in the same section 5, a new subsection 11 has been inserted, as follows:
Nothing in the next preceding subsection shall be deemed to prevent the issue, under authority of provision therefor-
I think the expression "under authority of provision therefor" is a rather crude expression.
-either by letters patent or by-law, of any preferred shares to which are attached preferential voting rights, exercisable in a stated event only, although, in the stated event, an exclusive right to control or manage is attached to or is incident to such preferred shares.
Evidently the intention of the Senate is to provide in the case of holders of preference shares that if dividends are not declared upon the preference shares, it may be provided by by-law that the preferred shareholders shall thereupon have a larger direction and control in the management of the company.


James Layton Ralston: Or the whole control.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Which is the usual term of the existing law in connection with certificates.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In section 6 of the bill they have reinserted paragraph (f): "Classify or reclassify any shares without par value." In section 7 they have inserted in the 44th line the word "voting" between "dividend" and "return of capital," and have added to that this provision:
Provided that no limitations shall be imposed upon the right to vote.
It is rather casuistical, but I think we may accept it. Then in section 7 they have substituted the following for subsection 2:
(2) Without limiting the generality of the foregoing any such by-laws may provide that the holders of such preferred shares shall have the right to select a certain stated proportion of the board of directors or may give them such other control or may so limit their control over the affairs of the company as is considered expedient-
The remaining words stay the same. That is an express provision that certain rights may be given to the preferred shareholders with regard to the selection of a stated proportion of the directors and otherwise controlling the company.
With regard to section 9, I pointed out when the bill was before the house that in the definition of the word "underwriter" we had in

the act of 1934 provided a definition in two clauses which in the act are described as paragraphs (a) and Ob), and I stated that doubts were entertained whether the proposed paragraph (c) of the bill was within the competence of this parliament. The Senate have declared that paragraph (c), which appears on page 5 of the bill beginning at line 43, is in their opinion not within the competence of this parliament, and they have struck it out.
Again, where in the bill the draughtsman endeavoured to provide an indirect way of compelling allottees of the company's shares to comply with certain conditions with regard to their resale to third parties, by providing that the company should insist upon those allottees making a contract with the company that they would not distribute or resell except upon compliance with certain conditions, the Senate did not agree with that provision which appears on page 7 of the bill as subsection 4, and they have struck it out and reinstated the subsection 4 of the 1934 act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What does my hon. friend think of that?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I wish my right hon. friend would not invite an expression of my personal opinion. In section 12 there was a provision with regard to declaration of dividends when the company is insolvent, that no account should be "taken of any increase in the surplus or reserves of the company resulting merely from the writing up of the assets of the company, unless such writing up shall have been made more than five years before the date of such declaration." The Senate have changed the words "more than five years before the date of such declaration" to "more than five years before the date of the declaration of the dividend," to make it clearer.
In section 14 they have made section 94A apply to a public company, and where the bill provides that in the case of any officer of the company becoming aware of any impairment of the capital of the company, he "shall forthwith inform the directors of the nature and extent of such impairment," they have inserted the word "substantial" before the word "impairment," so that it applies to a "substantial impairment."
As I have said, on page 9 of the bill in section 15 they have struck out the definition of "speculate," and they have revised section 96B so as to substitute for the words "a just and adequate consideration therefor" the words "the fair equivalent of cash to the total nominal amount of the shares proposed to be issued." Then there has been a slight

Companies Act-Senate Amendments
change on page 11 in paragraph (g) with regard to the balance sheet which reads:
(g) lands, buildings and plant, stating the basis of valuation, whether cost or otherwise, and, if valued on the basis of appraisal, the date of appraisal and the name of the appraiser and the amount, if any, by which the value of such assets has been written up.
They have changed that somewhat to read:
(g) lands, buildings and plant, stating the basis of valuation, whether cost or otherwise, and. if valued on the basis of appraisal, _ the date of appraisal, the name of the appraiser, and, if the surplus of the company has been increased as a result thereof, the amount by which the value of such assets has been written up within a period of three years prior to the date of such balance sheet.
That period of three years is a restriction which I think is reasonable. Then with regard to the writing up of good will, they have added a similar provision to the effect that this writing up shall be shown, in the balance sheet if it has taken place within a period of three years prior to the date of such balance sheet. In section 18 with regard to that provision they have inserted the words "in the case of a company not being a private company" so as to make the new section 113 subsection 1 apply to public companies only. That exhausts the lists of important changes or amendments which have been made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It seems to me from what my hon. friend has said that the original bill is either vastly disfigured or greatly improved. I wish he would tell us which.


James Layton Ralston: Striking out the definition of speculation and still leaving ini the penalty for speculation seems to me to leave the act in a dangerous position. The only protection is that no action can be brought except with the consent of the Secretary of State. But as it stands, a director holding shares in a company is practically prohibited from dealing in those shares; for I should think almost everyone who sells or proposes to sell shares or who buys them does it for the purpose of making a profit, and I suppose that comes within the dictionary definition of speculation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am bound to say that that section gave me some concern, but as it stands it appears to me it would be left to judicial determination whether or not in the facts of any case there was what in law is speculation. I appreciate the point the hon. member makes; it does impose very considerable obligations on directors who may be dealing in the shares of their companies. Yet
the test is this, is it not: Were they bought as investments or were they bought for the purpose really covered by the definition in the bill as it left this house? I have always appreciated the difficulty, and perhaps the hon. gentleman is more qualified by experience in recent years than I to appreciate it, of being able to determine by definition what constitutes speculation. We did endeavour to do it, but the Senate thought it was not wise to do so, and leaves it to judicial determination. I think it would be fatal to remove the penalty; it would 'be better to leave it there and trust to judicial discretion not to work a hardship on any person whose dealing with shares might possibly fall within what in some quarters would be regarded as speculation and in others as investment.


Mr. HACKETT:: I had hoped that the word "public" would be inserted in section 16, line 40, on page 10, between the word "any" and the word "company" otherwise all the restrictions which had been enacted in regard to public companies are going to apply to private companies, where it seems to me there is no reason they should apply.


Mr. POULIOT:: If it does not apply to private companies what is the use of that legislation?


John Thomas Hackett: If my hon. friend knew more about companies he would not ask the question.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know about the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) and that is why I ask it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that is covered. In subsection (2) of section 98B, page 9:
(1) The directors of a public company shall not authorize the issue and allotment as fully paid shares in the capital stock of the company v. .
It is a public company; it says so. The only one that is left out is the one to which the amendment was made, and the word "public" added to make it clear.


James Layton Ralston: By the Senate just now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, exactly.


Jean-François Pouliot: The only way to prevent speculation is to forbid speculation at all. That is the only way to cure all those evils
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
Grain Board

After Recess
The house resumed a.t eight o'clock.


CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD
[Stage Direction]
The house again in committee on Bill No. 98, to * provide for the constitution and powers of the Canadian grain boards-Mr. Bennett-Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Charles A. Stewart: 
[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Definition.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
province of British Columbia was not directly represented on the committee which considered the bill. I suggest to the Prime Minister that on account of the importance of Vancouver as a grain port and the possibility of oriental trade passing through that port, British Columbia be given representation either on the board or on the advisory committee.


Mr. REID:: I have a question I should
like to ask in connection with paragraph (e) of subsection 1. A great deal has been heard this afternoon about producers, but very little has been said about consumers, and I should like to make some observations concerning the consumers of British Columbia, and to ask the Prime Minister why that province should be included in the bill. I could see no great harm in its being left out. When one realizes that in the year 1930 the yield in Ontario was over 20,000.000 bushels while in British Columbia it was only a little over 1,000,000 bushels one is at a loss to understand why British Columbia should be included and Ontario left out. Then the point of view of the consumer has not been considered. British Columbia is a consuming province; we consume more than we produce. In ordinary years the poultry industry of our province uses between 8,000,000 and 10,000,000 bushels of wheat from the prairie provinces, but we produce only a little more than 1,000000 bushels. Upon looking over the bill I am wondering what will happen to the poultry producers of the Fraser Valley if a price above the world price is set. I venture to say that we would have an unjust condition if the province of British Columbia were

Grain Board
called upon to pay a set price higher than the world price, when we are shouldered with a freight rate twice as high as that enjoyed by Ontario and other provinces.


Mr. WILLIS:: Let them eat barley.


Thomas Reid: I could discuss barley, too.
You tried to put that over last year, but it was no good. It shows you know very little about poultry business when you start talking about barley. Right now I am talking about something I know something about.
I believe an explanation is due British Columbia indicating why that province is included in the bill. If it is included because it is a wheat producing province, the answer is that we produce only 1,000,000 bushels, and when we compare that small output with an output of 20,000,000 bushels from another province it seems strange that that province should be left out while we are included. Only a few days ago we were complaining about being excluded from a bill, but to-day my complaint is that we are being included and other provinces are being left out. I should like an explanation from the Prime Minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: British Columbia is included because the British Columbia wheat producers in the Peace River district desire to be included. Substantially speaking, they are producers of wheat across the line dividing Alberta and British Columbia. If the hon. gentleman is speaking for the province of British Columbia and states that these wheat producers desire to have British Columbia excluded from the bill, I am content.


Thomas Reid: It is all right for the Prime Minister to ask me if I am speaking for the province of British Columbia. Only a few days ago we heard that the attorney general was speaking for that province. I will admit that I cannot speak for British Columbia, but I still say I have not received an answer to my question, namely, why Ontario with a production of 20,000,000 bushels is left out and British Columbia with a much smaller production is included. I hope the bill is in no way designed to control our ports. I would draw the attention of the committee to the fact that in 1933 over 100,000,000 bushels of wheat issued from the Pacific ports as against only 83,000,000 for all other Canadian ports. The decrease in exports of Canadian grain through United States ports has been due to the splendid advantages which Vancouver and New Westminster offer in the shipping of grain.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will the Prime Minister consider the representations that have been made regarding representation of British Columbia on the board?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Like the hon. gentleman I have received telegrams from Vancouver asking that they be given representation on the board, and indicating that they are greatly interested in the exportation of wheat. We have not yet reached that stage, the bill not having been passed, but the representations that have been made will be given every consideration. Ontario is not included in this bill; it is not a producer of wheat for export, but the Peace River valley in British Columbia is exporting wheat. We ascertained that when the five cents a bushel bonus was paid-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) wants curtailment of production.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If it is thought that British Columbia should not be included in the bill I have no desire to press it unduly, but it was represented to us that the wheat producers in that area should not find themselves in a different position from that of neighbouring producers across the imaginary line that divides British Columbia and Alberta. Those familiar with wheat production in Ontario will not make the suggestion that that comes within the bill at all, or could.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Body corporate.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, in the marginal note to subsection 3 the word "arrangements" should be added after the word "banking."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Advisory committee.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will it be the effort to have territorial representation as far as possible on the advisory committee?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The purpose will be to follow the general principles that governed in connection with the old wheat board in 1919. Distributed over the area where the production takes place, four should represent producers, and the balance might be business men or men engaged in shipping or other matters of that sort.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Grain Board
[Stage Direction]
On section 7-Powers of board respecting the marketing of wheat in interprovincial and export trade.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, in line 31 the word "the" should be stricken out before the word "producer" and "producers" should be substituted for "producer"; in line 32 delete the first word "a"; and in the thirty-third line strike out the word "year's" before the word "operations," and after the word "board" in the same line insert the words "during the crop year." The phrase "the crop year" is defined in the grain act and it will be recalled that in the interpretation section of this act it is provided that the words used in this act shall have the meaning given to them by the interpretation section of the grain act.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Robert Gardiner: Referring to line 37,
paragraph (e), the same paragraph to which the Prime Minister has been referring, would the words "such certificate shall not be transferable," prevent anyone from getting a garnishee against these certificates?


Richard Bedford Bennett: "Such certificates" appears in my copy-there is an "s" added, but there may not be in the hon. gentleman's copy. I would not like to express an opinion on the point the hon. gentleman raises, because the law of the province would govern with respect to that; it would be a matter purely of provincial law. In general my answer would be no, for it is essential that there should be an affidavit that there is a debt due by the board to the individual in question and it could not in my opinion be properly affirmed that there was a debt due under the circumstances indicated. But each province has its own law governing the question of garnishees, and I would not care to express a definite opinion upon the point.


William Thomas Lucas: I realize that under this section we cannot fix a price, but I do believe there should be something in the bill to the effect that the fixed price should bear some relation to the cost of production or be a price which would enable the farmer to carry on. There is a possibility that the fixed price might be set so low that the board would not get any wheat at all, and if that should happen this bill would be of very little benefit to the producer. I wonder if the Prime Minister could see his way clear to meeting that difficulty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I tried to explain to the committee that there was one thing I was not prepared to do, and that was to lay down a

rule by which a fixed price might be determined, because we might include four factors and omit the fifth which might be the governing factor. To undertake to indicate in a bill of this kind all the factors which would be considered by the board would be something in my opinion that would be injurious to the very interests that the hon. gentleman desires to serve. It will be observed, however, that this price must be approved by the governor in council, and if in fixing that price disregard has been had of factors that should have been considered, then obviously it would be the duty of the government, whoever might comprise the government, to deal with the matter in a proper sense. I have no idea at the moment as to what price would be fixed, but I think I could name immediately five or six factors that would govern in fixing a price. For instance, the entire world's production would be a factor; the demands of the importing countries would be a factor; the cost of production averaged would be a factor. It would be very difficult to say that the cost of production in every section of western Canada would be the same. In the evidence before the committee one gentleman spoke of a cost of production that in my judgment was entirely too low, and in other cases I heard suggestions made which the farmers regarded as too high. All these are factors. The first factors I mentioned deal with supply and demand in reality. I could name many other factors if it would serve any useful purpose, but I still think it is undesirable to undertake to state in this bill all these circumstances or contingencies that would have to do with the fixing of the price; but inasmuch as the government must ultimately take responsibility for approving the price I think the interests of the producers may be said to be adequately safeguarded.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I should like to make one comment on paragraph (e), emphasizing one point and perhaps enlarging on what was said by the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas). The clause which provides for certain sections coming into force only by proclamation may be looked upon as the centre around which the entire value of the bill will revolve. As I see it, the bill makes fairly adequate provision to enable the board to carry on their operations of buying the crop from the producer and marketing it. It gives them full power to bring order out of chaos, and to the degree that wheat is in their hands to prevent speculation and gambling in that commodity. I think it will

Grain Board
be realized that the entire power of the board to carry that into effect will depend upon the board handling at least a very large percentage of the wheat. This will depend wholly upon the provisions of this bill as to the fixed or initial price. In this respect I think the phraseology of the amended bill is a distinct improvement upon the original bill. As the bill was originally introduced it provided that an initial payment should be made, but under other provisions of tJhe bill it was obvious that that payment would be based upon the expectations of what the wheat might sell for in the final result. Under the previous bill that initial payment would have had to be made low enough to safeguard the board and make sure that the final proceeds would cover not only the payment made to the farmer but the costs of operation. I think this is a distinct improvement which has been brought about by sending the bill to the special committee. It makes the proper provision for the payment of what is in effect not only an initial payment but a minimum price.
May I emphasize again the point that the whole success of this bill will depend upon the minimum price being set at a point where the wheat will be delivered to the board. This price might be set so low as to make the legislation inoperative. The trade is being left perfectly at liberty to carry on exactly as it has carried on, except that the hedging support which was given in the past under the stabilization scheme will be withdrawn and the trade will be obliged to take their own risks or find someone else to hedge their futures. If the disparity between the initial payment and the market price is too great the trade will be able to carry on as at present. I believe we have present this evening representatives of the present and future governments. I am not saying who will be the future government, but I think I am safe in saying that its representatives are in the chamber at the present time. I want to impress upon the members of that government, and on the members of the present government in the interim, that there lies the crux and the centre of the power of this legislation. If the price is set high enough, the great bulk of the wheat will be sold through the board and it will not find its way into private hands and the purpose of the bill will be accomplished. Order will thus be brought out of chaos and speculation in our foodstuffs will be reduced or will disappear altogether. I do not think it is too much to say that the responsibility will rest upon that government of deciding whether or not this legislation will be operative and whether or not 92582-2701
the grain exchange will be permitted to carry on its operations. Upon that government will rest the responsibility of deciding what is going to be the final result of this policy.
I realize the error of placing any restriction upon the board and the governor in council in the setting of a minimum price. The Prime Minister outlined some of the difficulties in this connection, and I think I can see still others. It is impossible to set up legislation as a guide to what that minimum or fixed price should be. I realize that, and I realize also that the inability of parliament to make this bill effective by law places a greater responsibility upon whatever government may be called upon to exercise its discretion. I do not think that can be too thoroughly understood by the people of this country and by the producers whom this bill seeks to relieve. In the final analysis it will rest upon the government in power at that time to say whether or not this bill will serve its purpose. The producers should be in a position to know exactly who is responsible for the success or failure of this legislation.


James Layton Ralston: Could the Prime Minister indicate the terms upon which contracts for future delivery of wheat are to be acquired from the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited under section 5? Is it contemplated that these contracts will be taken over at cost or will the board simply take the place of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited with the banks?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I said in committee,
it is contemplated at the moment-of course what I say is subject to revision-that the board will take the place of the producers limited in connection with wheat but not in connection with other grains.


James Layton Ralston: There will be no profit
or loss so far as Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited are concerned in their operations in wheat?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what is contemplated at the moment, but I want to make it abundantly clear that conditions may arise which may vary that statement.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-duties of the board.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I have some slight
amendments to suggest to this section. We propose to strike out the word "market" in subsection (b), line 5, and substitute therefor the words "sell and dispose of". The beginning of that clause will then read, "to
Grain Board

sell and dispose of from time to time." Then strike out the words "or contracts" in the fifth line and the words "for the purchase or delivery of wheat" in the sixth line.


James Layton Ralston: I thought that was done
in the committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was the intention.
Then in subsection (e), line 19, add the words "to the minister" after the word "writing," and delete the words "to the minister" at the end of line 19 and the beginning of line 20. This is simply changing the position of the words; the clause will then read "to report in writing to the minister on Friday of each week. Then substitute the word "its" for the word "the" in line 21, the clause then reading, "showing as at the end of the preceding week its purchases and sales of wheat." Then strike out the word "period" in line 21 and substitute the word "week". The clause will then read, "sales of wheat during such week." Then delete the words "to the date of such report" at the end of line 24 and the beginning of line 25. That is already covered by what has been said. "Auditors" should be with a small "a". In clause (f), at the end of line 27, the word "other" should be struck out; there is no need of it.


James Layton Ralston: With regard to the amendment to clause (e) I am wondering whether the Prime Minister is quite satisfied that as amended it requires the board to bring the report of the financial operations right up to date, or whether it will not confine the report of the financial operations to the particular week under discussion. It depends on what he has in mind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it is intended to make clear that the very point the hon. gentleman has in mind shall be before the auditors. Let us look at it as amended:
to report in writing on Friday of each week to the minister, showing as at the end' of the preceding week its purchases and sales of wheat during such week and the wheat on hand and contracts to take delivery of wheat then held, the cost of the same to the board and the financial result of the board's operations, which report shall be certified by the auditors of the board.


James Layton Ralston: I think that is all right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman prefers to have the words "to the date of such report" remain, I have no objection.


James Layton Ralston: Probably the Prime Minister is right. When you do not limit it, it includes all the financial operations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If there is any doubt about it those particular words can remain, but I think it is sounder drafting to put it as I have proposed.


James Layton Ralston: If the Prime Minister is
satisfied, I am.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At the top of page 5 a change should be made, and in this regard I ask the committee's opinion. I understand that there is a grain exchange at Vancouver which is on much the same lines as the exchange at Winnipeg. It might therefore be well to add after the word "Winnipeg" in the first line the words "and Vancouver," and make the word "exchange" "exchanges."


James Layton Ralston: There is a clearing house association there too.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think so; I believe there is only the grain exchange at Vancouver. Then, instead of the word "with" in the first line on page 5 there should be the word "in"-"their dealings in wheat." I move these amendments.


Robert Gardiner: What will be the position of the board when it takes over the contracts of Wheat Producers Limited if the words at the beginning of (b) in section 8 be struck out, "to market from time to time all wheat or contracts for the purchase or delivery of wheat?" Would the board still have an opportunity of dealing with these contracts and disposing of them?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In paragraph (f) of section 7, the hon. gentleman will observe, power is conferred upon the board to acquire from Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited not only wheat but their contracts to purchase or take delivery of wheat in respect of which the government of Canada has given a guarantee.


Mr. YOUNG:: Suppose these contracts are all due in October, will the board have to dispose of them before then or can they turn them over?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They can take delivery.


Edward James Young: Will that be their only option, to take the wheat?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was what was intended. If the hon. gentleman thinks it desirable, it can be changed.


Edward James Young: No; I only wanted to
know the intention.


Alfred Speakman: In subsection (b) of
section 8 lies apparently the direction given regarding the sales policy of the board. I

Grain Board
might not have thought it necessary to mention this at all were it mot that the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), quite rightly, stressed the importance of this particular clause and' gave his interpretation of its meaning and the intent of parliament with regard to it, and the direction conveyed by the clause to the board in respect of its sales policy. I have no desire whatever to misinterpret in any sense the gist of the hon. gentleman's remarks, nor am I competent to enter his mind to know exactly what lay behind the argument he used. But certainly I gathered this impression from his interpretation-and after all interpretations may become serious if they become part of governmental policy at a later date-that a distinct change was to be expected as a result of this clause in the policy of the board as compared with the policy which had been carried1 out by Wheat Producers Limited through the operations of Mr. McFarland, and that a policy of much greater activity in the sale of wheat and the pushing of that commodity on the markets of the world was not only anticipated but expected. I think that is putting it fairly and not in any sense misquoting the hon. gentleman. It seems to me that the clause may be interpreted in that way if it is intended to carry out the objects stated, that is, if the sole object which shall actuate the board in exercising discretion as to what it considers a reasonable price shall be that indicated in the last clause:
-with the object of promoting the sale and use of Canadian wheat in world markets.
That is a most desirable object, but if it is the only factor to be considered when the board is determining what is a reasonable price, and if the price to be received is to be governed wholly by that consideration and need have no relation either to the intrinsic value of the wheat or the cost of production, or to the effect of ito sale on the producers and on the country, then it 'becomes a serious matter. I believe that .in this clause discretion is given the board with regard to the question what shall constitute a reasonable price, and I am simply stressing at the moment my belief that any board which took this as its direction, that a reasonable price was merely to be the best price that could be obtained, .and at the same time endeavoured to make the greatest sale possible in world trade, would be falling far short of its objective. The only proper interpretation, if .the bill is to be of value, would be that the abject should be to promote the
greatest, possible sale and use of Canadian wheat in world trade consonant with a reasonable price being paid having relation to the intrinsic value of the wheat, the cost of producing that wheat and the price which the producers might thereby ultimately receive. I think that would have to be kept very firmly in mind by the board, and while the board itself has discretion in this regard; while no statement is made as to approval by order in council or any suggestion made that the government itself shall have any voice in that price, I think we can take it for granted that a government which has made itself responsible for the financing, one that has been consulted in regard to and made itself partly responsible for the initial price, will be a somewhat effective influence with the board as to the price at which the wheat will be sold. I am simply pointing out again that the purpose of the bill could be defeated and the price to the producers put down below any reasonable limits if the board had1 in mind in ' carrying out these instructions only the sale of the greatest quantity of wheat which it could sell on the world's markets.


Errick French Willis: It so happens that to-day the Liverpool market broke four cents. I do not know whether that break in the market has any connection with paragraph (c) of section 8 which is the selling policy indicated by this bill. Lest it be thought-and I do not think this is in the mind of anyone in this chamber -that the wheat board intends to dump the stocks of wheat on the markets of the world, I think the other meaning of .paragraph (c) of section 8 should be given some emphasis. It reads:
To sell and dispose of stocks of wheat and contracts for the delivery of wheat acquired from Canadian Co-operative Wheat Producers Limited and the wheat represented by such contracts as speedily as may be reasonably possible, having regard to economic and other conditions.
I desire to refer particularly to those "economic and other conditions," because it would be a very bad thing if any thought went out from this bill or from its clauses that we in this country were going either to dump our wheat on the markets of the world, or on the other hand unduly to withhold it from those markets. Therefore it might be interesting to mention some of the difficulties, some of those things which would prevent us from dumping our wheat on the markets of the world at this time. I desire to make a short quotation from the evidence of Mr. John I,
Grain Board

McFarland before 'the banking and commerce committee on March 22, 1934. He said:
Looking back at the problems that have confronted Canada, as well as other exporting countries, we find France with an 85 cents per bushel duty, with restrictions on milling and quotas, protecting their farmers up to the hilt so that they will get big prices for their wheat and encourage them to raise more; and that has been going on for three years. Germany with $1.62 duty doing the same thing. Italy with $1.03 duty and doing the same thing, their farmers all protected behind great tariff barriers, barriers that it is impossible for our farmers to climb over. Then there are other lesser countries doing the same thing to a smaller degree but to a considerable extent increasing the prices to the native farmers in those countries. Then we look at Australia. Australia is -bonusing her farmers. This year they are paying $1,500,000 to their farmers. The Argentine has virtually got a wheat board, giving their farmers a good deal more money for their wheat than what they are selling it at overseas. The United States during this period have spent I don't know how much of that $500,000,000 in support of wheat farmers, in all probability $150,000,000 or $200,000,000 of it has gone to American wheat farmers. Not only that but now they are paying them a processing bonus of so much per bushel in order for the American farmer to get through these trying times of depression. Japan protects her farmers to the extent of about 40 cents a bushel. China protects her farmers against our cheap wheat to the extent of nine cents, I think. These are all the difficulties that our farmers have had to face in these trying times.
Then further down;
I forgot to mention the United Kingdom. Like all other countries, they are helping their farmers to the extent of $1.35 per bushel.
In view of the fact that for the time being at least the selling of wheat will be continued by the same agency, I think I might very well quote from Mr. Mclvor's evidence a paragraph indicating also some of 'the difficulties in regard to selling wheat at this time, and some of the reasons perhaps why we have not sold more. I refer to his evidence as set forth on page 376 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the special committee on Bill No. 98. Mr. Mclvor said;
There are still those who say, however, that Canada might have done better, and this suggestion prompts me to place before this committee a few relevant facts:
(1) All exporting countries, including Canada, have been affected by the reduction of imports into France, Germany and Italy. Broadly speaking, such decreases as have taken place in the other importing countries have been offset by increased requirements in the United Kingdom. Netherlands, Belgium, et cetera.
Let us examine the situation in France, Germany and Italy. From 1924-25 to 1928-29 these countries imported an average of 215,900.000 bushels annually. From 1929-30 to 1933-34 these countries imported an average

of 95,000,000 bushels-an annual reduction of 120,000,000 bushels in the latter period as compared with the former_______
Assuming that we received 40 per cent of the imports of these three countries prior to 1929-30 (a moderate percentage) a market was afforded for about 85,000,000 bushels of Canadian wheat. Last year if we had secured the entire market of these three countries (and we did receive a very large share) we had an outlet for only 26.000,000 bushels. This is one phase of the export problem which must be realized.
(2) It has been repeatedly stated before this committee that Canada should have lowered her price and sold more wheat. Mr. Richardson stated that he could have sold more Canadian wheat if the price had been 70 cents per bushel. I cannot agree with that type of reasoning. Those *who hold that Canada could have sold more wheat by lowering prices must at the same time demonstrate, first that such action would have resulted in the lowering of the spread between Canadian wheat and other wheats, particularly Argentine; and secondly that a narrowing of the spread betwreen Canadian wheat and other wheats would have curtailed the movement of competitive wheats- chiefly Argentine wheat.
Let us briefly deal with these two points. In regard to the first point, namely the possibility of narrowing the spread between Canadian wheat and other wheats, I wish to point out that price as such may not be significant. It is not the absolute price of Canadian wheat which is important but rather the relative price; that is, the relation between the price of Canadian wheat and the price of other wheats.
If we dropped our price ten cents and the Argentine dropped ten cents the relative positions would not have changed and both countries would lose. Actually that is what happened last fall.
Then he goes on to quote the figures in that regard. In addition, without quoting more of the evidence, I think it is interesting to look back to the debacle of 1933, to indicate that the sales agency at that time made large purchases; particularly they purchased on one day 15,705,000 bushels. They have been criticized for that purchase. But from the facts given to the committee, it was very evident that at that time the Chicago exchange had closed, and consequently it was necessary for Mr. fyloFarland to step in and make purchases lest the whole market itself within this country be destroyed. He did that at that time; he made heavy purchases later even though the price was fairly high, but in spite of the purchases which he made, the market continued to decline. It was in the technical phrase a "thin market." Consequently those purchases had to be made. Therefore I think at this time owing to the fact that we do to a degree outline a selling policy, it must be made very evident that there is no intention on the part of anyone

Grain Board
in this country to dump our present wheat supply on the markets of the world. Nor is it the hope of anyone in this house that we should withhold from the markets of the world that wheat which we can sell at prices which will give to the producer some return for his labour.


Alfred Speakman: Just one point in connection with the sales policy in disposing of that surplus. I think that the last speaker (Mr. Willis) is perfectly correct; there is no man in this house who would advocate such a foolish policy as a species of fire sale to get rid of the wheat, knowing its effect on the finances of the country and the price of the crop that is coming .on. That is why I was disturbed by the phraseology used .by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston). The average man not being acquainted personally with the hon. member might not set the same value upon his sanity and wisdom that I might, and without 'that knowledge it is almost impossible to avoid the deduction that this wheat should in effect be forced upon the market regardless of price. My reason for that fear is no't only the language used in connection with this particular item; I am bound to couple that with the suggestion that this should be looked upon as emergency legislation to carry on for one year with the right of extending it for a further year by order in council. The language would indicate that it was at least the hope if not the expectation of the hon. .member that this entire surplus would be wiped out within one or at most two years. I think it is impossible to avoid that deduction from his words. Yet I think every hon. member familiar with the situation and knowing the prospective crop which now faces us will realize that to dispose of this entire surplus in the face of world conditions and the coming crop would be a fire sale policy and absolutely destructive of wheat prices in this country.


Mr. COOTE:: Just a word in regard to the first subsection of section 8, the power of the board to fix a minimum .price. I say on1 behalf of the producers that I think the great majority of them have sold their wheat below cost of production for four years. I hope when this board in consultation with the government comes to set .this price they will bear that in mind, as well as the price that our competitors in the Argentine and Australia are receiving. In that connection I would point out that in the June 1 issue of the Commercial Intelligence Journal there is a dispatch from our trade commissioner in Australia in which he deals wilth the question of wheat there, and he says that the price to the grower at country sidings is approximately three shillings per bushel. Hon. members will realize that that is a price above that which our producers have been getting even with the support that has been given to the market.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, that is sixty cents at the siding.


George Gibson Coote: But when it comes to paying debts and interest, it is equivalent to seventy-two cents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it is a four dollar pound. It is sixty cents.


George Gibson Coote: Well, it perhaps would be in this country, but for the Australian farmer that three shillings is equivalent, in his own currency and dealing with his own internal situation, to seventy-two cents.


James Layton Ralston: May I say a word again with regard to the matter of policy in disposing of this wheat? As far as I am concerned the policy is expressed in the words used in subsections (b) and (c) of section 8. I think those subsections are aptly drafted to indicate to the board the general desire of parliament that wheat should be sold rather than held if opportunity offers and if it is reasonably possible to do it. Nobody has suggested a fire sale; no one has suggested that the wheat will be disposed of in two years. What I have suggested is that in two years we would have experience of the plan, which is a different plan from that which has been in vogue so far, a plan whereby the producer will be paid his minimum or fixed price and the country will then take the responsibility for disposing of the wheat. The producer then, as I see it, will not be affected by the market but will have had his fixed price. That policy is different from the policy which has been followed to date, because so far we have been endeavouring to assure the producer his price by attempting to affect the world market. I hope I have made it clear that subsections (b) and (c) of section 8 express my idea as to the directions we should give to this board, and I think they go as far as we can go in that direction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) asked a question which I think I did not quite understand when I answered. There is special provision in subsection (c) of section 8 to deal with the very question he asked:
(c) to sell and dispose of stocks of wheat and contracts for the delivery of wheat . ..
Amendment agreed to
Grain Board

Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 9 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
On section 13-Deductions from receipts.
Mr. BENNETT I move:
That in line 12, section 13, after the word "certificates," the following word's be inserted: "issued pursuant to paragraph (e) of section 7 of this act."
"Certificates" is too general a word not to be qualified by a clause which provides for their issue. That is the only reason this is added, to show the authority for the issue of them, the terms of them being covered by the regulation.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 14-Application to oats, barley, rye and flax.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I move:
That in line 16 of section 14 the second word, "and," be struck out and the word "or" substituted therefor;
It will then read "rye or flax."
and that in line 19 the word "oats" be struck out, and in line 20 the words "barley, rye and flax, or any one of them"; and that after the word "to" in line 19 the words "such kinds, of grain" be added.
So that it will read:
Whereupon the provisions of this act shall mutatis mutandis apply to such kinds of grain as they apply to wheat.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 15 and 16 agreed to.
On section 17-Operation of act.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I move:
That in line 42 the word "seventeen" be struck out and the word "sixteen" be substituted therefor.


James Layton Ralston: It is "sixteen" in some copies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mine was one of the
first, and I just wanted to be sure.


Robert Gardiner: Have we dealt with the amendment? Would the Prime Minister consider the suggestion I made this afternoon, namely, that sections 9, 10, 11 and 16 become operative when the bill is assented to?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Robert Gardiner: Then I shall have to
move an amendment to that effect. I move, seconded by Mr. Spencer:
That section 17 be amended by striking out the following words:
"Except sections nine, ten, eleven and sixteen,"-"and sections nine, ten, eleven and sixteen shall come into force on proclamation of the governor in council."


Richard Bedford Bennett: All the hon. member
would 'have to do, to obtain the same result, would be to move that section 17 be struck out.


Robert Gardiner: The effect of my amendment would be somewhat different, namely, that the act would come into force when assented to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The rule is that the
act would come into force when assented to unless otherwise provided. If section 17 was struck out it would become effective at once, upon assent being given.
Mr.	GARDINER:	All	right;	put the
question.
The	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	Smith,	Cumberland) :	The question is on the amendment.


Robert Gardiner: No, I am willing to
accept the Prime Minister's statement that it would depend upon whether or not the committee accepted the section.
The	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	Smith,	Cumberland) :	Do you withdraw the amendment?Mr.	GARDINER:	Yes;	put the	question.
Section 17 agreed to on division.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I propose to make a few observations. I have remained in my place all day and have listened to the speeches made upon this bill which was referred to the special committee, and I have had grave doubts as to whether or not it should have been referred to that committee, in view of the discussion which has taken place. It might have been well to go to the committee of the whole on the bill as it originally stood.
The bill as it now stands was put in its present condition on Dominion day by myself. We had met in the morning and I obtained the views of the members of the committee as to what amendments should be made. The hon. member for She'lbume-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) made suggestions which are largely embodied in sections 7 and 8, and I had certain views with respect to the legislation to which I shall presently refer. In the afternoon these were put in the form of the bill

Grain Board-Mr. Bennett
in which it now stands, subject to certain other revisions, and we came back in the evening and agreed upon the bill. We met in the morning, after it had been printed and, with the exception of the desire expressed by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth that there should be a provision whereby it would expire on a given date, the bill was agreed to.
I desire to make clear that the committee heard a large number of witnesses. If it was not to decide on a bill in accordance with the evidence given, the calling of witnesses was only an empty formality. Witnesses were called from Vancouver, Winnipeg and elsewhere. The witnesses from Vancouver spoke of the facilities which through the years had been built up at that port for the transport of wheat and other grain. They spoke of the facilities provided for the chartering of ships and brokers' establishments which had come into being for the purpose of supplying tonnage with which to transport the grain of western Canada through the Panama canal to the markets of the world, and the facilildtes for transport to the orient.
The witnesses called on behalf of the grain exchange gave evidence of a somewhat peculiar character. I had asserted in this chamber that the grain exchange had broken down. Mr. Milner, president of the grain exchange, joined issue with that statement. He and other witnesses who followed him pointed out that through the years they had built up the most efficient machine existing in Canada, and perhaps anywhere in the world-or at least as good-for the handling of grain. They said that the effect of the legislation would be to destroy those facilities. Subsequently other witnesses, notably Mr. Richardson explained that he believed a larger quantity of wheat could have been sold than had been sold, to the extent of 50.000.000 to 75,000,000 bushels. When he was questioned as to the reasons for his belief-for the man who makes an affidavit must be prepared to make a statement as to why he so believes-he had nothing to say except that he thought if wheat were 70 cents instead of 80 cents and the producer would supply the market he could sell the wheat. The fact was that evidence was produced before the committee indicating clearly that the price of wheat at Fort William had fallen to 38J cents. The effect of that was that the farmer in the west received 15 cents per bushel for his wheat; one of the members of the committee spoke of having received 17 cents for his wheat on his farm. Mr. Richardson stated further that the cost of production of wheat might be as low as 40 cents. I am
bound to say no other person thought that was a reasonable rate for the production of wheat in any part of Canada; one of the members of the committee, however, who had had wide experience indicated that if a person had a very large area and a heavy production per acre, under very favourable conditions he might show a cost of 40 cents or thereabouts. We will leave that. That was the evidence given-that existing facilities were there if they had an opportunity to function, and that those facilities were quite equal to the demand made upon them. Further, the president of the grain exchange said he felt perfectly certain that the presence in the market of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, supported as it was by government guarantees, had the effect of preventing open market operations on behalf of hedge takers, so that when the statement was made that the exchange had fallen down it was partly attributable to the fact that the exchange had not had a fair chance to function. That, shortly, is the case for the grain exchange.
Then came the elevator owners. They said that sections in this bill would place the whole functioning of their elevators in the hands of the board, and that it was equivalent to confiscation of their property. It was explained that no such result would follow nor was it intended that it should follow. It was intended that the elevators thus licensed under the Canada Grain Act, public utilities as they are, should be made available for what purpose?- that they should receive their fees and charges as provided by the Canada Grain Act itself, and that instead of the operations being carried on for numbers of customers they still would be able to carry on as much as they cared to, or where they could get business from the mills within the province in which they operated, but that the operations would be for and on behalf of the board. They made great complaint against such suggested action. They said that that was not giving them a fair chance to do what they could do. That is their case.
Mr. McFarland was ill. He sent a telegram and said he would be only too glad to answer any questions as to why he had taken any course on any day with respect to wheat -why he had bought or why he had not sold. He was prepared at any time to meet any accusers who had anything to say with respect to the conduct of his business; but he was lying in his bed and could not do so. He cannot have a chance until he is out of his bed and can appear before an authority properly constituted for that purpose. He could not answer personally, but he did answer
Grain Board-Mr. Bennett

to the only possible extent, through Mr. Mc-Ivor, his assistant, the sales manager of the Canadian Co-Operative Wheat Producers Limited. Mr. Mclvor came before the committee and1 made a statement, which doubtless has been read by many hon. members. It is there to read.
To-night I do not endeavour to discuss the evidence which has been given and which is recorded in the minutes of the committee. But this fact did emerge: Mr. Mclvor gave his evidence; Mr. Bredt gave his evidence; Mr. Bennett gave his evidence and Mr. Brouillette gave his. Now, why for all these years the pools have suffered the charges which have been made against them without offering a defence, I do not know. In a weekly newspaper published in the city of Toronto, charges were made that the action of the pools had had the effect of preventing Canada's grain from finding a place in the markets of the world, that the monopolistic dealings in grain bad the effect of preventing prices being as buoyant as they otherwise might have been, and that for some reason or other the Englishman did not buy his grain from us but desired to buy from somebody else. But what is the evidence that was produced? Out of 76 marketing days, on 52 days the pools had offered wheat at a lower price than the Argentine was offering it in order that they might endeavour to sell Canadian wheat; they offered it one-eighth lower, one-quarter lower, as low as six and one-quarter cents lower, and they did not sell it. Read the evidence; it is written there, the market operations of the pool day after day. What does that prove? It proves conclusively that the Argentine, having no facilities for holding wheat, made up their minds, as the evidence shows clearly, that they would sell their wheat, and they must sell it because they have no elevators or storage facilities. The only storage facilities they have are storage facilities afloat when the wheat is being carried across the Atlantic ocean from Buenos Aires and other ports to Europe. That was the position, and there was the evidence given for the first time that might well have been given on previous occasions, evidence as to why there was not a sale of wheat when the large crop of 1929 was being dealt with. That is the evidence, and that evidence was supported by Mr. Mclvor and by others.
Then we come to the operations of Mr. McFarland. I keenly regret that Mr. McFarland was not there to afford the answer that he could give to those who asked him why he bought wheat. One witness was asked this question by me, and the matter

ended there. I asked, "Why didn't you sell wheat?" The answer was that he was holding wheat while the farmers realized money on their wheat. He had to hold wheat which the markets of the world would not take in order that the Canadian farmers' wheat might be sold in the markets of the world, and that is the reason there is an accumulation of wheat here to-day; that is the reason it is being held to-day.
What wras the evidence? The evidence given, and admittedly true, was that out of every 100 bushels of wheat sold in the last four seasons prior to this season 35 bushels had been Canadian wheat, 20 bushels Argentine, 20 bushels Australian, 10 bushels United States, 8 bushels Russian and 7 bushels Balkan and other countries. There is your 100 bushels; there is Canada selling 35 per cent of it in the last four years. During this season on July 31, for the crop season is defined by the grain act as the 31st day of July, this year owing to the lateness of the crop the flow of exports will not commence until the 20th of September, so between now and the 20th of September any wheat in Canada that is sold must of necessity be the wheat of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited and no one elses-the wheat that has been accumulated by Mr. McFarland while the farmers were realizing on theirs. He had to buy of necessity, or the farmers prices would fall. He had to accumulate from necessity or the farmers could not sell their wheat on the markets of the world. He accumulated wheat under those circumstances for the purpose of enabling the Canadian farmers to sell their wheat.
And who was the hedge taker? Who was there to buy hedges? There seems to be apparently much mystery made with respect to hedges. The hon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) spoke of it as price insurance. One witness said that the banks would not permit business to be carried on by elevator companies or others unless they hedge their operations, unless they sell their grain. There was only one hedge taker, and that was the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited. Why? Because the speculator had withdrawn from the market; the little dressmaker and the office boys in the various institutions and bank clerks could not go into the market any longer. Mr. O'Neal before a committee of congress said: Do you want to save your farmers by destroying these people who should not be speculating? Whether they were speculating then or not, they are not now, and they are not likely to

Grain Board-Mr. Bennett
be for some time because of their experience in the past. So the speculator disappeared. Mr. Milner said the speculator disappeared in a large way. He said: What is the good of a speculator coming to the Winnipeg market when Mr. McFarland took all the hedges there were? But Mr. McFarland did not take the hedges, according to the evidence of Mr. Mclvor, until there was nobody else to take the hedges.
What was the government's guarantee? As explained by a witness it was nothing more or less than taking the hedges of the Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited with the banks. They could not get a hedge taker. Nobody would buy their wheat, and so this institution acting under government direction has been able to provide hedges for the entire sales of the wheat crop in western Canada during the last five years. That is what it has been doing to enable the Canadian farmer to receive a decent price for his wheat, to receive anough money to pay him meagrely for the effort he made.
What has been the result? Some hon. members suggest in a spirit of reckless criticism what the results have been. I gave the figures the other day, and I think it is worth while to repeat them. During those years Mr. McFarland has sold one and three-quarter billion bushels of wheat. That is what the farmers have sold. That is what they got their money for. Wheat fell to 38i cents on the exchange, the lowest price in four hundred years. Why did the farmers get a higher price for it? Why did they get fifty cents, sixty cents, seventy cents and eighty cents? Why? Because Mr. McFarland took the hedges on behalf of the Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited to enable the transactions to be carried on. That is the reason why, and there is not a farmer in western Canada who does not know it; there is not a farmer who as had a bushel of wheat to haul that does not know it.	[DOT]
Let us look at the results not from sentiment, not from the point of view of its effect upon the morale and spirit of the people, but let us look at it in cold dollars and cents. What did the farmers receive for 285 million bushels of wheat? The farmers of western Canada sold in 1932, 285 million bushels of wheat and they received for it $86,000,000, and this year up to the end of April, for the same six months' period they have marketed 177 million bushels of wheat and they have received $107,OCX),000 for that much smaller quantity. There are the facts. For marketing 108 million bushels less of wheat they received, instead of $86,000,000, the large sum
of $107,000,000. In other words they received $21,000,000 more for 108 million bushels of wheat less. There is the story of its operations. There is the answer to the criticism, the unfair criticism that has been hurled over this country from one end to the other with respect to the operations of Mr. McFarland, and the man who could have given the explanation of every day's operations, and why he acted as he did was not able to appear and give his explanation.
But let us go a step further. Let us look at the facts with respect to the day after day operations. Last year Mr. McFarland when examined by the committee on banking and commerce said that he found terrific purchases in one day. The hon, member for Souris (Mr. Willis) has pointed out that nearly 16 million bushels of wheat was bought in one day by this agency. Why did they buy 16 millions bushels? Because it was against the public interest of the Dominion of Canada that wheat should go to a price where it would yield only $86,000,000 for 285 million bushels. That is the answer. The effect upon the whole national life of Canada of the sale of wheat is better understood if one takes the trouble to examine what it means in our ability to pay the interest even on our national debt. A leading man wrote me since these operations began and said: It is a terrific responsibility which government have to carry but unless you are able to do these things and get a reasonable price for your wheat, it being the largest item of your external trade, what happens to you? I leave the answer to this committee.
I do not intend to deal with these matters in detail but I want to point out why this organization has functioned and why its accumulations have taken place and why the sales which have been spoken of have been made. An argument was made to-day which should be exploded once and for all. It was said that the reason Canada could not sell wheat in competition with the Argentine was because Canada's price was too high. All through the sittings of the committee Mr. Bredt gave the quotations and offers which he made to sell wheat at a lower price than the Argentine and every time the Argentine beat him. That is the answer to that.
Let us go a step further. It has been suggested that as the United States was not able to sell wheat it lessened the quantity. The fact that the United States was no longer an exporting country has very little to do with this. The true explanation was given a moment ago by the hon. member for Souris who read from the evidence given before the
Grain Board-Mr. Bennett

committee. What were the total purchases last year of Germany, of Italy and of France, not singly but together? Those three countries purchased only 26 million bushels of wheat. Countries which once were importers are now exporters. France has been selling her wheat and flour in England and has even landed her denatured wheat in the United States market. As I said in Montreal after coming back from England, Italy has been anxious to supply her own wants and has been able to increase her production of wheat by the utilization of fertilizers obtained through the fixation of nitrogen, by the drainage of swamps and by improving acreage production. These things have taken place and the result is that the great importing countries are no longer importing except to the extent of 26 million bushels. Does the committee realize that only a few short years ago these three countries bought over 200 million bushels of wheat? Does the committee realize that prior to the last two or three years those three countries purchased an average of 95 million bushels? The shrinkage in purchases from an average of 215 million bushels per year to 95 million bushels represented the shrinkage in the purchasing power of these countries by reason of the war and the increased production of wheat through the use of fertilizers and by drainage of lands. During that time 'Canada sold to France an average of 31 million bushels per year, but last year we sold to France, Germany and Italy only 26 million bushels. There is the answer.
A clear and comprehensive statement could have been made based upon the evidence which was given instead of the utilization of decimals and percentages in an effort to make it appear that Canada had failed in her duty to sell wheat in Great Britain and to take the place of the United States. It was quite clear from the evidence that the sale of wheat in London and the bonus system which prevailed made it impossible for France, Germany or Italy to purchase Canadian wheat. We have been able to sell only 26 million bushels to these three countries which a few years ago purchased 215 million bushels and in later years have averaged as high as 95 million bushels. Those are the facts and those facts resolved themselves into the two statements which I made when I came back from England in 1931 or 1932, I forget which year. I stated that these countries no longer desired to pay a ransom. As I explained long ago in the house, this condition was brought about by the prices charged during the war. At that time there was only one Canadian statesman whom I know of-the

gentleman is now dead-who said to the farmers of western Canada that they should not endeavour to get S3 per bushel for their wheat as they would feel sorry after the war. There was a shortage of wheat during those years and we were able to get very high prices. The prices went as high as $3 per bushel but those prices were not obtained by pool operations. They were obtained by the farmers and the grain board of 1919 which fixed prices as high as S2.65 per bushel and for some grades as high as $3 per bushed. That fact was known to France, to Germany and to Italy, and in the development of the intense nationalism which has taken place during the last few years this fact has played a great part. We are now faced with an inability to sell wheat upon the markets of the world. These countries have desired to be self-sustaining and self-sufficient and they are no longer on an importing basis. France has been selling her wheat by the millions of bushels in the form of flour and otherwise in Great Britain and the British millers have put themselves on record by saying that because of the competition of French flour and the necessity of their utilizing the 50 million bushels of soft wheat produced under the bonus in Great Britain their ability to buy larger quantities of stronger wheat has been greatly curtailed. In order to compete against French flour they have been foroed to buy the cheapest flour possible. That is known to every man who desires to analyse the facts and it will be open to anyone who takes a broad and comprehensive view of the whole situation.
That evidence was before the committee and it considered these matters. Every member had an opportunity to suggest wha/t action should be taken, and the bill which has just been agreed to was based upon the other bill and the suggestions of hon. members in an effort to embody two principles. The first was the price to the producer to be fixed by the board with the approval of the governor in council. In other words, the government of the day must approve of the action taken by the board, ascertain the factors that determine the action they take and arrive at a conclusion. It will be a very difficult conclusion to arrive at and one fraught with grave responsibilities and great implications, but it must be done. The argument with respect to the Argentine was developed during the progress of the examination of witnesses who spoke so highly of the system in use in that country. I thought that if they thought so highly of that system I would put questions to them as to why the same thing should not be done in Canada. The Argentine has a fixed

Grain Board-Mr. Bennett
price and anyone can buy wheat above that price. If a producer in a far distant locality is unable to sell his wheat he can sell it to the board at the fixed price and the board then ma-kes provision for its export to the markets of the world.
There is a second principle in this bill with respect to the producer. It was decided that he should share in any surplus which might arise because of the operations of the board. Objections were made to the initial payment and it was pointed out that certain difficulties had arisen in the past and it was undesirable that a fixed price should be paid. That fixed price does not determine the ultimate price which the producer will receive as he is to share in any surplus which might result from the operations of the board. In connection with the producer there are two principles, the fixed price and the sharing in any ultimate profits which might be made. Through this equitable distribution every man will receive for a bushel of wheat the same price on a Fort William basis if he delivered it to the board.
We return now to the next item, the duties of the board. The board is to be prepared at all times to buy wheat and pay for it a fixed price. That fixed price having been determined and the board having paid it, as it will be obliged to do under this bill, it then must consider the next point. How would it be sold? The hon. member for Shelburne-Yar-mouth and those associated with him kept pressing the point with respect to sales, and there was introduced into this bill-I got tiheir notes and tried to give effect to their view- the provision that the board should sell its wheat at such price as might be considered reasonable with the object of promoting the sale and use of Canadian wheat in world markets. That is the principle that governed Mr. McFarland's operations in every particular. The board must regard as reasonable the price at which it sells. Then we come to the next point, which is that it should take over, secondly, the wheat of the Canadian wheat producers; and I pointed out this evening in answer to a question asked that the present thought in our minds was that you would substitute the board for Canadian Cooperative Producers Limited with respect to wheat and wheat only. With respect to other grains they have a small quantity worth half a million or so and the board would not have anything to do with that. Tha,t is the position of the board. But it did not end there. What is the provision contained in clauses (i) and (j) ? In order that this institution, which it is said has not had a fair chance, should have an opportunity to function without restriction, it is provided that existing facilities shall be used without discrimination. The board shall give an opportunity to these people to sell wheat on the markets of the world; these institutions that have been built up during the years shall be allowed to function for the sale of the product of the producer in the markets of the world, through established channels and existing facilities. You will find that set out in detail in this bill:
in selling and disposing of wheat as by this act provided, to utilize and employ w thout discrimination such marketing agencies, including commission merchants, brokers, elevator men, exporters and other persons engaged in or operating facilities for the selling and handling of wheat, as the board in its discretion may determine.
That is just what Mr. McFarland has been doing during the last five years. When he oame into office he stipulated one thing and it was that every existing facility of the pool with respect to sales abroad should be withdrawn-why? Not that he did not believe in them; not at all, but the charge had been unjustly made, that the pool had not been utilizing existing facilities and therefore drawing down on its head the condemnation of these old established facilities going back for centuries, instead of that he felt that they should be withdrawn and existing facilities used.
Does this committee realize that neither Mr. McFarland nor his agency has offered for sale abroad, through their agents, any wheat but always through existing facilities, utilizing them to the full? These same men came to the committee and spoke about the facilties they had abroad, and they have been utilized to the full all these years. No effort has been made to substitute new facilities for those that have been in use. But because of the fact that they may fail it is provided in (j) of section 8 that while they are offering continuously wheat for sale in the markets of the world through the established channels the board may set up their own agencies if the other agencies are not functioning satisfactorily. That is a development of the principle that if you cannot get from others the service you require on the basis of paying for it the usual price fixed by statute, you will have to establish your own agency. So much for that.
Sections 9, 10 and 11 were sections dealing with elevators and facilities, and these sections remain in the act. That is the next principle. They are to come into operation by proclamation if, as and when it is thought desirable by the government of the day that it should be done. If the government of Canada believes that in the public interest
Grain Board-Mr. Bennett

this is necessary, then I have no doubt, whatever government is in power, it will be done. But there is something more than that. Let us examine what is meant by this. I have been rather surprised at some of the observations I have heard. A farmer has a thousand bushels of wheat, and for the sake of argument we will say that the price on the farm is 60 cents. He hauls it to the elevator and this is his choice: he can sell it to anyone he pleases for any price he likes; he can sell it to the board for 60 cents, and he then has, what he would not otherwise have, the right to share in any added price that wheat may bring during that crop year-not that wheat only but all the wheat, bushel for bushel. Under these circumstances is it suggested that there has been any slackening or lessening of the position which we have taken in this matter from the first? None whatever. And [DOT] if it is found that it is essential, to maintain the principle I have just mentioned, that these sections should be brought into operation, I am sure that no government of the day will fail t'o take the requisite action; and once it is done it cannot be undone by order in council: it remains as part of the statute law of the country.
There is another point. Some reference has been made to the fact that this statute provides that the board shall buy only wheat from the producers. I insist that that should be so-why? Because they are not going to take the hedges that they have been doing for other people. That is the reason. There is the answer to the whole question raised by the hon. gentleman from Acadia (Mr. Gardiner). The government is not going to be made a convenience of by any trade or any individuals at this time. Instead of Canadian Producers Limited buying wheat, that wheat will be bought by the board on this basis, that whatever the fixed price is, if anyone else takes the wheat he must pay for it an additional price beyond that; and to compensate for the possibility of there being an increase in price it is provided that the producer shall have the right to share in that added price, so that he gets it either way. He either takes the chance of selling it to a competitor of the board or he sells it to the board, with this benefit attached to it with a certificate.
We did not stop there. We heard the grievances of the producer as expressed by Mr. Bredt, Mr. Brouillette and Mr. Bennett. And what did we say? We have provided in this bill, for the first time in the history of this country, this section-that the board shall have the powers of a commission appointed
(Mr. Bennett.j
under the Inquiries Act and the right to inquire with respect to the movement of wheat for export, either interprovincially or internationally, through the clearing house and the exchanges in Winnipeg and Vancouver. I do not prejudge, but if any of the facts they allege exist, then they will become known; and if they are as stated, does anyone in this committee think for a moment that any government would hesitate to bring into operation the provisions of sections 9, 10, and 11? There is the position; that is what has been accomplished.
Now let us proceed a step further. In the bill as originally framed it was provided that all grain should be covered. I did that purposely because I was anxious to know what the views of the committee and the producers of the country might be. It is not thought desirable at this time that all grains should be brought within the act but that it should be limited to wheat. That was the opinion expressed and in that sense it has been done. Now the question is, how shall the accumulations be disposed of? That is the next question. This year's crop is to be dealt with in the way I have indicated. The accumulations, which came about in the way I have indicated, are to be dealt with as provided in the act in a special section, namely by their disposition as speedily as may be reasonably possible having regard to economic and other conditions. In other words, the accumulations are not to come into competition with the crop produced this year. As speedily as may be reasonably possible having regard to economic and other conditions-there are the conditions that you have with respect to the sale of the accumulations, and above and beyond all that-and the suggestion in a slightly different form came from the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth- there is paragraph (h):
To give effect to any order in council that may be passed with respect to its operations.
That is, the governor in council has the power of directing, prohibiting, controlling, regulating, determining the course of action this board shall take with respect to any matter that comes within its jurisdiction. In other words, the responsible government of the country, in its judgment and the exercise of its discretion, has power to control completely the operations of the board.
Then the board is being assisted by an advisory committee. It was suggested by one of the witnesses who had been and still is associated with the pool, that there should be some compensation paid to the producers at

Grain Board-Mr. Bennett
least, as well as others who came to Winnipeg or elsewhere for the purpose of giving their advice to the board. So it will be observed that this advisory board, of whom four out of seven shall be producers, shall be paid their transportation and1 living expenses and a per diem allowance of S10 while they are away from home. That was to ensure continuity of interest. But it goes further: it provides that the Minister of Trade and Commerce may ask them at any time to give their advice, to meet together. Further, this advisory board shall send a copy of its minutes to the minister in order that he may know what has transpired.
Those are the provisions so far as the operations of this board are concerned. I am not going to dwell longer upon them except to say that this committee and every member of it made, I think, a fair attempt to reconcile contending views in the light of the evidence that was given. I did not conceive it to be the duty of men to take their own fixed opinions with respect to a matter of this kind, but it was their duty, having called witnesses representing every phase of the situation, to listen to what they said, and out of the mass of testimony it became abundantly clear that one group contended' they should have an opportunity to show the usefulness of their facilities and that their policies and their programs, based upon those policies, should have an opportunity of being again tried, free from any hampering control, as they contended, such as that of the Producers Limited. That is accorded to them in this bill, but it still holds over their heads the idea that the original provisions of the bill have not been taken from it, but are to be utilized if, as and when in the interests of the producers of this country and of the nation generally it is found1 desirable to exercise the powers conferred by those provisions. That is one side of the matter. Then the other side was that those who represented co-operative and indivdiual marketing were of opinion that a fixed price was essential and desirable. Some of them urged that the factors indicating how that fixed price was to be determined should be stated in the bill. I am free to say that I urged as strongly as I have done to-night that that should not be done for reasons I shall not now traverse.
We have this bill which the committee accepted for the purpose of doing two things: one, taking care of the surplus accumulations of the wheat of this country at a time when the requirements of importing countries have been enormously reduced, as will be found from the returns, and the production has made
no corresponding diminution; second, this year's crop is to flow into the channels of consumption by the methods I have mentioned: a fixed price, a sharing in subsequent profits, if any, and the purchase by the board directly from the producers. It is hardly necessary for me to say to this committee that that is just what has been done, except that Mr. McFarland was buying hedges and that now he will not buy hedges; he will buy the actual wheat from the producers to the extent that this may be necessary, or that the wheat may not be absorbed by those who otherwise might purchase it.
I feel some .measure of regret at the very false statements that have been published in the newspapers with respect to this bill. In a great heading by a well known inaccurate correspondent in one of Canada's newspapers appear these words:
Canada to offer surplus of grain in world market.
McFarland ideas and pool repudiated by proposed act.
To fix prices.
What is the effect of this? It is sent out to the world at large during the last few days, in fact during the last few hours as we measure hours relatively, and the price of wheat fell four cents on the Liverpool market to-day. Great rejoicing, I suppose that the wheat that has been accumulated under the conditions to which I have referred is to be offered in the world market! Well, nothing is further from this government than that that should be so. It well may be that other policies may prevail, but they will prevail at the expense of this country. Anyone who knows the intrinsic value of a bushel of Canadian wheat as demonstrated by analysis of its value in protein and other contents as compared with a bushel of wheat of other countries, will understand that the price at which our wheat has been sold is very low as compared with the general price of wheat in the world during the last five hundred years or more of which there is no record. It is true there has been abjection, but not to purchasing from one person; there is no objection to that. Some people think there is objection on the part of importers to buying from one agency. To do so simplifies their business. Although I was not a witness, I endeavoured to ascertain from personal inquiry, and the objection was, as I tried to explain to the oommittee, that there was an endeavour to sell wheat without regard to the old established agencies. Anyone who knows something of. diall I say. the strength of vested interests who discharge great obligations in marketing, whether it be

Grain Board-Mr. Mackenzie King
tea or sugar, wheat or other grains, in the markets of the old1 country, where the price charged per unit is very small, wild understand what the result is if an effort is made to establish, shall I say, a new agency in competition with those old' established institutions. My primary reason in rising tonight was to have it known I trust by the inaccurate correspondent of the newspaper- and let him be accurate for once-that as long as this government exists, there is no intention that this country should offer its surplus of grain at fire sale prices or throw its surplus on the markets of the world. I am bound to say in fairness to the committee that this legislation, which is not based on any such idea, was unanimously agreed to by that committee, so that the views which I express are those of the committee unanimously, there being no difference with respaot to that whatever. The language used, I may say in fairness to those who are being criticized, is language which, according to my memory, I myself employed with respect to paragraph (c) of section 8 in connection with the sale of the accumulations of the Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited during the past few years. I regret that this result should have followed' because of any misstatements that have been made with respect to the principles that will govern the future operations of the board. But over and above and beyond all else stands the fact that whatever may be said, the board must be amenable to the orders in council1 and direction and control of the government of tne day.
I have nothing further to say except this- I have been saying that very frequently- the committee in arriving at its conclusions believed on the evidence submitted by the various witnesses that this bill gives effect to every school of thought and affords a fair opportunity to test by experience the value of the claims made by each, and at the same time protects the producer to an extent 'that I think has never been done before, by ensuring him a fixed price and his share in the ultimate surplus that may arise from its operation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, my right hon. friend must either have been misinformed or have deceived himself when he told the house and country a day or two ago he regretted that he was no longer able to participate in what he called the rough and tumble of debate. If he has not shown this evening that he is in form for the rough and tumble of debate I do not know that we have ever had reason to believe that he was. How-
[Mr Bennett.]
ever, I rise not for the purpose of joining in any bout of the kind but rather to draw the attention of the committee to the difference between what was said by my right hon. friend at the beginning of his remarks and what was said at the close. I am glad there is that difference, because certainly the opening part of my right hon. friend's remarks left a very unpleasant impression on my mind and I think on the mind of the committee generally. My right hon. friend began his address by saying that the bill which the house has been considering this afternoon, upon which we have all worked so amicably and which we have run through without very much discussion, " is mine," and gave no credit whatever to the committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my right hon. friend will read his address he will see that is so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wrote it on Dominion day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He now confirms the remark.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And I said I took the suggestions of every member of the committee before doing so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my right hon. friend, if this is his bill, whose was the bill introduced in the name of the Prime Minister on June 10? I do not wish to deprive my right hon. friend of any credit, which may be his, but I think it is only right that credit in all quarters should be given where credit is due.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: From the month of March there was on the order paper of the house a resolution in the name of the Prime Minister for the introduction of a bill providing for the constitution and powers of the Canadian grain board. On June 10 that bill was introduced and given its first reading by the Prime Minister. My right hon. friend will recall and the committee will recall that I asked him at the time if he would not agree to his bill going to a committee, either a special committee or a select committee, and I gave as a reason for my request that I thought the bill would have to be changed considerably, and that if we could get it before a committee much discussion would be saved when the bill came back to the house. My right hon. friend was not in a position to give an immediate answer; he said he would consider it. He did consider it and he agreed

Canada-Poland Trade Agreement
to the bill going to a select special committee, and I thanked him for agreeing to my suggestion, and it went to the committee. The bill that has come back to the house, as I have it in my hand, is quite another bill. True it is entitled to provide for the constitution and powers of the Canadian grain board, the same number and name-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it is changed in the inside to wheat board.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But it has printed on the title page " reprinted as amended and reported by the select special committee."	.


William Richard Motherwell: A new bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is a new bill, a different bill altogether. My right hon. friend's bill was the original bill. It would have gone on to its second reading and into committee of the whole and to its third reading without being referred to any special committee at all but for the suggestion that came from this side of the house and which to his credit my right hon. friend accepted. The bill having gone to the special committee and the members of that committee having worked day and night for days doing their utmost to bring the measure to the point where as far as possible it would be acceptable to all parties in the house, I think my right hon. friend ought to have given full credit to the members of the committee for having achieved that result.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So he did.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend says, "So he did"; he is given to saying diametrically opposite things in the same speech, so that if the necessity arises he can point to whichever extreme may best serve the moment. However, I am quite prepared to acknowledge that in the concluding part of my right hon. friend's remark he did say that he obtained the views or he made notes from and tried to give effect to the views of members of the committee in the bill as finally drafted. Still further on he also said that the bill represented the unanimous views of the committee. All that I wish to stress at the moment -and I do it because I think it is due particularly to those hon. member's of the house who served on the committee;-is that the bill which has come back from the special committee to this house and has passed through committee this afternoon and this evening is a very different bill from that originally introduced. The bill as originally introduced would not have passed this house without prolonged controversy and discussion, if it would have 92582-271
passed at all. The bill which has passed through committee this day with so very little in the way of discussion has passed in virtue of the changes made by the committee in the original bill, changes which served to make it acceptable to this house, and which I believe will serve to make its provisions acceptable also to the country.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. 121, respecting the convention of commerce between Canada and Poland, signed at Ottawa, July 3, 1935.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Perhaps a short explanation might be in order at this stage. The bill is the usual form of bill adopted by parliament heretofore in connection with the ratification of conventions between Canada and different countries, and I believe there will be no difficulty in adopting the sections as they come before the committee. I should like to make a statement however with respect to the convention attached as a schedule to the bill.
The convention of commerce between Canada and Poland now submitted to the house for approval should be the means of giving Canada ready access to the Polish market for the first time since the establishment of the Polish republic.
The republic of Poland is one of the larger and more populous of the states of Europe, having an area of nearly 140,000 square miles and a population of over 32,000,000, showing the very considerable average density of 222 persons to the square mile. The import trade of Poland in 1934 amounted to a value of 8148,569,360, of which Canada according to the Polish returns supplied only $38,688. According to our Canadian trade returns, in the fiscal year ending March, 1935, Canada imported from Poland and Danzig goods to the value of $154,309 and exported Canadian products to the value of S402,067. I have a statement with me giving the details of the principal products imported from and exported to Poland and Danzig in the last three fiscal years.



Canada-Poland Trade Agreement
Canadian trade with Poland hitherto has been handicapped by the absence of a trade agreement. Up to October 11, 1933, the Polish tariff system comprised (1) normal tariff; (2) maximum tariff (three times as high as the normal tariff); and (3) conventional rates on some goods lower than the normal tariff. While the normal tariff was extended to Canada, conventional rates were withheld and, moreover, the import licence system of Poland was administered in a manner so as to make it very difficult to obtain licences to import Canadian goods.
A new Polish tariff came into force on October 11, 1933, which has restricted the sale to Poland of most Canadian products. This tariff established two sets of rates, those in column I being applicable to merchandise originating in countries with which Poland does not have commercial treaty arrangements. The rates in column II are applicable to countries enjoying "most favoured nation'' treatment, and are, on the average, about 20 per cent lower than those in column I. In addition there is a third column consisting of special rates of duty provided for in trade treaties which Poland has concluded with other countries. These special rates of duty usually represent considerable reductions below the rates provided for in column II of the Polish tariff.
The convention of commerce will result in Canada securing most favoured nation treatment in Poland. Consequently, Canadian goods would benefit not only from the rates in column II of the Polish tariff, but also from the special rates provided for in treaties concluded with other countries. If no convention of commerce is concluded, Canadian goods would be subject to the rates of duty provided for in column I, or the highest rates of duty in the Polish tariff.
In addition, schedule A of the convention of commerce provides for special reduced rates of duty on some products which are of particular interest to Canada. These reductions in Polish duties, expressed in Canadian currency at par of exchange, are as follows: Herrings, preserved:
Weighing more than 500 grams, 12-J reduced' to 4J cents per pound.
Weighing 500 grams or less, 17i reduced to 6 cents per pound.
Canned salmon, 40 reduced to 12 cents per pound.
Sardines, 40 reduced to 14 cents per pound.
Canned lobsters, $1 reduced to 25 cents per pound.
Patent leather:
In whole or half skins, $1.11 reduced to 50 cents per pound.
In cuttings or pieces, $1.22 reduced to 55 cents per pound.
Silver fox skins, $25 reduced to $5 per pound.

Chemical wood pulp for the manufacture of paper, 75 reduced to 40 cents per 100 pounds.
Chemical wood pulp, other, 75 reduced to 50 cents per 100 pounds.
Ice skates, 15 reduced to 10 cents per pound.
These calculations have been made at par of exchange. In order to arrive at the equivalents of the Polish duties at the current rate of exchange it would be necessary to add approximately 66 per cent to the amounts given in this statement.
In addition, the convention of commerce provides that Canada shall receive treatment in respect to quotas as favourable as that extended to the importation of similar articles from other countries. Many classes of goods are subject to restrictions on importation into Poland. As a result of the conclusion of the convention of commerce, quotas will be established for the principal products which we desire to ship to Poland on a basis agreed upon between the two governments. Among other products which should benefit from the establishment of a quota is fresh apples, the trade in which has hitherto been restricted by the difficulty which importers in Poland have experienced in securing licences for the importation of apples from Canada owing to the fact that there has been no trade treaty between the two countries.
The tariff concessions granted by Canada to Poland are embodied in schedule B to the convention. These relate to twenty-one items of the Canadian customs tariff. In the case of nine items the effect of the concession is to consolidate free entry for articles which are now free of duty under all tariffs. Books printed in Poland and in the Polish or Ukrainian language, covered by items numbers 169 and 171 of the Canadian customs tariff, will be made free of duty. In the case of item 171 it was necessary to obtain the concurrence of His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom because this item being included in schedule E to the trade agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom, the margin of preference had been guaranteed. The duty on positive moving picture films made in Poland and speaking the Polish or Ukrainian language, if one and one-eight of an inch in width and over, will be cut in half. To this item and to those relating to books in the Polish or Ukrainian language the government of Poland attach importance from the point of view of cultural rather than of commercial relations. The concessions in respect to the remaining nine items covered by the convention involve discounts from the intermediate tariff varying from 10 to 45 per cent. In the case of two items, those relating

Fruit and Honey Act
to clover seeds and to furniture, similar concessions are embodied in the trade agreement with France, so that no further reductions will be extended to most favoured nations by the granting to Poland of the concessions respecting these products. The other concessions granted to Poland relate to the following products:
Canned hams;
Dried mushrooms;
Manufactures of alabaster, n.o.p.;
Cut, pressed, moulded or crystal glass tableware, decorated or not;
Blown glass tableware and other cut glass ware;
Horse hair, curled or dyed, n.o.p.;
Trunks, valises, hat boxes, carpet bags, tool bags and baskets of all kinds, n.o.p.;
Ornaments, statues and statuettes of alabaster.
When the convention comes into force the duties on these products, imported from countries entitled to most favoured nation treatment, will be reduced to the extent of the discounts from the intermediate tariff specified in schedule B.
I shall be pleased to answer any question I may concerning the different sections, as they are reached.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Convention approved.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I understood the minister's explanation, so far as duties are concerned, goods coming from Poland are now to come in free or at a lower rate of duty than exists at the present time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In all cases most favoured nation treatment has been given except in nine, where the duties are even lower, and in other cases they are free.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I must congratulate the government in having come around to the correct point of view in regard to tariffs. It may be a deathbed repentance, but it is just as well to have it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a matter of opinion.
Section 2 agreed to.
Sections 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to.


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


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 112, to assist the construction of houses.
92582-271J
He said: There has been but one amendment made by the Senate, and I just asked the opinion of the right hon. gentleman opposite whether he thought the amendment was better than the original wording. Paragraph (d) of section 2 as it passed this house read as follows:
"Housing scheme" means a scheme for the construction of houses and their occupation by tenants or purchasers.
The Senate has concluded to add between the words " and " and " their " in the seventeenth line the word " for," so it will now read:
"Housing scheme" means a scheme for the construction of houses and for their occupation by tenants or purchasers.
That is the only amendment.
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 95, respecting fruit, vegetables and honey.
He said: The amendments made by the Senate are very slight. The word "establishment " is defined in the second section of the act as follows:
"establishment" means any plant, factory or premises	in	which	produce	is	canned	or
preserved for food for export.
And "export" is defined as:
"export" means export out of Canada or out of any province to any other province thereof.
The Senate amendment defines "establishment" as
"establishment" means any plant, factory or premises	in	which	produce	is	canned	or
preserved for food for export or interprovincial trade.
The words "or interprovincial trade" are added. The Senate ha^ amended the definition of "export" to read:
"export or interprovincial trade" means shipment out of Canada or out of any province to any other province thereof.
Then section 10 of the bill and succeeding sections have been amended by the use of three words somewhat different from what we used to express the necessity for licensing. Section 10 reads:
No commission agent shall accept or offer to accept for sale on commission or otherwise deal
Combines Investigation Act
[Stage Direction]
in any produce shipped from a point outside the province in which he carries on business unless he has obtained a licence from the minister.
The Senate has struck out the words "he has obtained a licence from" and substituted therefor the words "thereto licensed by." The same amendment is made in section 11 and 12. Then- in section 14 the words "or interpro-vi'ncial trade" have been added after the word "export" so that it will now read:
No person shall assemble or ship honey or for export or interprovincial trade unless he be first duly registered in accord with the regulations.
"Export" as amended by the Senate means shipment out of Canada or out of any province to any .other province thereof, so I would hardly think the amended section 14 was as good as our own section, but there can be no harm in accepting it as it stands rather than sending it back to the Senate.
Then section 16 is amended by striking out the words "any .produce" in the first line of the section and those two words have been inserted in the second line after the word *"carry." So that it will now read:
No common carrier shall receive for carriage or carry any produce to a destination without the province wherein the same is received unless such produce is accompanied by an inspection certificate or other evidence of inspection prescribed by regulation.
Through a misprint "any" was used instead of the word "an," referring to an inspection certificate. The amendment, is not in any sense important.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 79, to amend the Combines Investigation Act.
He said: With the leave of the house I should like to deal with the amendments made by the Senate to this bill, if there is no objection.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no objection, but I shall have something to say with regard to the amendments after my right hon. friend has spoken.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman has seen the amendments, I take it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have before me the Senate proceedings.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In line 10 of section 2 the Senate have added after the word "combination" the words "having relation to any commodity which may be the subject of trade or commerce," so that it will read:
"Combine" means a combination having relation to any commodity which may be the subject of trade or commerce,
And so forth.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would it be convenient to my right hon. friend if I raise my objection now?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I see the
effeot of this amendment it will rule out of consideration all service industries. Plumbing, for example, would not come within the definition as it is now set forth by the Senate, and anything in the nature of a plumbing combine or a combine of plumbers could not be investigated under the act. That is one of the service industries that have already been investigated. It seems to me that they should not be exempted because of any change in the definition, and I do not think that definition should be allowed to stand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am bound to say that
I share the right hon. gentleman's opinion with respect to that. If the act were limited to commodities it could not deal with a combination for services or other non-physical intentions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Of service industries.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think we will disagree
with that amendment and we will prepare a message accordingly. The next is in line 29 and substitutes the word "designed" for "likely."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The word
"designed" will necessitate proof of intention, and that is always difficult. As I recall the evidence before the price spreads commission, that was requested by the manufacturers' association but was not accepted oy the commission. The word "likely" was put in as not requiring the same measure of .proof of intention. My right hon. friend will see the force of that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A thing may be likely
to operate and have the most innocent parties in the world behind it; therefore I think it should be designed to constitute that sort of offence.

Combines Investigation Act


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If you substitute the word "designed" you will have one of the most difficult of legal proofs to establish. To that extent you practically destroy one of the essential features of the measure. That ought to be looked into.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: When the bill was before the house the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) brought this amendment to the attention of the house but he said he would not press it. I took exception to it on the ground that a patent might be used for the purpose of creating a monopoly; I thought the public interest was more important than the interest of any person holding a patent right, and that the1 restricting of the definition in that way was a mistake.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have an international convention with respect to patents which was signed in 1926 or 1928, and I am speaking subject to correction when I say that this merely gives effect to a provision in the international agreement signed at The Hague.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Patent law is
a very special branch of the law, and I shall not venture to give a legal opinion upon this. But if this amendment is to permit the overriding of the public interest by virtue of a right under some patent held by a company, it should not be permitted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will excuse our dealing with this matter in this way rather than in committee. The right hon. gentleman will remember that I pointed out that the Patent Act contains provisions for the protection of the public interest where the patent is not worked or under various other contingencies. Our patent act largely follows
the English act, which was predicated upon the convention signed at The Hague. So far as this amendment is concerned I submit-again speaking subject to correction-that it is made to give effect to our international obligations and the public interests are amply protected by the provisions of the Patent Act. However, I shall look into the matter. The next amendment is to insert a new paragraph (b) reading as follows:
(b) to bring at once to the minister's attention every such application;
I think that is desirable. The next provides for the re-lettering of the paragraphs, and I do not believe there will be any objection to that. The next deals with line 32 and deletes the words "or is being formed." I think that amendment is proper. The same amendment is made in connection with lines 40 and 41 and lines 44 and 45. The next refers to page 4, line 8, and substitutes the word "therefor" for the word "thereof." The same amendment is made in line 11. I think those are proper. The next deals with line 37 and inserts the words "by the commission" after the word "believed."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I read that section it would mean that there could be no investigation until the commission in the first instance had made up its mind that there was a combine. As a matter of fact, the purpose of an investigation would be partly to establish whether or not there was a combine. As I read the section the commission would have to declare its belief before an investigation could take place, and it might be possible to defeat any inquiry at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman will remember that under the existing combines act there has to be some belief.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A prima facie case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly. I think the extraordinary powers given to the commission would not make if unreasonable that it should authorize an inquiry.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It will be interesting to see how it works cut.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The next amendment
deals with line 24' on page 5 and substitutes the word "directs" for "allows." I think that is correct.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I understand that section it will prevent documentary evidence which has been filed with the commission from being used againct. the persons who file the evidence at any trial which may ensue.
Combines Investigation Act

Take, for example, one of the coal companies which have been investigated'; if they had filed certain documents it would1 have effectively precluded the use of those documents at the trial. In that way it would be possible to thwart any attempt to bring such companies under the provisions of the act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think my right hon. friend has followed that section quite carefully. Read section 20 of the act:
All books, papers, records or things produced before the commission, whether voluntarily or in pursuance of an order, may be inspected by the commission and also by such persons as the commission directs, and copies thereof may be made by or at the instance of the commission.
That provides for copies being kept by the commission; it is not the section the hon. gentleman refers to. The next amendment is on page 6 in line 41. The words "oral evidence so given" are struck out and the words "evidence or documents so required" substituted. That is the usual provision giving effect to the Canada Evidence Act, that a man is not bound to convict himself. I think that is ail right. Now we come to one which is somewhat more difficult. On page 7, section 20, line 11, it is provided:
The commission at the conclusion of every investigation which they conduct shall make a report in writing and w'ithout delay transmit it to the minister. Such report shall set out fully the conclusions reached, the action, if any, taken, and any other material which may be required by regulation under this act.
Then is added a new subsection (2):
The commission shall at the same time deliver into the custody from whence they came, if not already delivered, all books, papers, records and other documents in its possession as evidence relating to the investigation. but before doing so the commission may extract from such documents and certify as true copies such relevant parts thereof as it may deem to be necessary for any purpose of this act, whereafter such parts, so certified, shall have and be accorded in all courts the same probative force as the equivalent parts of the originals of which they are copies.
I think that is a rather desirable provision to have. It enables the commission, when returning originals, to keep copies to meet the possibility of the originals being inadvertently lost, and to enable it to produce the copies at any trial that may take place. They have the same probative force as equivalent parts of the originals of which they are copies.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is all right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no amendment on page 8 but on page 9 there are several:
27. Section forty-one of the said act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:

41. The commission shall, annually, report to the minister its proceedings under this act and he shall lay such report before parliament if it be then sitting, and, if it be not then sitting, within the first fifteen days of its then next session.
That is perhaps a very desirable change. As section 28 they have added:
No person shall be charged with, tried for or convicted of an offence against this act, by the same information, upon the same evidence or at the same time as he is charged with, tried for or convicted of an offence against section four hundred and ninety-eight of the Criminal Code.
That is, I think, a proper section to have in a statute of this kind. Section 29 is:
This act shall come into force on the first day of October, 1935.
How we allowed it to go in the form we did I do not know, because it is not the proper form. I would move that the amendments other than the first amendment on page 1 and the second amendment on page 1 be read the second time and concurred in.


James Layton Ralston: With regard' to the
definition of "combine," do I understand that the whole section 2 as it appears in the act is cut out and that the four line provision is substituted?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; I read only the
first) paragraph. The others all remain. I move, Mir. Speaker, that the amendments, apart from amendment No. 1 and amendment No. 2, both on the first page, be read the second time and concurred' in.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second1 time and concurred in.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I move that amendments No. 1 .and No. 2 be not *concurred' in for the following reasons.
1.	That a combine may exist with respect to a subject matter other than a commodity, and it is the purpose of the act to deal with such: a. combine.
2.	That it is the intention of the act to deal with a condition where a combination, merger, trust or monopoly has operated or is likely to operate to the detriment or against the interest of the public.
3.	To substitute "designed1" for "likely" would involve a proof of intention which experience has indicated it is difficult to establish. And that the same be sent to their honours.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Elections Act


[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 114, relating to the application of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934, in the province of British Columbia.
He said:	The Senate has inserted an
amendment bringing the act into force only upon proclamation of the governor in council, and I am quite prepared to accept it. I move concurrence.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.
Mr. GUTHRIE:: While we are waiting for the reprinted bill, I may explain that the only remaining sections in the new bill as reprinted will be: Section 1 which deals with advance polls and which provides that the advance polls shall be open on the Thursday, Friday and Saturday before polling day until ten o'clock at night on each day.


Ernest Lapointe: That is one more day than formerly.


Hugh Guthrie: Were there three days formerly?


Ernest Lapointe: Two.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, this is in accordance with the request of the Trades and Labour Congress and others. The next is a section
to waive the necessity of the chief electoral officer going into the preparation of voters' lists for the by-elections which would not be held until after dissolution.


Mr. GRAY:: The date was fixed for the by-elections.


Hugh Guthrie: This is to waive the necessity for the preparation of voters' lists for those by-elections. The next change is for the adoption of a new form of oath of the voter at the poll where he is challenged. At present all that is provided for is an oral oath. The new form is one that has to be signed by the man who takes the oath. It is for the purpose of identification and also of proof if proceedings are afterwards taken.
A new section which has been suggested by the chief electoral offioer is to amend section 24 of the act passed last session by striking out the first seven words of that section. It provides that:
Immediately after he has granted a poll, the returning officer shall, by writing in form 10 executed under his hand, appoint one deputy returning officer for each polling station.
Complaints have come from the returning officers in some of the constituencies which are more or less remote that sufficient time is not allowed between nomination day and polling day for the purpose of appointing deputy returning officers in all the distant polling subdivisions. It has been suggested by the chief electoral officer that the words " immediately after he has granted a poll " be struck out and the following words substituted:
Immediately after the issue of the writ of election.
So that it will read:
Immediately after the issue of the writ of election the returning officer shall appoint deputy returning officers.
It so happens that in Canada we do not have very many uncontested elections or acclamations.


Mr. McPHEE:: That is not in the bill.


Hugh Guthrie: That is a suggestion I am making now; it is one that came to me from the chief electoral officer and I see no objection to it. If we had many elections by acclamation, there might be a great deal of expense in appointing returning officers who would have no duties. I think in only one case in the last election was there an acclamation.


Ernest Lapointe: Two.


Hugh Guthrie: I see no objection to this, and it has been requested to meet the difficulty in some of the larger constituencies that are harder to reach. I would move that as a new section to be section 5 of the reprinted bill.
Elections Act


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is the minister moving all of these or is he going to move them individually?


Hugh Guthrie: Individually. The other one that is suggested by the chief electoral officer is to correct a mistake in the French translation of the statute. In the present act the term "deputy returning officer" is used in one section where it should be "returning officer" and it is proposed to introduce a new section that:
The French version of paragraph (f) of subsection 1 of section 30 of the said act is amended by striking out the words "le sous-offieier rapporteur" in the fifth line and substituting therefor the words "l'officier rapporteur."
I would like to add that and I will move that it be added as section 6 of the reprinted bill.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: Now we can return to section 1 of the reprinted bill.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-When writ for by-elections after date of dissolution deemed to be superseded.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This section
has been framed with a view to avoiding the necessity of having by-elections at all. I should like to draw attention at this moment to the constituencies in which there are vacancies and to the length of time they have been unrepresented in this house. Far be it from me to say anything unpleasant at this hour of the night and at this late day in the session, but in view of the new deal and reform legislation that we have bad, it is important that we should appreciate the extent to which a large section of Canada has been unrepresented during this whole session. These byelections cannot now be held under any conditions. There was a vacancy in Halifax on September 1 of last year; another in Long Lake on September 28 of last year; another in St. Denis, Quebec, on October 1 of last year; another in Algoma East on January 1 of this year; another in St. John-Albert on February 5 of this year; another in Mont-magny, Quebec, on March 5 of this year, and another in Simcoe East on May 16 of this year-seven vacancies; seven constituencies without representation during the greater part of this session.


Ernest Lapointe: Seven deadly sins.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And in the case of six I think the Speaker has issued his writ for by-elections to be held on August

19. Parliament dissolves by efflux of time on August 18, a Sunday, and the following Monday has been fixed for these by-elections. The present section is to obviate the necessity of holding these by-elections, and it is left in the discretion of the chief electoral officer to declare that it is not likely that these by-elections could be held before a dissolution. Personally I do not like the idea of giving to an officer of the house the decision as to whether or not a by-election is to be held. The house itself ought to keep control of all matters which pertain to representation. The section, I think, might have been worded a little differently, for example somewhat as follows, to achieve the end in view and still keep control in the hands of the house:
Notwithstanding anything in this or any other act, if a writ of election has been issued for a by-election to be held on a date subsequent to the dissolution of parliament as provided ,by section 50 of the British North America Act, then such writ shall, upon notice to that effect being published in the Canada Gazette by the chief electoral officer, be deemed to have been superseded and withdrawn.
I do not think the House of Commons should part with the control over its own representation even to meet this disagreeable emergency in which the government finds itself. I make that suggestion.


Hugh Guthrie: I move the amendment suggested by my right hon. friend:
That the words "likely to be" in line 15 and the words "in the opinion of the chief electoral officer" in lines 15 and 16 be struck out, and that after the word "parliament" in line 16 the following words be inserted, "as provided by section 50 of the British North America Act."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 3-Form 20 amended.
George Washington McPhee: This appears to be a very drastic affidavit. Take the last section, No. 5:
That the signature which I have made to this deposition is in my usual handwriting, and is my true name.
That means that a man who is unable to write would be refused the right to take the oath.


Richard Bedford Bennett: His mark is his signature. There are decisions of the courts for that. It does not say "written" but "the signature which I have made." That is to cover the question of the mark. The mark is his signature.

Elections Act


George Washington McPhee: Could it not be clarified?
I can quite understand that some deputy returning officer might frighten a proposed deponent.


Mr. FACTOR:: Under the provisions of
the act an illiterate person may take an open ballot. He does not have ito mark the ballot; the returning officer marks it for him. If he is compelled even to make a mark there may be some difficulty in registering his vote.


Jean-François Pouliot: There is the same thing
about the blind. But very few will be blind about the next election.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Add the words "or mark" after the word "signature."


Richard Bedford Bennett: You could not say it is
his usual handwriting.


Ernest Lapointe: Is this the only case
where a written affidavit is required? Usually when a voter is challenged he takes the oath but does not sign anything.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is to prevent the
fraud that arises by reason of that. There is no sanction to it at all. Impersonators have taken the affidavit by hundreds.


Ernest Lapointe: If many electors are
challenged in that way and they have to make written affidavits, I am afraid a number of electors will not be able to register their vote because of lack of time. It often happens, it did in my own constituency in the last election, that in the afternoon people are waiting to vote, and there were many challenged votes and we were afraid that a number would not have time to vote. If this is taken advantage of 'by some representatives of candidates and every voter is required to have an affidavit prepared and sign it, or affix his mark if he is not able to sign, I am afraid there will be a blockade at the door of certain polls. I do'not think this has been sufficiently considered.


Jean-François Pouliot: Not only that; the distribution of polls has been most absurd. In my constituency there are polls with fifty voters and others with four hundred. If the deputy returning officer takes advantage of that clause to impose an oath on every voter it will be impossible for all on the list to vote. Elections might be stolen with that provision. I strongly protest against it; it should be drafted differently. It has been in the oven long enough to be drafted properly.


Samuel Factor: Section 38 of the election
act provides that if a man's name is on the voters' list he is entitled to vote. I quite agree that if there is impersonation it ought
to be checked, but the proper way would be to administer the oath in the most expeditious way possible. Having this long form, and the returning officer having to have it signed by the elector, will clog up the polling booths and deprive a great number of voters of the right to vote. This is a long form; it will have to be read over-


Hugh Guthrie: It is the same form; it
will have to be read anyway-the only thing that will take time is the signing of the name. The returning officer has to sign under the present law. There are only three hundred voters on the list for any polling subdivision.


Samuel Factor: But the former oath was
much shorter; there was nothing about its being in the usual handwriting.


Hugh Guthrie: It is the same oath except that last line:
That the signature which I have made to this deposition is in my usual handwriting, and is my true name.


Samuel Factor: Is clause 4, about the
occupation, in the present oath?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Was this particular form in the bill that was presented to the house a year ago?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My recollection is that there was some similar form, if not this one, and that strong exception was taken, particularly by the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. &t-Pere), on the ground taken this evening, that it might lead to polls becoming jammed on account of the length of time it would take to sign these forms.


Ross Wilfred Gray: As the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor) has pointed out, under the Dominion Elections Act if a man's name is on the list he is entitled to vote. Here again, under section 3 we compel him to say that he is ordinarily a resident and to repeat all the qualifications which were required when he was placed on the list by the registrar. It seems to me that there are .many superfluous sections in this affidavit, and I believe it might well be reconsidered.


Hugh Guthrie: Let us read the present oath, which appears as form No. 20 of the act of last year:
You swear that you verily believe that you are the person intended to be referred to by the entry in the list of voters for this polling
division of the name of	
Whose occupation is given as	
and whose address is given as	
So help you God.
The (blanks have to be filled in.
Elections Act


Ross Wilfred Gray: I say that is all that is necessary.


Hugh Guthrie: The suggested form shows a residential qualification and complies in that respect with the section-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With
what is already proved to the registrar.


Hugh Guthrie: -with the section of the Franchise Act applicable to the case, namely, that the person was on the list of voters on May 15, the date mentioned in the Franchise Act. That is the reason the date has been included here.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: One is an oath administered and the other is an affidavit made. There is quite a difference.


Hugh Guthrie: It is for the purpose of identification and to reduce the number of fraudulent votes polled at elections. The purpose is so far as possible to stop impersonation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Last
year's form is much better than this one.


Hugh Guthrie: No, because it is an open oath. A man took it, voted and went away and there was nothing to identify him. Now we have his signature. It has been found that if it were desired to prosecute it was difficult to make an identification. Here we have a document upon which he may be prosecuted.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Surely it must have been noted at the time the man voted that he was sworn?


Hugh Guthrie: There is a note made by the returning officer, yes.


Samuel Factor: Section 38 of the Dominion Elections Act provides that once a man is on the basic voters' list as revised he is entitled to vote. This affidavit would put him through another test, just as though he were going through another enumeration.


John Thomas Hackett: Merely to identify him with the name on the list.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It simply will not work. It is a discrimination against people unfortunate enough to be illiterate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: Why not ask the elector to sign his name on the ballot? That would be just as good.


Samuel Factor: I repeat that this suggested change is in contravention of section 38 of the Dominion Elections Act, which provides that once a man's name is on the voters' list he is entitled) to vote, provided

he is not impersonated. Here the suggestion is made again to put him through the test which he was .put through either by the enumerator in connection with the preparation of the basic list or by the revising officer when the revision took place. He has already taken a certificate or oath that he has been in a certain electoral district. On the day of election we would be putting him through the same test, so far as sections 2 and 3 of the bill are concerned. I say such procedure would be in contravention of section 38. If we wish to guard against impersonations, all right, but not in this form.
.Mr. MacNIOOL: I am strongly in favour of this-
UMr. CASGRAIN:	Of course.
Mr. MacNIOOtL: -new form 20.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then it must be wrong.


Mr. MacNIOOL:: It might be wrong if
you said it. The revision which has been taking place since May 15 convinces me that such a form should1 be available, and I believe it would not be used as certain hon. members of the opposition have attempted to indicate. There will be people appearing at the polls in the coming election who wild not be entitled to vote for this reason.: In enumeration which has taken place in constituencies with which I am familiar the work was done by enumerators sent out by candidates or members. When these enumerators called to ascertain whether there were new names to be put on the lists in many instances they would find that the people were not at home and, under such circumstances, would leave a form. At a later date they would call back and get the forms. I believe there will be occasions when it will be necessary to ask a man if he is a British subject, and, if it is believed that he is not, to ask him to swear to it.
I know of polling subdivisions where as many as 105 changes have been made from the list prepared last October. Information which has .come to me indicates that several of the people whose names have been added to the lists are not twenty-one years of age.
I was told of a young lady-I shall not give her name, because it would not be my business to challenge her vote-who was only nineteen years of age and, contrary to advice, it is said her name was .placed on the list. Undoubtedly there will be many cases like that, and' I suggest the amended form would provide against this difficulty because the person must state, if sworn, he or she is of the full age of twenty-one years. I can see nothing wrong with that. Then he or

B. C. Relief Camp Strikers
she must swear to being a British subject, and I believe people have been put on the list recently who may not be British subjects.


Samuel Factor: There is no objection to
paragraph 1.


John Ritchie MacNicol: 
Ross Wilfred Gray: All that should have been
done at the revision.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But in the present
revision the enumerators named either by candidates or members may not have ascertained that.


Ross Wilfred Gray: There has been a revision
since the list was established.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, I know. I am trying to point out that ordinarily it is supposed that the registrar of electors has been making all the revisions. It is true that in my constituency the registrar sat at three different places and my information is that approximately 200 or more names were enrolled at those three offices at which the registrar of electors held his revision. While he did1 his job efficiently, there have been between three and four thousand other names added in my riding, which goes to show that over three thousand names were added by the enumerators appointed by the candidates or by the member. I am convinced that this is a very necessary form, and I cannot see any objection to it. I cannot see where it would do any barm. It would stop those who have not the right to vote.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Mr. Chairman, may I call
attention to the fact that it is now nearly a quarter past eleven o'clock? I think the Minister of Justice would be well advised to consider the representations that have been made from this side of the home.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, I will consider them, but I think there is a great deal of force in what has been said on this side. These lists are prepared in the cities particularly by enumerators, and there are a lot of names on the lists of people who are not British subjects and are not twenty-one years of age.
The first clause is very essential in the oath; that is the one that I think is most important. However, I will consider it between now and to-morrow morning.


Ernest Lapointe: It is more to the requiring of a signature that I object than to the sections 1, 2, 3 and 4, because it will have the effect of jamming the polls.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Only three hundred under the new act.


Ernest Lapointe: There are some people who do not like to be sworn in when they come to register their vote. We have even thought of compulsory voting in this country, so I do not think we should put such obstacles and difficulties in the way of people who are bashful and do not like to have their vote challenged or to have to sign their names, especially illiterate people. I do not think it is right. I do not see what you can accomplish by it, because the man who goes there with fraudulent intent will not hesitate to sign if he is asked to sign. It is the honest people you are going to prevent from voting.
Section stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
It being fifteen minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, July 5, 1935