1936-03-27

EFFECT ON HALIFAX DIVISION OF CONSOLIDATION OF NOVA SCOTIA SECTION FORCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. T. PURDY (Colchester-Hants):: 
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Veniot) (reading):: 
Mr. BENNETT:: Mr. Chairman, I think something should be done other than merely to deal with the item in this way, because the house had no idea that what the committee is now dealing with is a grant of interim 12739-974
Interim Su-pply
supply for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1937. I think we should do it in the regular way. I used to have a great deal of difficulty about interim supply, but so far as I am concerned I quite agree that the minister should have it for the public service.


Mr. DUNNING:: I was awaiting your reading of the resolution, Mr. Chairman. Probably I should have made a statement before you read the resolution.


Peter John Veniot: Perhaps I should have read the resolution first, and then the minister would follow with a statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the other way about.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will Perhaps it will facilitate
you permit me? matters-


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: It is simply impossible for any of us in this corner to understand what is going on. We cannot hear the chairman and we cannot hear the minister.


Charles Avery Dunning: This is the usual interim supply bill to provide funds wherewith to carry on government business after the end of the month of March. My hon. friend knows that March is the end of the fiscal year, and that all authority for expenditures ends then unless it is renewed. The estimates have not yet passed the house, and, as is customary, the government is asking' for a grant of one-sixth of the total of the estimates plus one-twelfth extra of certain items which involve large expenditures early in the fiscal year. The resolutions are now before the committee of supply initiating the interim supply bill.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I think this is out of order unless the minister asks the consent of the house when the Speaker is in the chair. A request should have been made to the house for unanimous consent to bring in this motion. That is what has usually been done. In other years there has always been a good deal of criticism and discussion; as far as this group is concerned we do not propose to do that on this occasion, I submit to the minister that the proper course would have been to ask the consent of the house when the Speaker was in the chair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It must be done.


Ernest Edward Perley: Otherwise there is no way in which this can be brought before the committee under the rules.
Interim Supply


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Quite so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Last evening we asked what the business of the house was going to be to-day and there was not the slightest suggestion that interim supply was to be dealt with. It is quite clear that the Speaker must be in the chair when the house is asked to agree to the motion of the minister, otherwise we can consider only the supply that is in the estimates now before the house.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am quite prepared to let it stand over. Probably I was badly advised. I thought that by speaking to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) regarding the matter and then inquiring as to the procedure, I was properly guided. Apparently I was not, as I should have had the unanimous consent of the house before the Speaker left the chair. Perhaps being unaccustomed to this procedure for six years may be my excuse. The government is quite content to let the matter stand over until Monday in order that everything may be done with scrupulous regularity. There will still be time between Monday and the end of the fiscal year. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Ernest Edward Perley: Ask leave to sit again this day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If we are going to sit again this day in supply you should say, "this day."


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Dunning moves that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Progress reported.


Mr. McIYOR:: Would it not be more correct to report no progress?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) sometimes has the habit of making statements trying to impute blame where none belongs, and in order that there may be no misapprehension-


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister said that they were going to ask for supply for one-sixth and one-twelfth extra in some cases. I indicated that if he would read the record he would see how we had been treated during the last five years and would appreciate the situation. There is certainly no reason why there should be any change in the rules of the house. If the minister desires now to

move that the Speaker leave the chair for the purpose of taking into consideration interim supply, and that motion is put to the house, we will have no objection to it. That is all there is about it.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: My right hon. friend has made reference to the way in which he was treated during the last five years. May I say to him that if he looks over the record he will be amazed to see the great consideration that was shown him in this very matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Look at the record.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend forgets that he had a sixth session of parliament. If he will look at the record for the first five sessions I think he will find that at no time was any exception taken to the granting of one-sixth supply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Excuse me; in nearly every case it was limited to one-twelfth.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Only towards the last.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We will have the record for you on Monday.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my right hon. friend wants to limit this to one-twelfth we shall be very glad to do so. He has been in such a conciliatory frame of mind that I do not think he should spoil it at this last moment. What occurred in the past does not really bear out what he is saying at the moment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman has raised this question, so that we will deal with it on Monday when we shall have the records. I say to the minister that if he will make the appropriate motion I shall certainly agree to it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would my right hon. friend be agreeable to the minister making the motion now?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly; that is what I said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let us go ahead; we never had such a good chance.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not want to interrupt these two gentlemen who are discussing the rules of the house, as I know I am quite a tyro. Is it not Friday, Mr. Speaker? On Fridays you leave the chair for the house

Interim Supply
to go into committee of supply without question being put. How can I make a statement under those circumstances?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely the minister knows that the only supply that could be considered would be the main estimates, the estimates of those departments that have been before the committee already. If the minister desires to take up interim supply he asks the house to resolve itself into committee of supply for that special purpose, which I say we are ready to agree to.


Charles Avery Dunning: If it is in order to move that your honour leave the chair on Fridays, I move that you leave the chair for the house to consider interim supply.


Ernest Edward Perley: I submit to the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister that under the rules the Speaker leaves the chair on Fridays, but no department can bs taken up unless it has been already befors the committee. The proposal now is to take up every department, and this is distinctly against the rules. I do not see why there should be a lot of debate; we are quite willing that it should be done with unanimous consent.


Ernest Lapointe: That
could be asked for when the chairman of the committee is in his chair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Speaker must be in the chair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not quite right.


Ernest Lapointe: Now we are out of order; we were in order first, but now we are out of order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no need of trying to make a travesty of the rules of this house, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is trying to do. What should be done is to ask the unanimous consent of the house for a motion that the house resolve itself into committee of supply for the purpose of considering the estimates that have not been before the house. An interim supply bill is necessary because these estimates have not been passed in their entirety. We have done it so frequently that there is no question about it. The house gives its consent and that is all there is to it.


Ernest Lapointe: This could have been done very properly after the Speaker had left the chair. On Thursday and Fridays nothing can be said when the motion is made for the house to go into committee of supply. As I was leaving the house the day before yesterday an old gentleman who had just come from the gallery said to me, "You surely know how to waste time in this house." If that gentleman had been here today to witness this performance he would have been doubly sure of his statement.


Ernest Edward Perley: May I be allowed to say that the Minister of Justice is wasting time now? The greatest part of time wasting in this house has been done on his own side as far as this particular motion is concerned.


Peter John Veniot: Is there anything before the chair?


The SPEAKER:: With the unanimous consent of the house, Mr. Dunning moves seconded by Mr. Crerar, that I now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To consider an interim supply bill.
, 7	tuusmer an interim
bill of supply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not quite right.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Veniot in the chair.


Charles Avery Dunning: Vote No. 257 (first, second and fifth items),
Commerce.
3. Resolved that a sum not exceeding $51,167,229.11, being the amount of each of the several items to be voted, as set forth in further supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1936, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to Ilis Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending 31st March,
1936.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is of course understood that we are not agreeing to any of these items, so far as the estimates are concerned, to the extent of prejudicing our right to criticize or to object to them in toto, by reason of this interim supply being granted. Resolution No. 3 is very unusual, not unusual with respect to the larger items but with respect to some of the items that are introduced into the supplementaries that were tabled yesterday. But inasmuch as I take it, it is without prejudice to our rights in the matter, so far as this group is concerned I offer no objection. As I say, however, it is ain unusual proceeding with respect to all of the items in the interim supply bill.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Veniot in the chair.
Charles Avery Dunning: Resolved that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of the public service for the fiscal years ending respectively 31st March, 1936, and 31st March,
1937,	the sum of $87,132,085.26 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Charles Avery Dunning: I will do almost anything to facilitate progress. I appreciate my Tight hon. friend's willingness to cooperate, and while I do not think the third resolution is out of order, I am afraid we have to go back into committee of supply in order to eliminate it, because we are now in ways and means and the ways and means resolution involves of course a statement of the whole sum to be granted as interim supply. I wonder if it would not be proper to regard the supplementary estimates as supplementary to the estimates of last year. Most of the amounts here involved are amounts that are already due and payable. In .practically all cases it is not a matter of voting further moneys; these are moneys which are due and payable before the end

Interim Supply
of this month, and that is why it was decided to proceed in this manner. I cannot offhand quote precedents with respect to that, although I feel sure it must have been necessary from time to time in the past.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has for the railways,
but not for these other items.


Charles Avery Dunning: With railways, of course, it has often occurred, and railways constitute ninety^nine per cent of the amount before the committee. I would ask my right hon. friend that rather than go back to committee of supply and amend the resolution already passed we proceed with it without any prejudice whatever to the rights of anyone to full discusisom of any individual item concerned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the point.


Charles Avery Dunning: If I cannot get consent to it, Mr. Chairman, perhaps you can get the advice of the clerk as to the procedure. The resolution in question has already passed the committee of supply, and we are now in committee of ways and means I am willing to do whatever is in order.


Peter John Veniot: I understand it can be amended in committee when the supply bill is under consideration.


An hon. MEMBER:: It can be amended
now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In view of what the
minister has already said, I should point out that almost all the items in the supplementary estimates are items which practically have been expended, some of them probably by order in council, because that is the usual course, by warrant under the authority of the governor general. Some of them are extraordinary-for instance, to provide for expenses in connection with the death of His late Majesty, King George V; these are usually covered by governor general's warrant. The one that I referred to involves $173,000, and to my certain knowledge has been for six years before successive governments and has never been agreed to, because it involves a principle of the widest application in connection with people other than those mentioned in the item. The amount itself is relatively inconsequential.


Charles Avery Dunning: It has been adjudicated
upon.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am fully aware of
that. Few things have been more impressed
on the attention of the government in the last five years than that item. I know it was before the late government at least during the session of 1930 and, my memory is, of 1920.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman as
minister will know. Items with respect to railways are very simply disposed of, but when you come to the miscellaneous items, with all the harbour commissions, these are matters of transcendent importance. Some of them contain charges of which, in my judgment, parliament must be fully informed before it votes them. I am not going into details, but they represent loans obtained by harbour commissions from the banks, in some instances apparently on the sole responsibility of the commissioners without reference to anybody. The Minister of Marine nods his head as to that. I am not concerned about the immediate moment, but I think the Prime Minister will agree with me as a matter of precedent that to pass supplementary estimates that involve matters going back a period of ten years-if my memory serves me, at least one of these harbour commission borrowings goes back a period of ten years-


Mr. HOWE:: You mean Saint John?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is not included.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Others go back six or seven years. The one at Halifax is six years old now; the one at Three Rivers is not that old, but I could give you the list if I sent for my papers, because they are matters that gave me a good deal of concern, and do yet, as to the responsibilities involved in loans made by the commissioners under the circumstances in which they were made. I do not think we should deal with these, because they have never been before the committee. I put the point to the committee, and to the Prime Minister in particular: is it sound constitutional practice-using words which sound formidable but are not very formidable-for us to vote in this house without consideration in an interim supply bill items which have never been before the committee of supply except en bloc in one resolution, No. 3 of the resolutions submitted to-day for that purpose? Some of them involve questions of policy. I desire to assist in every way possible. I am sure the last man to depart from sound practice
Interim Supply

would be the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance himself, and I think it would be competent for him to move merely that the amount be reduced.


Charles Avery Dunning: On the bill?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Either on the bill or now in ways and means. It is competent for him, instead of taking a large item such as millions of dollars, to take a sum reduced, other than the railway or steamship vote. I think that is regular. The clerk can inform us.


Charles Avery Dunning: Can it be done on the bill?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It can be done better in committee.


Mr. CAHAN:: Mr. Chairman,_ if this resolution passes, the bill must be in accordance with the resolution. All that is necessary to avoid any long discussion is to reduce the figures $51,167,229.11 to $47,421,464.80.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. friend, but I am quite sure he is discussing now the resolution of the committee of supply. We are in committee of ways and means.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am discussing the resolution which is now before the committee.


Charles Avery Dunning: But it is not, if my hon. friend will permit me; that is the resolution which just passed the committee of supply.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It has not passed, as I understand it.


Charles Avery Dunning: We have passed out of committee of supply. The speaker came to the chair; the report was received, and we are now in committee of ways and means on this resolution:
Resolved that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of the public service for the fiscal years ending respectively 31st March, 1936 and 31st March, 1937, the sum of $87,132,085.26 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
I am prepared to agree at once that a bill founded on this resolution might, for the sake of order, involve a reduction of the amount here stated in committee, although I submit there is nothing to prevent a lesser amount being granted by a bill than is authorized by the resolution in the committee of ways and means. However, I am willing to reduce the amount.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The clerk at the table is probably more familiar with the matter than I am; it did not arise in my time. The Prime Minister is a much more experienced parliamentarian than myself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Thank you.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would seem to me that the rule is that the supply bill must conform to the resolution that has passed ways and means, and all that would have to be done would be to subtract $3,745,764.31, I think it is-that is the difference between $51,167,229.11, which is the sum total of the supplementary estimates, and the amount for railways and steamships, which is $47,421,464.80. If you subtract that from the fifty-one millions and reduce the ways and means resolution by that amount, you will then, without prejudice to your position, not have contravened, I think, any general principle, except that it does apply to them all, not having been before the committee of supply.


Charles Avery Dunning: I would prefer to eliminate supplementary estimates altogether from this resolution and bring them back all together, rather than take one single item in them.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is all right.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think that would be the better way. It would also ensure accuracy with respect to figures.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that is right.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall have to do a little calculating to alter the figures in this resolution, if you will just wait a moment.


Ernest Edward Perley: I suggest to the minister that all he has to do is leave out the third resolution.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am told that I have
to alter this ways and means resolution so that the figures will conform.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, may I
assist the minister to this extent: he put three resolutions before this committee. They were accepted by the committee without discussion. Just as soon as the opportunity arose-because we had not had time to read them-I pointed out that we were giving approval to the whole supplementary estimates tabled yesterday, which had never been before the committee, which I think is most unsound. Realizing the minister's difficulty in reila-tion to railways and steamships, however, I said that if he put that item in his third resolution instead of the $51,000,000 we would pass it. If the minister wants to do it expeditiously, without any trouble, all he has to do is move this committee up and the Speaker will ask leave for the house to resolve itself again into committee of supply. Then the minister can substitute $47,000,000 for the $51,000,000, and that will be the end of it.
MARCH 27, 193b
Interim Supply


Charles Avery Dunning: I prefer to leave out the whole of the supplementaries rather than do that. I move, Mr. Chairman, that the figures $87,132,085.26 be struck out of the resolution and the figures $35,964,856.15 substituted therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Resolution as amended reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 24, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial years ending respectively 31st March, 1936, and 31st March, 1937.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. DUNNING moved the second reading of the bill.
Ernest Edward Perley: I do not wish to suggest any delay, but in view of the change would it not be better for the minister to wait until Monday, when the bill will be printed properly and in accordance with his motion?


Charles Avery Dunning: At one time I did offer
to wait until Monday. Then there was made evident a disposition to help me along, and I think we might proceed. This change just involves -the elimination of one section and one schedule.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Yeniot in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The minister is eliminating
section 4?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, section 4 and
schedule B.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-$33,862,485.15 granted for 1936-37.
Mr. STEVENS:: Could we have an intimation of what is in these sections? There is just a point in my mind. -Mr. DUNNING:	When we get to section
4,	I will make a statement.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-$51,167,229.11 granted for 1935-36 on certain terms.
Charles Avery Dunning: The elimination of section 4 and schedule B will take from this bill the supplementary estimates about which there has been discussion.


Mr. CRERAR:: I move that section 4 be
eliminated and that the present section 5 be renumbered section 4.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
On the schedules.
Thomas Alexander Crerar: I move that schedule B
be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Schedules as amended agreed to.
On the preamble.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The preamble will have
to be amended now. If the minister will look at it he will see that it refers to the 1936 estimates, and that will have to be struck out If I can help the minister, I would suggest this: the word "messages" would become " message," because it deals only with the one submission of the main estimates. And in the fourth line strike out the "s" at the end of "messages." Then "for the financial year," not "years," ending the 31st March, 1937.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I move:
That in line 1 the words "a message" be substituted for the word "messages," and that the following words in lines 7 and 8, "ending respectively the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-six" be stricken out-


Richard Bedford Bennett: First is the word "years." Mr. CRERAR:
-and that the word "years," the second word in line 7, be struck out and the word "year" substituted therefor.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hope I shall not be misunderstood, but if the hon. gentleman will look at what he said the effect will be to strike out the word "ending." The word "ending" should be left in-"ending the thirty-first day of March, 1937."


Thomas Alexander Crerar: You are right.


Peter John Veniot: It is proposed that the preamble be amended by substituting the words "a message" for "messages" in the first line, and in the seventh line substituting the word "year" for "years," and leaving out in the seventh and eighth lines the following words, "respectively the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-six"; also in the eighth line leaving out th-e word "and."
Preamble as amended agreed to.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Yeniot):: Shall I report the bill?
Interim Supply


Ernest Edward Perley: Have you passed the title yet? That will have to be altered too, to read, "for the year ending the 31st March, 1937."


Peter John Veniot: The title to be amended as follows: in the second line substituting the word "year" for "years," and leaving out the following words in the third line, "respectively the 31st March, 1936 and." It will then read "of the financial year ending 31st March, 1937."
Title as amended agreed to.
Bill as amended reported.


Walter Edward Foster: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Charles Avery Dunning: With the consent of the house I move that the said bill be now read the third time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



SEED GRAIN


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 23, to assist the province of Saskatchewan in financing the cost of seed and seeding operations for the crop year 1936.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr, Veniot in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Charles Avery Dunning: I think I made a fairly complete explanation of the provisions of the bill on the resolution last evening.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2, subsection 1-Dominion guarantee of bank loans made under Seed Grain Act, 1936.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Did the banks require this guarantee before making any advances?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is difficult to say as to its being a final requirement. The matter has been one of negotiation between the government of Saskatchewan and the banks, and it was made quite plain that in view of the present difficult situation of our western provinces the terms under which such advances would be made would be better if the dominion's guarantee were extended also. I

am not really in a position to say the loan could not have been obtained on any terms without the guarantee, but certainly it can be obtained much more cheaply with it than without it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there any point in saying "a chartered bank," the singular? Is it contemplated that there shall be one bank or several in the operation?


Charles Avery Dunning: Several banks.


Mr. PELLETIER:: Does that mean that these loans will be guaranteed by the municipalities, the province and the federal government as well?


Charles Avery Dunning: The municipality will borrow the money, the provincial government guarantees its repayment, and the dominion also guarantee its repayment but on the understanding that any amounts which the dominion may be called upon to pay ultimately under its guarantee will be reimbursed to the dominion by the province.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What rate of interest is it intended to pay?


Charles Avery Dunning: Four per cent.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is the loan being restricted to one single bank?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, I believe there are several banks involved.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In the eighth line, and in the third line of subsection 2 the wording is "a chartered bank." I wonder if the hon. gentleman might not be held up by a single bank.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is possible, but I think an examination of the acts of the province to which reference is made will make that clear. The municipality does the borrowing from its own bank.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Therefore in the eighth line "a" should be "any."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then you would be safe beyond peradventure.


Charles Avery Dunning: It cannot hurt to put
"any" in.


Mr. MICHAUD:: I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subsection as amended agreed to.

Seed Grain
On section 2, subsection 2-Guarantee of bank loans made under the Local Improvement Districts Act, 1936, or the L.I.D. Act of Saskatchewan.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I suggest the same change
here, that in the seventeenth line the word "a" before "chartered bank" should be changed to "any," so that it will read, "any chartered bank."


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: May I ask what the
words in the twenty-first and twenty-second lines mean, "for purchasing seed grain and providing other assistance to farmers in connection with seeding operations during the spring of 1936."


Charles Avery Dunning: That means assistance
under the provincial statute in connection with seeding operations, feed for horses, and SO' forth.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Has the minister any
idea what rate of interest these loans will bear?


Charles Avery Dunning: I stated a moment ago
that the rate of interest charged by the banks will be four per cent. Answering further my right hon. friend's question as to the meaning of other assistance, in the provincial legislation "supplies" means petroleum products, feed grain, fodder, repairs to implements and parts, formaldehyde and gopher poison, and includes such other commodities and such services as the lieutenant governor in oouncil may approve. It has to do entirely with seeding, but apparently the word requires a fairly broad definition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The reason I desired that question to be answered Mr. Chairman, was to ascertain what assurance there would be that everyone would be dealt with fairly and on the same basis. I am not imputing motives to anyone, but I may say that I have received communications during the last few years as to administrative activities in connection with the distribution of assistance, on the one hand, and with the purchasing of hay, we will say, on the other, for purposes of feed. What assurance is there that there will be no favourites selected in the distribution of this assistance for seeding? It is a matter of first rate practical importance. It is all right to say that the municipalities have to deal with it, but by reason of their present position the municipalities
have become to some extent the controlled creatures, more or less, of provincial governments, and if the municipalities are to make distribution at the caprice of the reeve or whoever the official may be, great difficulty might be experienced by those who were rightly entitled to>
this relief. It is not a mere suggestion that this might happen, because it has happened.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is difficult to see how
we can go back of the responsibility of an organized municipality operated by its own responsible elected officers. I may say also that the legislation provides for the necessary by-law and sets out the form of it. The municipality is the borrower of the money. The taxpayers of the municipalities are initially responsible for it, and therein lies our protection, I think, against any abuse. Certainly the dominion government cannot contemplate going into every rural municipality to ensure that discrimination does not take place in a matter which after all is initially a responsibility of the municipality under provincial legislation, and secondly is the responsibility of the province by virtue of its guarantee, and the responsibility of the province in a more important sense because it undertakes to reimburse the dominion in respect of any sums which the dominion may have to pay ultimately under the terms of its guarantee. While I appreciate as much as the leader of the opposition the desirability and necessity of avoiding discrimination in the distribution of seed grain under this legislation, I cannot see how it is possible for the dominion to undertake to ensure that there will not be any; but knowing the men as I do-for I have some knowledge of the men elected as rural municipal councillors and reeves in the province of Saskatchewan-I do not think we need be apprehensive of discrimination. Of course public men always will hear-I do and I am sure my right hon. friend does- from those who for good reasons have been refused by their neighbours the accommodation required, and who always allege discrimination for political or other reasons. I have received communications, as has my right hon. friend, and there may be some foundation for them in some cases. However, I doubt if we can go back of the responsibility which rests upon the elected representatives of the people of the municipality when utilizing the municipalities' and taxpayers' money or credit for the purpose of dealing with this matter.
Seed Grain


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am afraid my memory is confused as between Alberta and Saskatchewan; I should like to know what amount was advanced last year for seed grain in Saskatchewan. This was done by order in council.


Charles Avery Dunning: The assistance received for grain and seeding operations in 1935-36 was $6,000,000. This was by way of direct loan.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Was that under the relief act?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it is correct to say that that sum was distributed by the provincial government in the same manner as it is proposed to distribute the $4,000,000 provided by the present bill.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) could answer that. He is better acquainted with the matter.


Mr. GARDINER:: From 1930 down to 1935 the moneys were lent by the federal government to the provincial government and are a charge against the debt of the province of Saskatchewan. In 1935-36 it was done in three ways. The federal government lent part of the money, the loan companies put up part under provincial guarantees, and the banks put up part under provincial guarantees. This bill provides for it all being put up under guarantees.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I listened carefully to the hon. gentleman while he was reading certain provisions of the Saskatchewan act. I notice the word "assistance" appears in line 23 of this subsection, the phrase reading, "providing other assistance to farmers in connection with seeding operations." In the Saskatchewan act the word "supplies" is used, and I suggest that that word be used in this bill, making it read:
-for purchasing seed grain and providing other supplies to farmers in connection with seeding operations during the spring of 1936.


Charles Avery Dunning: The draftsmen of the Department of Justice had the recently amended Saskatchewan act before them; in fact they made certain changes in this bill because of the recent amendments. I would prefer not to redraft the section in committee, but I am quite willing to leave the bill in committee in order that the draftsmen may consider this point.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the sections read by the hon. gentleman are the relevant sections of

the Saskatchewan act, then the word "assistance" should be "supplies." "Assistance" carries with it a larger liberty of expenditure than does "supplies."
_ Mr. DUNNING: I read the definition clause in the Saskatchewan act defining the word "supplies."


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister has not got the point raised by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). He is suggesting that we use the same wording in this bill as is used in the Saskatchewan act. The Saskatchewan act interprets "supplies," and when you are referring to a provincial statute it is always desirable that you use the wording of that statute.


Charles Avery Dunning: The draftsmen used the word "assistance" because of the definition of the word "supplies" in the Saskatchewan act. That act defines it to mean certain specific things and includes such other commodities and such services as the lieutenant governor in council may approve.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is no broader than
" assistance."


Charles Avery Dunning: I think I prefer to
leave it as it is.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is there any limitation
on the rate of interest?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no limitation,
but the loans are being made at the rate of four per cent.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: Can the minister give
any intimation of the basis upon which this seed will be distributed, or is that being left entirely to the discretion of the municipalities?


Charles Avery Dunning: Upon my assurance on
behalf of the government that this legislation would be submitted to this house, preliminary steps were taken by the municipalities concerned. I have here copies of the circular letters issued by the government of Saskatchewan to the municipalities giving them instructions as to how to proceed. It is desirable to get this legislation through at as early a date as possible in order that the guarantees may be effective, but this does not mean that there will be a rush to get it through in five minutes.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.

Seed Grain
On section 2, subsection 3-Form and conditions of guarantees.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will state whether or not the contemplated method of distribution is the same as was used last year.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is practically the
same.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I give the benefit
of my experience and suggest that this subsection should provide for signature by the Minister of Finance or the Deputy Minister of Finance? In practice the deputy minister very often does sign, but it necessitates an order in council being passed in each case. The provision for signature by this official in this subsection would cover the situation. We had to do that in connection with some of our bonds.


Charles Avery Dunning: The signing of these
guarantees will be a very important executive act and personally I think the minister should sign them on behalf of the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For the last fifteen years he has not been able to do this because he has had too much to do. If the subsection stopped there I would have agreed with the minister, but it goes on to say "or by such other person as the governor in council may from time to time designate." Quite often a chief clerk has been designated as the one
r]r\ +1^0 gitrninor


Charles Avery Dunning: For the signing of bonds and that sort of thing, but this is a single instrument. My right hon. friend will appreciate the point I have in mind. The words "or by such other person" are commonly used, but I think the signing of a single instrument such as this should be a responsibility which the minister should discharge himself. Of course it is absolutely necessary to have provision for others to sign individual instruments in large numbers, but this is just one guarantee for each bank.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Total loans guaranteed not to exceed $4,000,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: From what was said
yesterday I gather that there is no likelihood of the minister being able to give us any idea as to how this $4,000,000 will be broken down?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is an odd thing, after all the care that has been taken to investigate the matter, that we cannot be given some idea as to what will be required for each specific purpose.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is practically all for seed. The investigation was of course not so much with respect to the kind of seed or the kind of help to be given as with respect to the necessity for the amounts asked for, and the creditors particularly will require to give assistance, because the amount required is undoubtedly in excess of the sum here provided. But it is hoped that the amount required through the municipal form of distribution will come within $4,000,000. Certainly the lending institutions and those having an interest in- the farms of that country will be expected to advance seed to their own debtors in the same manner as they have done formerly and, I hope, to the widest possible extent having regard to the creditor-debtor relationship.


Ernest Edward Perley: Does the
minister propose to have an official of the government checking up on the loans to municipalities-checking for instance the applications by farmers to the municipalities for seed? I think the former government had in Regina an official who O.K.'d or checked the accounts.


Charles Avery Dunning: No. With respect to that matter we are relying upon the interest of the province to check it up. We will of course check up so far as the aggregate amount is concerned, but it is not proposed to undertake any interference with the administration of the municipal seed law, which is under the control of the department in the province in charge of municipal affairs. We have, as part of the information with respect to general procedure, all of the circular letters and instructions which have been issued officially by the government of Saskatchewan to the municipal units, blank application forms and so on. We have assured ourselves as far as possible that the procedure intended to be followed is the proper one, and we think that the very much greater interest of the province in the matter should ensure proper supervision on their part.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister a moment ago stated that same figure of $6,300,000 was advanced last year, and that was supplemented by the Minister of Agriculture, who said that the advances were made by	the	province	through	its	guarantee,by	the	dominion	through	its	guarantee,
and by the banks, loan companies and other institutions through assistance given
Seed Grain

for seed grain. The sum of 14.000,000 is less than that, but I understood from what the minister said that that $6,300,000 was the sum total of the advances made rather than the advance made by the federal government. I was curious to know what that advance was.


Charles Avery Dunning: Six million, dollars was advanced by the federal government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Direct?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the minister of agriculture will say what the total advance would amount to. The dominion advanced $6,000,000, which is $2,000,000 more than this measure contemplates; then the province guaranteed a sum, and the banks and the loan companies. What would be the sum total of advances for seed?


James Garfield Gardiner: I must speak from memory-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


James Garfield Gardiner: The loan companies last year estimated theirs at 11,500,000 to begin with, but I think they put out only about $1,000,000, and the banks put up amounts in the municipalities around the edge of the drought area. That would be about the same. There would be somewhere between $8,000,000 and $9,000,000 altogether.
. ^r- BENNETT:	That answers a question which I daresay is in the minds of many hon. members. Has the government a statement to make with respect to drought areas and whether or not there was an entire loss of the moneys invested in seed grain last year? To what extent for instance has there been repayment, and would the present conditions in the drought area warrant further expenditures for seed grain? What is the general outlook in that regard?


James Garfield Gardiner: The minister suggests
that I deal with part of the question. The matter of repayments I am not in a position to deal with, but so far as the drought area is concerned, last year there were about 140 or 150 municipalities to which assistance had to be given by way of seed, and to which during the previous winter assistance had to be given to many of the farmers to carry their stock through the winter. The giving of seed last year provided for the putting in of a crop in what was known as the drought area. That drought area produced perhaps the best crop we had in Saskatchewan last year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I want to
get on the record.


James Garfield Gardiner: The part that is rusted so badly this year is the section of the province which before was not hit so hard by drought. That is due of course to the difference in moisture. When I left the province-I am not familiar with the facts now-there were about twenty-five municipalities that had to have assistance for feed during the past winter, as against 150 for the previous winter. The putting in of seed last year, by one means or another, made provision for those farmers having the feed as a result of the production of their own crops, so that in that way it has cut down greatly the cost of governments in carrying the people through the winter we have just come through, and in putting them in a position to put in crops in this coming spring. There will be some twenty-five municipalities where it will be necessary to provide some feed in connection with seeding operations this spring, and in addition to that there are the amounts of seed spoken of here. This will cover not only what has been known as the drought area but the rusted country as well.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is not the minister in
error with respect to the amount required? I observed an order in council going through the other day-I will send for it-in which it was stated that a further advance had to be made because of the necessity for increasing the amount of direct relief in Saskatchewan.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not speaking of
direct relief. Direct relief in Saskatchewan was provided last year, so far as this government was concerned, by the payment of $200,000 a month in cash. This year it is $375,000, I believe.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It increased seventyfive per cent.


James Garfield Gardiner: It has increased seventy-five per cent this year for the winter months, but that is direct relief. A distinction was made between direct relief and assistance given the farmers because of the drought. The cost on account of drought this last year is much less than it was the previous year.


Ernest Edward Perley: Will the Minister of Agriculture make that a little clearer? The southeastern part of the province, south of the main line, which was in the drought area before, was hit this year with rust, was it not? Will it not require seed?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, it was hit with
rust and will require seed but it will not require straw and hay.

Seed Grain


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What rate of interest is
paid on the money that is lent to the mortgage and loan companies by the provincial governments, or at least guaranteed?


James Garfield Gardiner: It does not appear in
connection with this legislation, because this government is not giving a guarantee, but I understand that it has been reduced this year. I would not state that as a fact however because I have not the information.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is this money advanced
at a lower Tate of interest than that borrowed by the provincial government without federal government guarantee?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, it may be, but I am not in a position to say at the moment.


Mr. STEWART:: The minister stated that last year the amount loaned by the federal government to the province was, in round figures, S6,000,000, and that in addition there were other contributions from loan companies and municipalities amounting to two or three million dollars. This year there is provision for $4,000,000 from the dominion. It is contemplated that this year there will be similar contributions from loan companies and the same sources that the minister mentioned as having contributed last year about three million dollars?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is expected by the government of Saskatchewan that approximately one million dollars will be loaned again this year to their borrowers by mortgage companies and insurance companies having mortgages on farms.


James Garfield Gardiner: This covers the remainder.


Charles Avery Dunning: This covers the remainder.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point I had reference to is to be found in the order in council dated February 20, 1936, which authorized an advance of $1,435,000 to Saskatchewan to cover the provincial share of direct relief expenditures in excess of the monthly grant in aid from September 1 to December 1, 1935, accepting treasury bills bearing interest at four per cent per annum. What I gathered was that this has been a harder winter than they have had in a long time, and I recall the seriousness of conditions in the drought area.


Mr. McGEER:: Why is it that this provision applies only to Saskatchewan? It appears to me that the principle of the thing is a very good one. I suppose Saskatchewan may be very fortunate in being represented by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture. But the matter seems to me to justify some word of explanation as to why Saskatchewan is the only favoured province in respect of this wide distribution of federal patronage in the realm of relief.


Charles Avery Dunning: That was fully dealt with last evening when the resolution precedent to the introduction of the bill was under discussion. The problem respecting seed grain is, of course, peculiarly acute in Saskatchewan by reason of what has happened there in the last few years, and particularly during last year, when a large area was rusted. Rusted wheat is no good for seed, and it has very little value for sale in order to enable the grower of it to buy seed. That is in brief the situation in Saskatchewan. I indicated last evening that Manitoba had been advised of the passage of legislation of this kind, and it was indicated to that province that if its situation was such as to require similar assistance, that could be considered. I have as yet had no advice from Manitoba; the problem is less in extent in that province, and so far as I know their local machinery is adequate for the size of the problem. Last night I gave the figures with respect to Alberta. I would point out to my hon. friend, however, that this is a guarantee. It does not contemplate ultimate loss by the dominion. It contemplates that when the federal government is called upon to implement any portion of its guarantee the province shall repay the dominion that amount.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Is the minister of opinion that Saskatchewan will reach that happy situation, in view of the debt it is carrying now?


Charles Avery Dunning: Saskatchewan undertakes in this bill to make repayment, and later on we shall come to the provision which sets out the time at which the settlement day comes with respect to this.


René-Antoine Pelletier: The minister has just given us some information which I do not believe was given last night. He states that this government has advised the Manitoba government that this legislation is about to pass. Has the same advice been sent to the Alberta government?


Charles Avery Dunning: I must beg my hon. friend's pardon; I did positively give this information last evening with respect to Manitoba. My hon. friend will find it in Hansard; it was given last night, and I also, with respect to Alberta, gave the information that that province is quite well aware of what is being done in this connection.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Seed Grain
[Stage Direction]
On section 4, subsection 1-Dominion and provincial guarantees to be separate and successive.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that if this is retained, it will be regarded as one of the greatest invitations that has ever been issued to a primary guarantor not to pay.
No guarantee shall be given under the authority of this act, unless provision is made that the liability of the province of Saskatchewan and the government of Canada in respect of any such loan guaranteed by them shall be separate and successive and not joint-
That is, the primary debtor to the bank is the municipality. If it does not pay, then Saskatchewan should pay; and if Saskatchewan does not pay, the government of Canada must pay. But that liability under this bill is not to be a joint and several liability but is to be separate and successive, as I have indicated:
-and that the government of Canada shall only be liable to implement its guarantee in respect of any loan to the amount that the province of Saskatchewan is unable to implement its guarantee in respect of the same loan.
Not, "does not," but "is unable to" do it. There is a later provision that they can meet it by giving a note, which reminds one of the old story of the man who said, "I have just renewed my note; thank goodness, that debt is paid." If the section as a whole is looked at, it will be seen that it is almost an invitation to Saskatchewan, if it is liable, not to endeavour to pay but to produce treasury bills and say, "Here they are; we have given another note in addition to the many notes we have already given"-that is, under subsection 2-"thank goodness, that liability , is discharged." I hardly think the hon. gentleman was justified in making the statement he did as to the excellence of this guarantee from the standpoint of the dominion, in view of the fact that it is nothing more than a provision that if the municipality does not pay, Saskatchewan must pay the bank at the end of the three years. If Saskatchewan says and presumably it is Saskatchewan that is entitled to do it-"We are not able to implement our promise in that regard," all that has to be done is that the province will deliver to the Minister of Finance treasury bills or other obligations of Saskatchewan in such form and subject to such terms and conditions as the Minister of Finance may approve, equal in principal amount to the amount which the government of Canada is so required to pay. And inasmuch as the treasury is fairly well overburdened now with treasury bills for interest as well as principal, and thus far payments of interest on

treasury bills given by the province have been met by new treasury bills, it does seem to me that this hardly warrants the statement made by the hon. Minister of Finance as to the character of the guarantee. It merely says, although we may be liable, if we cannot pay it, if we cannot implement our guarantee, we will give you some more paper. I think that is a fair description of what the hon. gentleman said.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sure my right hon. friend speaks feelingly with respect to that matter, because he has had experience such as I am now having-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Charles Avery Dunning: -and it is rather difficult to give any other answer than this. I feel sure that he, like myself, accepted these pieces of paper on behalf of the government of Canada because he still has faith in the ability of western Canada to come back and in the good faith of its people. That pretty nearly sums up the situation as far as I am concerned, and I think I speak there for my right hon. friend also. The west is passing through a very difficult time. I have been particularly, may I say, touched by the way in which the people there are standing up under difficulties greater than those which beset any of us who are proud of having been pioneers in the west, and are retaining also an appreciation of their responsibilities when there is every excuse-I say "excuse," not "reason"-for them to feel that everything might be allowed to go; that nothing is any good. Canada has reason to be proud of the people who during the last five years have endured what they have endured, but who still are sticking, and are among the best Canadians we have in this country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I desired some such
observation as that to be made by the hon. gentleman, which is in such a strikingly different note from the cooperation which I and those associated with me received when sitting on the other side of the house. We did provide large sums of money for Saskatchewan, in many instances larger sums than some people thought should have been provided. We believed that the future of that province was not as dark as it was thought to be by some who looked through coloured glasses at the moment, and as a result of the risks incurred we found ourselves greatly criticized in many quarters. Worst of all, we found ourselves in the position in which those who, we thought, at least should have some kindly appreciation of the efforts being made to maintain the integrity of the prov-

Seed Grain
ince were not content with criticism, but added to it abuse. I think probably that will come home to those who, occupying different positions, will have a clearer appreciation of what is involved.
The last few sentences uttered by the Minister of Finance, as to the struggle of those people and the burden they are carrying, dealt with something to which reference has been made so often as not to require any further evidence of it than merely to see what they have been enduring in connection with food, clothing and the ordinary amenities of life. But on the other hand there is a corresponding obligation on the part of the government of the province to realize to *some extent, by the manner in which government is conducted, by the practice of economies and, shall I say, the cessation of purely political efforts, just what is being done and what has been done by the people [DOT]of the whole of Canada, largely through the savings of the people in eastern Canada, to meet that situation. The credit of the country being limited largely to its own home market for the purpose of securing money to meet these conditions, because of the situation in the United States with respect to ourselves :and the conditions that have arisen in Great Britain, it is made doubly difficult to have terms of opprobrium applied to those who live in the east and who have provided their savings, and in many instances savings that have come from outside of Canada, in the *case of some of our large institutions, for the purchase of the obligations of the dominion in order to enable these payments to be made.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: I asked that question because I wanted to emphasize the manner in which this credit was being dealt with, and I feel that the remarks of the Minister of Finance and the right hon. leader of the opposition have brought that out very clearly. 'The situation in Saskatchewan is serious; drought and rust have created a condition that necessitates and justifies federal assistance, but the manner in which this assistance is given is peculiar. The security taken for the repayment of any obligation that may develop through the guarantees is the certificates of the government of Saskatchewan or, as the Minister of Finance says, the pieces of paper of the Saskatchewan government. It strikes me that it would be far better for the farmers of Saskatchewan, for the government of that province, for the government of the dominion .and for the credit of this country, to use the most powerful force available to obtain that [DOT]credit at the lowest possible rate of interest 12739-98
rather than to go about the matter in such a way that the highest rate of interest must be paid. Instead of the national government going forward and meeting this obligation at a low rate of interest, what does it do? It permits the municipality to borrow from the bank, backed, in the first place, by the guarantee of the provincial government, and, in the second place, by the guarantee of the dominion government. The bank charges a rate of interest not on the security of the national government but on the security of the municipality, and the national government does not intervene to dictate as to what that rate should be.


Charles Avery Dunning: Who says so? If my
hon. friend will permit me, he made a remark which is not correct; he said that the federal government did not intervene. Without reasonable satisfactory assurances regarding rates of interest I assure my hon. friend that the dominion guarantee would not have been given.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: A? a matter of fact what
were the rates of interest guaranteed? They were four per cent. The minister may call that intervention, but a federal government backed by the power of the Dominion of Canada ought to be borrowing money on a short term loan at less than one per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: This is not a short term loan.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: It is supposed to be determined and settled within a three year period, and a three year loan certainly is not a long term loan. South of the line the federal government is able to finance on short term loans for less than one per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: So are we.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Then why not make use
of that power to the benefit of these suffering Saskatchewan farmers? The tragedy of burdening the people of the drought and rust areas of Saskatchewan with a four per cent interest-well, that may be a form of help, Mr. Chairman, but unless it is given on the assumption so commonly held to-day that much of the borrowing of the present time is never going to be repaid, instead of being a help it is going to be a disaster!


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Subsection 2 agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
Bill reported.
[Stage Direction]
Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner


[Stage Direction]
1930 wheat crop
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 22, to provide for the payment of certain sums of money to primary producers of wheat with respect to wheat of the 1930 crop delivered to provincial pool organizations.
He said: This'bill, which was preceded by the resolution discussed during the last two or three days, is an extraordinary measure, brought before the house because of extraordinary conditions. It is unusual for the house to be called upon to provide for payment in connection with a crop grown and marketed or partly marketed five years ago. Because of the extraordinary nature of the claims made in connection with that crop and the handling of the question down to the present the bill itself is of an extraordinary nature. There is a rather long preamble, in which the government have set forth in detailed form the reasons for taking this extraordinary action. There is, in addition to the nature of the problem itself, another reason for bringing down this measure, it is that no authority was given in the legislation of last year to deal with certain matters that the government think ought to be dealt with, and even touching that part of the crop of 1930 for which some legal provision had been made in the legislation of last session, there are reasons for dealing with it by legislation in order that a full discussion of this extraordinary state of affairs should be before the country and before the house when a vote is taken on the question. I say, "before the country," because of the many rumours that have gone out in connection with the payment, the rather wide discussion as to whether the crop should be paid for or whether payments in addition to those already made should be made in connection with the crop at this or at any other time. Then, again I think, because of the extraordinary nature of the conditions necessitating this legislation, and the nature of the legislation itself, the house should have a full understanding of the surrounding conditions.
Western Canada, as is generally known, and well known in this house from the discussions we have been carrying on this afternoon and on previous occasions, is preeminently a grain growing section. The growing of grain in that part of the country is surrounded by difficult conditions. One is the fact that it is so far north, another that being so far north it is essential to the growing of grain there at all that we have the kind

of climate that, generally speaking, we do have in western Canada. But the condition which more than any other concerns the passing of this legislation is the fact that this grain growing section is located in the centre of a continent, a long distance from ports from which the grain can be shipped, and thousands of miles from the markets where the greater part of the grain is sold and consumed. This latter condition brings to the dealing with wheat in particular, and other grains to a lesser degree, a considerable risk. That risk arises from the distance of the wheat fields from the markets, and the time that elapsed between the harvesting of the crop the milling of the wheat into flour and the consumption of it in Europe.
Because of the element of chance that enters into the marketing of the grain it was considered necessary in the early days of grain growing in western Canada to set up a system of options. That system of options has to do to some extent with the carrying of the risk assumed by those who take over the grain in the first place from the farmers, hold it during the time it may be held in Canada, and eventually market it in Europe. Ever since that system was first set up there has been a great deal of controversy between the producers of the crop and the initial handlers of it as it passes from the fields of production to where it is to be consumed.
The organization set up in Winnipeg to take care of these dealings was the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, and usually when we are critical of the handing of our grain the criticism is directed at the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. As a result of the criticisms that took place over a term of years efforts were made on the part of the farmers to set up organizations of one kind and another to gain greater control over the marketing of their crop. The first real effort to get control of the marketing of the crops was embodied in a bill passed by this house many years ago and entitled the Canada Grain Act, by which many safeguards were placed about the trade in the interests of the producers.
In more recent times the efforts of the producers took the form of building up a cooperative organization. The final effort made in that connection was in 1923 and continued into 1924. That effort was to build up a contract pool; that is, the farmers of western Canada were asked to sign a contract that they would deliver their wheat to a pool organization for a five year period. And I may say that so many were convinced that this method was superior to that followed previously that over fifty per cent of the farmers of Saskatchewan, over fifty per cent

Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner
of the farmers of Alberta and over forty per cent of the farmers of Manitoba signed that contract in the years 1923 and 1924. In so far as Saskatchewan is concerned, between that time and five years later the percentage of those signing the contract had been increased to sixty per cent of all the farmers in the province. A second sign-up was made in 1929, and in Saskatchewan sixty-five per cent of the farmers signed the renewed contract, which would indicate that at that time they had considerable confidence in the organization that had been set up.
May I say that the wheat pool was set up for the purpose of carrying those risks that had previously 'been carried through the buying and selling of options, what we are pleased to call speculation in grain, guessing as to what the price would- be by the time the grain reached the market where it was going to be consumed. The wheat pool- was set up for the purpose of overcoming the necessity of having that element of speculation in the grain trade, and the method by which this was to be accomplished was, according to those who advocated that system, to have the farmer carry his own risks. He delivered his wheat to the organization and received an initial payment; if the price received1 for the wheat during the season was sufficient he received an interim payment during the season, and at the end of it he received his final payment- of the amount that had been obtained for the grain. That system, I repeat, was intended to provide a means whereby the farmer carried his own risks. If the price went up he secured more. If the price went down it was intended that provision would be made for the financing of the grain to be taken care of without anyone else being called upon to provide funds.
For some years, from 1924 to 1928, there was no difficulty in operating the pooling method of handling grain. During those years we had either a rising price or a fairly stable price for wheat, and there was very little difficulty in having that wheat delivered to the pool organizations, delivered ' by the pool organizations to the central' selling agency, known as the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, with offices at Winnipeg, sent on to the markets of the world and marketed, with interim payments and final payments being made later on as a result of the selling of the crop.
But difficulty arose in the year 1928. That difficulty arose because prices of wheat began to go down. I think any member of this house who is familiar with the marketing of any commodity, more particularly the marketing of wheat, will agree with me that if any 12739-981
system of handling products, and more especially wheat, is going to be successful for the farmers of western Canada, it will have to be a system that is capable of handling that wheat while prices are going down as well as while prices are rising or remaining more or less stable. In 1928 difficulties were experienced. In 1929 greater difficulties were experienced. The greater difficulties of 1929 arose out of this fact, that an initial price of one dollar a bushel was set for wheat, and wheat went down between the time it was harvested and the following summer from $1.73 to eighty-six cents a bushel.
The conditions under which the financing of the pools had been- done by the banks provided that there was always to be maintained a margin of fifteen cents between- the initial price paid, and the price that was actually being obtained for the wheat. When the price got down to about $1.26, or within eleven cents of the margin which the banks had set, the banks began to insist upon payment of the amounts of money that had been advanced to the pools, and when that insistence took -place the pools were face to face with the question whether they were going to sell their wheat and obtain the money or whether they would ask someone to assist them in financing through their period of difficulty. They chose the latter course. They went to the three provincial governments of western Canada, and asked those three provincial governments to guarantee the banks against losses in connection with financing the crop of 1929-30, and the sale of the carry-over from the crop of 1928. The three provincial governments undertook to do so, and they gave their guarantee against loss to the financing banks. That guarantee was made effective through legislation passed in the legislatures of the three western provinces; the pools went on to pay a price of one dollar a bushel during that season, and let me repeat, by the end of the season the price was eighty-six cents a bushel, although at the beginning of the season it had been $1.73.
At the end of the 1929 crop year the wheat pools had a carry-over of 43,000,000 bushels. Now, it was intended and expected at the beginning -of the organization of the pools that they wo-uld be able to market the crop from year to year, feeding it to the market regularly, as was said at that time, and that at the end of the year all the money that was available as a result of the sale of the crop would be paid out in a final payment to the farmers. But at the end of the 1929 crop year, in the middle of 1930, there was a carry-over of 43,000,000 bushels of wheat.
[Stage Direction]
Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner
I have recited 'these facts, Mr. Speaker, only to point out to the house that until the end of the 1929 crop year the federal government had no liability in connection with any operations having to do with the pooling of wheat. During the first four years of the operations of the pools the liability in connection with the wheat was carried successfully by the farmers. During the next year the governments of the three western provinces were assisting by giving their guarantee, and may I say that as a result of giving that guarantee the three western provinces, which eventually had to implement the guarantee, are carrying or were carrying in the neighbourhood of $25,000,000 as a result of losses incurred in connection with the marketing of that year's crop. All this experience was before the Dominion of Canada, and more particularly before western Canada, in the year 1929 and until July 31, 1930, which is the end of the pool crop year.
About the end of July, 1930, there were two or three events of importance. There was an election in July and a change of government on the seventh day of August. Two or three days before the government changed, I think on the fifth of August, representatives of the pools and, I believe, too, representatives of the provincial governments, came to eastern Canada for the purpose of trying to make arrangements for the financing of the 1930 crop. I understand that the first interviews with the government were between the ninth and twelfth of August, a few days after the government changed. Just prior to these negotiations, on July 16, the pools had set an initial price of seventy cents a bushel for the wheat crop of 1930. Admittedly that was only an interim price, set to meet conditions at the beginning of the season before any crop had come on to the market. This did not involve any arrangements with the banks or with the governments in connection with the new crop.
When these representatives came to Ottawa and met the government on different occasions between the ninth and twelfth of August there were discussions with regard to the financing of the 1930 crop. On August 26, as a result of discussions with the banks, with the provincial governments and with the federal government a price of sixty cents per bushel was agreed upon as the initial price to be paid by the pools for the crop of 1930. That initial price of sixty cents carried with it an understanding between the banks, the governments and the pools as to how any losses might be met, but no publicity was given to any of the understandings reached at that

particular time other than an intimation that at that early date the federal government was not prepared to guarantee the losses of the banks in connection with the crop.
Further negotiations were carried on until the month of October as the price of wheat was going down all the time. In October the initial price was reduced to fifty-five cents a bushel, basis No. 1 northern, Fort William. The price of wheat still continued to go down and changes occurred in the initial price to agree with the fifteen cent margin given to the banks. Eveiy time the initial price of wheat came down past that fifteen cent margin it was necessary to set a new initial price. The first reduction was from seventy to sixty cents a bushel, the second from sixty to fifty-five cents and the third from fifty-five cents to fifty cents, which was made in November, 1930.
It might be of interest to hon. members to know what the price of wheat was on those different dates. These prices are contained in the report of the auditors tabled the other day in committee. The set price of seventy cents a bushel was put into effect when wheat was selling at 95|- cents a bushel, on July 16, 1930. The set price of sixty cents a bushel was put into effect when wheat was selling at 85f cents a bushel, on August 26. The set price of fifty-five cents was put into effect when wheat was selling at 72i cents a bushel, on October 15. On November 11 the set price was fifty cents when wheat was selling at 65| cents a bushel. There are two points that should be noted in connection with these prices and the reductions in the initial price. There was a margin of twenty-five cents a bushel when the seventy cent a bushel initial price was set. When the price came down to eighty-eight cents they were within eighteen cents of the margin, and the price was reduced to sixty cents. When it came down to 72& cents a bushel they were 2J cents below the margin and the price was reduced to fifty-five cents a bushel. When it got down to 65| cents, they were 4f cents a bushel below the margin, and the price was reduced to fifty cents.
The second important point to be remembered is the fact that from July 16 to November 11 the price remained above sixty cents a bushel. During that period usually about seventy per cent of the crop of western Canada passes out of the hands of the farmers into the hands of those who handle the grain. In other words, approximately seventy per cent of the grain was actually marketed at a price above sixty cents per bushel. Those who sold outside the pools obtained over sixty cents per bushel if they sold outright, or at least

Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner
on the basis of sixty cents per bushel. I have the exact figures of what was marketed through the pools in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, and they show the same proportion that I am speaking of in connection with the whole crop.
With these facts in mind I think we should give some consideration to the time when the federal government began to assume some relationship in a financial way to the activities of the pools, and hence towards the marketing of grain from the western part of Canada. This will be brought out by certain documents which are available and which I think should be placed upon Hansard in order to give the fidl story in connection with the handling of the crop. In order to establish the position I think I should deal first with some of the documents of the wheat pools themselves, and then deal with other documents that are in the records here at Ottawa having to do with the handling of this particular crop and succeeding crops. I should like to refer first to the 1931 annual report of the Saskatchewan Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited. This report is published every year at the end of the crop year. This particular report deals with the crop grown in 1930, the crop with which this particular legislation is concerned. On page 30 is a section headed "selling policy," and I should like to read into the records of the house a few paragraphs to indicate the relationship which the pools considered existed between themselves and the federal government.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that the auditor general's report?


James Garfield Gardiner: This is the annual report of the Saskatchewan Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited. I read from page 30:
The 1930 season marked a change in selling policy and it is necessary to review briefly the events that led up to the change.
Negotiations were carried on throughout August for financing the 1930 crop. A meeting in Ottawa with the Prime Minister, attended by the three provincial premiers and Mr. McPliail, was followed by other conferences in Toronto and Winnipeg, with the representatives of the lending banks. The banks agreed to finance the pool on the basis of an initial payment of sixty cents, as previously stated.
On August 20 an agreement was signed with the three provincial premiers and the seven lending banks, by which it was agreed that all sales were to be apportioned equally as to value between the 1929 and the 1930 crops. The allocation of sales was changed on November 8, with the approval of the premiers, to 25 per cent in respect of the old crop and 75 per cent for the new crop.
This was again changed on November 15 to provide that all sales of cash grain for the period of one month be allocated to the 1930
crop. On the same date your president, together with the provincial premiers, agreed to install a general manager acceptable to the banks until the balance of the 1929 and 1930 crops had been disposed of. In the latter part of November your president, at the request of the board, interviewed Mr. J. I. McFarland, formerly president of the Alberta Pacific Grain Company, to ask him to accept the position of general manager of this organization, and on November 27 Mr. McFarland accepted the position offered him, on the understanding that he be given a free hand in the marketing of the unsold stocks but that in matters of policy he would consult with the board.
Mr. McFarland was firmly convinced of the necessity for the abandonment of our policy of direct selling to the European market through our own representatives, and on December 9 issued a statement to that effect. Arrangements were made for closing our London otfice and for the withdrawal of our European representatives and subsequently for the closing of our eastern Canadian and New York offices. Since the beginning of this year our grain trading has been conducted very largely through the Winnipeg exchange and other markets.
I will return to that in a moment. I wish to read the whole of the article first:
The financial crisis which developed during the early part of November and which led up to the events described was something over which we had no control and against which every precaution had been taken. Appreciating the position in which we were placed, in common with that of all other marketing agencies, and the distress prevailing in the country, the dominion government took such steps as v-ere deemed advisable to prevent further demoralization of Canadian grain prices by enabling this organization to continue to function. The action of the government in this respect not only permitted our grain to be marketed in such a manner as to serve the best interests of our members, but it also stabilized grain values for the benefit of the producers and the country as a whole.
For the timely assistance rendered by the Prime Minister, the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, and his government, in enabling us to meet a very critical situation, your board desires to express and record its sincere appreciation. To the premiers and governments of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta we again wish to acknowledge our appreciation of their services on behalf of this organization and of the producers of western Canada during the past year. We also again desire to remind our growers that the services given by Mr. McFarland to this company have been donated, since he made it a condition of acceptance of his position that he be permitted to serve without salary. For reasons which will be obvious to you, it is not considered advisable to submit any figures with respect to the sales or other operations of the 1930 crop at this time, and we have every confidence that our members will appreciate our position in this i espect.
That is the whole section having to do with the selling policy. This is the annual report of the Saskatchewan Cooperative Wheat Pro-
Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner

dueers Limited for 1931, and there are two or three matters to which I wish to call attention in connection with that statement. The first one is that on the same date, that is, on November 15, 1930:
Your president, together with the provincial premiers, agreed to instal a general manager acceptable to the banks until the balance of the 1929 and 1930 crops had been disposed of. In the latter part of November your president, at the request of the board, interviewed Mr. J. I. McFarland, formerly president of the Alberta Pacific Grain Company, to ask him to accept the position of general manager of this organization, and on November 27 Mr. McFarland accepted the position offered him, on the understanding that he be given a free hand in the marketing of the unsold stocks-
And so forth. The point I wish to make there and to impress upon the house is that the date on which Mr. McFarland took over, in connection with the handling of the 1930 crop, was the 27th day of November, 1930. The next fact I wish to impress upon the house is that the selling policy of the wheat pools was changed by Mr. McFarland immediately he took over, and his anouncement of that change was made in an official statement signed by himself and published in the press. I have under my hand a copy of the Grain Trade News of December 9, containing that statement, with the name of Mr. McFarland at the end of it, and in order to make clear to the house what Mr. McFarland's opinion was at that time with respect to the handling of grain under the pooling system as it had been handled through the selling agencies established at New York and Liverpool and in different European countries, I wish to read one or two paragraphs from this article given to the press at the time. After making an appeal to the people, and particularly to the farmers of western Canada, to do those things which would establish confidence in our markets generally throughout the world, he makes this statement:
I do not hesitate in taking this action-
That is, the action of changing the system by abolishing these offices in the different countries of the world and turning over entirely to the exchange the handling of grain.
I do not hesitate in taking this action as I am confident it is the duty of this great organization of farmers to take such action as will assist in removing from the minds of the grain and milling trades abroad and in Canada as well, from the public mind, a prejudice which has unwittingly become prevalent, that the pool's policy was designed to combat the world and plough a lone furrow to the detriment of the consumer abroad and to the grain and milling trade in general.
I Mr. Gardiner.]
There is no doubt that this sentiment prevails overseas. I have spent my life in dealing with the farmer in the west, and no person knows better than I do his sterling qualities and that all he wants is fair and equitable treatment.
I want to place this on Hansard, because statements were made early in the session that there had been sales resistance in the markets of the world1, and that was given as a reason for changing the wheat board. We were accused of having taken the part of the milling interests in Great Britain and the milling interests in European countries generally as against three good Canadians in the Dominion of Canada. I wish to state that this particular paragraph, in the official statement given by Mr. McFarland to the press of Canada at the time he took charge of the selling of wheat that had been taken over, and which was being handled by the pools at that time, indicated that there was a sales resistance in the markets of the world at that particular time, and he makes a special appeal that we establish confidence in the minds of millers and others to provide a market for our wheat in the older lands.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know how far the hon. gentleman proposes to pursue this. I do not wish to limit discussion, but I thought the matter had been referred to a committee.
Mr, GARDINER:	I intend to pursue it
only in so far as it applies to the 1930 crop and this legislation and the reasons for it. That is the only report in so far as it affects these particular matters to which I have been referring.
In the same annual Teport, page 36, is another statement which I wish to read. The statement which I have just read establishes the relationship that existed betyveen the wheat pools and Mr. McFarland and the provincial governments and the federal government in so far as the taking over or the taking of the crop from the farmer to the pools was concerned during the season 1930. The statement which I am about to read has to do with what happened at the end of that crop season, after the wheat had been delivered by the farmers under four different-initial payments, seventy cents, sixty cents, fifty-five cents and fifty cents. After all this wheat had been delivered by the farmers, there started new negotiations. On page 36 of the same 1931 annual report of the Saskatchewan Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, I read this:

Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that for the crop year ended July 31, 1931, or 1930?


James Garfield Gardiner: The crop year ended
July 1, 1931. It will be the crop grown in
1930,	the crop of which we are speaking:
In December of last year your board wired
the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett on his return from the imperial conference, London, urging a minimum price of wheat to avoid a major national calamity as a result of the disastrous drop in the price of all cereals. On June 24,
1931,	Mr. MoPhail

Mr. McPhail at that time was president of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited:
-together with the representatives of the three provincial governments, met the dominion government at Ottawa and advocated the establishment of a wheat board to market the 1931 crop. Arising out of this and further conferences, the following statement was issued on August 11 over the signatures of the premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba:
Following the negotiations of the past few weeks, it is now possible to make a definite announcement as to the operations of the provincial wheat pools this season.
This is very important, Mr. Speaker:
On June 24 representatives of the provincial governments and farmers' organizations of the prairie provinces met the dominion government at Ottawa and advocated the establishment of a wheat board to market this year's crop.
Subsequently the Prime Minister addressed a letter to each provincial premier concerned, declining to establish such a board, but suggesting as an alternative the formation of a trading corporation to which the provincial pool elevator systems would be leased. It was also suggested that J. I. McFarland might act as general manager and that the dominion government might assist in financing the operation of such corporation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is before the election?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; this is in June of
1931, after the election.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wanted to be sure
about the date.


James Garfield Gardiner: June 24, 1931.
On receipt of this letter, a conference was held at Regina. Mr. McFarland was unwilling to consider the position of general manager of such a corporation. The predominant feeling at the conference was opposed to the leasing proposal, but after communicating with the Prime Minister by telegram and telephone, it was decided to canvass further the possibility of the three provincial organizations operating separately, with a central corporation handling all sales. The conference adjourned to meet later in Winnipeg, after the proposal had been examined by technical advisers.
At Winnipeg, the following week, it was the final opinion that difficulties in working out any scheme for centralized selling was such as to make it inadvisable to attempt to put it in operation in time to handle this year's crop, which will be moving in a short time. It was, therefore, recommended that each provincial organization should operate separately in purchasing, handling and selling its grain, with a further recommendation that a central board be created to act in a coordinating capacity and to study further the possibility of centralized efforts along marketing lines.
The last delegation to Ottawa was to obtain the cooperation of the federal government in obtaining the necessary lines of credit to finance the three organizations without obliging the provincial governments to postpone their securities on the elevator systems because of the possible influence on provincial credit such postponement might have in these difficult times.
At this stage I wish to point out that the three provincial governments in the interval had been called upon to implement their guarantees. Those guarantees in the three western provinces amounted to a total of approximately $25,000,000, and the reason for the arrangement between the provinces and the banks and the pools for a proportionate marketing of the 1929 crop during the same period that the 1930 crop was being handled was to get rid of that surplus of 43,000,000 bushels carried over from 1928 and 1929 into 1930. In the interval that crop had been marketed; it was out of the way. The provincial governments implemented their guarantees and paid, in round figures, $25,000,000 over to the banks of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the form of securities.


James Garfield Gardiner: In the form of securities, yes. But those securities have been put on the market and disposed of for cash thus increasing the debts of the three western provinces by $25,000,000, about half of that amount being on the debt of Saskatchewan, and the other amount being divided between Manitoba and Alberta.
The report goes on to state:
The last delegation to Ottawa was to obtain the cooperation of the federal government-
That is, on June 24, 1931.
-in obtaining the necessary lines of credit to finance the three organizations without obliging the provincial governments to postpone their securities on the elevator systems because of the possible influence on provincial credit such postponement might have in these difficult times.
The meaning of that is that when the provinces implemented their guarantees they took a mortgage against the whole elevator system
Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner

of the western pools. As far as the Saskatchewan pool is concerned, which is the largest elevator system of the three, it is carrying a mortgage held by the government of Saskatchewan of the total amount that now forms part of the debt of that province.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The amount has been
reduced, has it not?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; it has been reduced by a certain sum year by year. They have met their payments in the years between that time and the present time, in respect to both principal and interest.
The Prime Minister was ready to assist the provinces and as a result of the conference, which was attended by representatives of the banks, the provincial pool organizations are assured of ample lines of credit for the season's operations. Each provincial organization will therefore function in exactly the same manner as privately owned enterprises-
That, Mr. Speaker, is important.
Each provincial organization will therefore function in exactly the same manner as privately owned enterprises and will also conduct a voluntary pool for such as may desire to sell their grain in such a way. An initial payment of 35 cents will be paid, instead of 30 cents as formerly announced. As a bonus of 5 cents per bushel is to be paid to all producers of grain, in effect, this brings the initial payment in the voluntary pool to 40 cents, basis No. 1.
And this is important:
A complete cut off has been made from previous years' operations and a settlement arranged as between the pools, the provincial governments and the banks. Members of the pool and farmers generally desiring to do so may, therefore, patronize the pool elevator facilities with complete assurance that their grain will be dealt with as a separate crop and without in any way being liable for any debts or obligations of past year.
That condition was created by the fact that the federal government then became responsible for financing the 1931 crop and following crops, also, as is indicated later on, for handling the surplus grains carried over out of the 1930 crop.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not the crops subsequent to 1931, at that time.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, just the one crop at that time. I will deal with the others from the government records.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that covers the record as it is shown in the annual report for 1931 of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, and before leaving that report I should like to point out that the matters of importance in it have to do with the fact that there is a clear cut off as between the method under which wheat was handled prior to
Air. Gardiner.]
July 31, 1931, and the method under which wheat was handled from July 31, 1931, down to the present time, so far as the pools of western Canada were concerned.
Now I come to the records as they are to be found in government quarters at Ottawa. These records have to do with orders in council and statements made by the then Prime Minister in connection with handling the 19'31 crop, and succeeding crops, in relation to the 1930 crop. In order to get the first statement, which I am sure the right hon. leader of the opposition will agree is authentic, I go to the annual report of the Saskatchewan Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, at page 37. About the same time the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada, of that time, made the following statement:
The wheat pools of the three western provinces, which own nearly 1,600 country elevators, as well as terminals at Vancouver and Fort William, will operate this year in the same way as privately owned enterprises. They will have ample working capital, and the provinces will not be called upon to guarantee their operations.
That is a clear statement of the liability of the federal government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The federal government is not mentioned so far; that comes later.


James Garfield Gardiner: A statement to that effect, made by the Prime Minister of Canada, would naturally involve the federal government.
As a substantial number of producers desire to market their grain on the pool principle, the elevators operated by the pools in the several provinces will afford to such producers an opportunity to have their grain dealt with by the operation of a voluntary pool. The elevators will make to such producers an initial payment of 35 cents per bushel on the same basis as to quality and point of shipment as in previous years.
The dominion government will take whatever action may be necessary to insure the orderly marketing of the crop of the year. Panic conditions will not be permitted to control the prices obtaining for this year's western grain crop.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a very clear statement of the position taken by the government at that time; it was published in all the press of Canada as well as in the annual report of the Saskatchewan Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it was made in this house also.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I think it was made in the house as well. The other matters of record have to do with orders in council and letters which passed between the government and the lending banks. The first of

Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner
these is a letter dealing with the 1930 crop, dated January 20, 1931. This letter is addressed to Mr. Beaudry Leman, president of the Canadian Bankers' Association, Banque Canadienne Nationale Building, Montreal: Dear Sir:
The serious situation arising out of the falling prices for wheat and other grain, has been engaging the attention of the government practically ever since the crop for 1930 came upon the market.
I wish to direct attention to that first statement, because sometimes there is a dispute as to when the federal government actually became active in connection with marketing the 1930 crop.
The serious situation arising out of the falling prices for wheat and other grain, has been engaging the attention of the government practically ever since the crop for 1930 came upon the market.
That would take us back to the first meeting of the new government two days after it was formed, on the 9th day of August, 1930:
The Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, hereinafter referred to as the "wheat pool'' and allied companies, to wit, Saskatchewan Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited. Alberta Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, Manitoba Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited-
In order to avoid reading another letter, I might say that a correction was necessary in the names of the different pool organizations of the west. Two other letters were exchanged between the president of the Canadian Bankers' Association and the Prime Minister, having to do with this matter, and it was agreed between them that the proper names to be placed there were the Saskatchewan pool, the Alberta pool, and the Manitoba pool.
-hereinafter refered to as the allied companies and the subsidiaries of the allied companies have, we are informed, been receiving advances in connection with their marketing operations from certain of the banks, known as the "lending banks," in order that the producers might receive a reasonable initial payment, and that the crop might be marketed in an orderly manner. We have been advised that a margin of 15 per cent was at all times to be maintained with the "lending banks" by the wheat pool and allied companies and "subsidiaries," against prevailing market prices plus carrying and other charges. With the gradual decrease in prices that has taken place it is obvious that it has become difficult, in fact practically impossible, for the "wheat pool" and the companies refered to to maintain that margin. The government realize that if the "wheat pool" and these companies were forced to suspend operations, the price of wheat in this country, now at a level unprecedentedly low in the history of the
grain trade, will drastically decline, with great loss not only to the "wheat pool" and the other grain companies but to the entire farming and business interests of Canada. Representations have been made to the government to this effect, not only by the interests directly concerned but by other important Canadian enterprises. We have canvassed the situation from all possible standpoints.
We are convinced, after mature consideration. that the public interest of Canada as a whole, is involved and that it is the duty of the government to take such steps as will prevent what would be nothing short of a national disaster, if there was a forced liquidation of wheat and other grain in this country at this juncture.
The government therefore undertake with the lending banks to guarantee and hereby, as far as it legally may, guarantees them against any loss they may ultimately sustain, through the making of advances to the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, and allied companies and subsidiary companies including advances heretofore made, or to be made, and interest thereon, in connection with the marketing of the 1930 crop of wheat and other grains. Such legislation, if any, as may be required to implement this guarantee and undertaking will be introduced by the government and pressed to enactment at the next ensuing session of the parliament of Canada.
For the government of Canada,
R. B. Bennett,
Prime Minister and
Minister of Finance.
Following that letter and the two correcting it before referred to, which, I repeat, was written during the crop year of 1930-31, there were no further communications that appear upon the files in connection with the 1930 crop, but on September 12, 1931, after the arrangement had been entered into that I outlined a few moments ago, an order in council was passed, P.C. 2238. There is one matter of importance in this order, in addition to the guarantee being continued, it was renewed from year to year down to the time the late government went out of office, and continued in effect until this government took over.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With some variations after the wheat board came into being.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; and I will read
the variations:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report, dated 11th September, 1931. from the Minister of Finance, recommending that, in pursuance of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931,-
That is the matter called to our attention last night by the leader of the opposition.
-and of an undertaking on behalf of the government, made before the session of parliament at which the said act was passed, to implement by legislation the recommendation hereinafter set out....
Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner

Then the recommendation followed the same line as the previous letter, which gave a guarantee to the banks, and in turn gives a guarantee to the banks in connection with their operations having to do with the 1930 crop.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Only so far as it might
lawfully do so.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, so far as it might lawfully do so. Then there was an addition made when renewing this order in council on April 12, 1933; this is contained in order in council P.C. 685. I am only going to read that part to which I shall make reference:
_ The minister recommends that the governor in council may at any time fix and determine a date at which Wheat Producers shall proceed to sell and dispose of all wheat and other grains in its possession or control acquired under the guarantee of the governor in council, and shall proceed to sell and dispose of all contracts, entered into and falling within this guarantee, for the future delivery to it of wheat and other grains. Application of the amounts realized, less expenses shall be made against advances and interest, and thereupon the governor in council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, shall determine the date at which payments, if any, are required to be made in pursuance of this guarantee.
What I wish to point out in connection with this order is that the government of Canada through an order in council took power to determine a date at which the wheat producers, that is the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, shall proceed to sell and dispose of all wheat and other grains in its possession or control acquired under the guarantee. The government undertook to say when the wheat pool, through the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, should dispose of the carry-over of the 1930 crop which was then being held under an arrangement made between the government, Mr. McFarland and the wheat pool.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was not limited to
that; it was any wheat or grain that they might have that the government felt it desirable to sell.


James Garfield Gardiner: But this guarantee
applied to the 1930 crop.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The date of the order in council is what?


James Garfield Gardiner: The date of this order
in council is April, 1933, but I am referring not to the other guarantees, but only to that given on the 1930 crop.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the 1933 order in
council was the one that provided that if

the government thought it desirable they could direct sales in order that the obligation might be reduced. That covered not only one crop, but any crop.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that, but
it does cover that one crop; I think the right hon. gentleman will agree to that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: [DOT] It does not cover that crop only, it covers any wheat that may have been left in the hands of cooperative wheat producers from that crop.


James Garfield Gardiner: There were 76,375,000
bushels of wheat or wheat contracts then in their hands as a result of the operations of 1930, and it did cover that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It covered all the wheat
they had on hand; it does not separate one crop from the other. It is the usual provision that will be found in any bank guarantee.


James Garfield Gardiner: Having dealt with the
orders in council, I want to sum up what that particular record shows. It shows, first, that the federal government guaranteed the lending banks against loss for initial payments on the 1930 crop; second, that those responsible for the line of credit had to be satisfied with the general manager, John I. McFarland; third, that John I. McFarland considered that there was sales resistance in Europe owing to the policy of the pools and he changed the system that had previously been followed by the pools in marketing their grain; fourth, that there was a complete cut off at July 31, 1931, with the result that the pools were converted for all general purposes into ordinary elevator companies. There was no contract pool in connection with any of the grains of western Canada after July 31, 1931. It is true that provision was made for voluntary pooling of wheat only, but no provision was made for contract pooling of wheat in any of the provinces of western Canada, and there has been no contract pooling of wheat in western Canada from July 31, 1931, to the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The fair way to put the situation is that there was no provision against it. There was provision for a voluntary pool and private operations under the Canada Grain Act.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would not say that is a fair way to put it, because as a result of arrangements made on June 24, there could be none in so far as this type of pool organization that had existed in these three provinces is concerned.

Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner


Richard Bedford Bennett: They could still have
members if they pleased.


James Garfield Gardiner: They could not have
gone on to conduct business without meeting the conditions that those financing the crop of 1930 had put upon them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They	had merely
become voluntary members under an arrangement they had with their head office.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I prefer to put
my own interpretation on what happened; my right hon. friend can put his later if he so desires.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was summarizing the points which I wish to emphasize taken from the annual report of the Saskatchewan Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, and from orders in council that are to be found on the files at Ottawa, and I will now continue with that review.
Those records show, first, that the federal government guaranteed the lending banks against loss for initial payments on the 1930 crop. It is important, however, in that connection to recall that this guarantee was not to the pools or to the farmers who produced the wheat, but to the banks against loss; second, that those responsible for the lending of credit had to be satisfied with the general manager, John I. McFarland; third, that John
I.	McFarland considered that there was sales resistance in the markets of the world owing to the policy of the pools, and he changed the system of handling pooled wheat in the markets of the world. He departed from the system which had been previously followed by the pools of having their agencies established in the different important markets, and relied upon the machinery of the grain exchange through which to conduct the wheat business and the grain business in general. The fourth is that there was a complete cutoff at July 31, 1931. That cut off involved the discontinuance of the contract pools in western Canada, and no wheat has been marketed through contract pooling in western Canada since July 31, 1931. There has been a small amount marketed through voluntary pools since July 31, 1931, but no wheat has been marketed through the type of pool that
prevailed in western Canada prior to that time.
The government took absolute control over the marketing of wheat through John I. McFarland. Financing was to be done through the blank cheque legislation, the relief act of
1931.	Perhaps that point needs emphasis, in view of the great deal of discussion that has taken place in this house and outside it dealing with the blank cheque legislation. I do not believe that it is generally understood throughout Canada, and more particularly western Canada, that it was intended to deal with the wheat situation in western Canada through the blank cheque legislation of 1931, known as the relief act of 1931. I am not saying that that impression was intentionally given to the country, or was given to the country at all by the government of the day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was stated that that was one of the purposes.


James Garfield Gardiner: But the act itself did make that provision, and that is the method, I understand, through which payment would have been made had payment been made by the outgoing government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman can state what he understands, of course, but certainly payment was not being made in that way by the outgoing government. It was provided for by the Wheat Board Act of 1935.


James Garfield Gardiner: Provided for by the Wheat Board Act of 1935, but I presume the funds would actually have been found through the relief act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, through a guarantee to the banks. That was authorized by terms in the relief act of 1935. They were allowed to guarantee the amounts due.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Wheat Board Act did not come into being until June, 1935, and was not actively in effect until August, 1935, so up prior to that time, at least, the other method of payment applies, and of course the order in council was not then in existence. The statement of the leader of the opposition is correct, that probably the payment would have been made through the other method by order in council. I made that reference in order to try to be in agreement with my right hon. friend when he referred last night to the relief act as being the means whereby payments might have been made, and for that reason it would probably be impossible to make payment while the house was in session.
Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is confusing two things. That was coarse grains.


James Garfield Gardiner: We will come to that a little later. From July 31, 1931, the dominion government and John I. McFarland were responsible for every act in connection with the grain trade. They took that responsibility upon themselves. I think there can be no doubt about that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was not even employed by the government.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, wTe will hear what Mr. McFarland says about that. I have in my hand the eighth annual report of the Saskatchewan Wheat Producers, Limited, for
1932.	It was thought necessary in 1932 to have a special report from Mr. McFarland himself, and in that special report, contained in the eighth annual report, I read these words at page 40:
Toward the end of November, 1930, -when at the urgent request of our late president, Mr. A. J. MePhail, a group of bankers and representatives of the governments, I decided to assume the position of general manager of yqur company, needless to say, I did so with' much apprehension as to the future.
That, read in conjunction with the statement made by the leader of the opposition when Prime Minister, in his letter to the president of the bankers' association, in which he states that they had been active in connection with the marketing of wheat, or in financing the marketing of wheat-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Neither. If the hon.
gentleman is going to quote, he must quote accurately. Let him read again what he read this afternoon.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was giving the effect of it, but I will give the exact words.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is desirable to be accurate in these things.


James Garfield Gardiner: For the benefit of the right hon. gentleman I read it twice this afternoon in order to emphasize its importance, and I will repeat it now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Have it accurate now.


James Garfield Gardiner: The first sentence
reads:
The serious situation arising out of the foreign prices for wheat and other grain has been engaging the attention of the government practically ever since the crop of 1930 came upon the market.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Compare that with what the hon. gentleman said two minutes ago.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not read it all.
It goes on:
The Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, hereinafter referred to as the "wheat pool" and allied companies, to wit, the Saskatchewan Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, the Alberta Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, the Manitoba Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, hereinafter referred to as the allied companies and the subsidiaries of the allied companies, have, we are informed, been receiving advances in connection with their marketing operations from certain of the banks, known as the lending banks, in order that the producers might receive a reasonable initial payment and that the crop might be marketed in an ordinary manner. We have been advised that a margin of 15 per cent-was at all times to be maintained with the lending banks by the wheat pool and allied companies and subsidiaries against prevailing market prices, plus carrying and other charges.
With the gradual decrease in prices that has taken place it is obvious that it has become difficult, in fact practically impossible, for the "wheat pool" and the companies referred to to maintain that margin. The government realize that if the "wheat pool" and these companies were forced to suspend operations, the price of wheat in this country, now at a level unprecedentedly low in the history of the grain trade, will drastically decline, with great loss not only to the wheat pool and the other grain companies but to the entire farming and business interests of Canada. Representations have been made to the government to this effect, not only by the interests directly concerned but by other important Canadian enterprises. W7e have canvassed the situation from all possible standpoints.
We are convinced, after mature consideration. that the public interest of Canada as a whole, is involved and that it is the duty of the government to take such steps as will prevent wrhat would be nothing short of a national disaster, if there was a forced liquidation of wheat and other grain in this country at this juncture.
The government therefore undertake with the lending banks to guarantee and hereby, as far as it legally may, guarantees them against any loss they may ultimately sustain, through the making of advances to the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, and allied companies and subsidiary companies including advances heretofore made or to be made, and interest thereon, in connection with the marketing of the 1930 crop of wheat and other grains.
I think that anyone reading that letter to the banks, and anyone reading the statement that was made by Mr. McFarland to the wheat pool organization which he was representing, will agree with me when I say that if the government of Canada, through its Prime Minister and other members of the cabinet, was not taking an interest in financing the wheat and in handling the wheat throughout that whole period, in view of the fact that it had been holding conferences with the

Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner
wheat pool people and with the banks, and if the government was not keeping itself closely enough allied with them in order to direct the activities, or to see to it that Mr. McFarland was not interfering unnecessarily with the credit of Canada in handling that crop, then it was not doing the thing that we should expect a government to do.
I believe, reading the records that I have already placed upon Hansard and reading the copies of the annual reports of the wheat pools and the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, that the government of Canada was closely in touch with all these operations and was satisfied with placing Mr. McFarland in control for the time being. And that, after all, is the statement which was made a little while ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not at all.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course my hon. friend will have an opportunity a little later to disprove that if he desires to do so, but for the time being I maintain that that was the situation. Now, that brings us down to July, 1931, and to the decisions that were made at the end of the crop year 1930-31. We had an entirely new set-up; we were starting with a new set of conditions, and I am quite sure that the leader of the opposition will not contend that the dominion government was not responsible for Mr. McFarland being there from July, 1931, on. It is obvious to everyone that the first proposal was that a corporation was to be set up. This corporation was to be headed by Mr. McFarland, and on the condition of that corporation being set up, headed by Mr. McFarland, the federal government was prepared to take an active part in financing the crop of 1931. When that was not agreeable to Mr. McFarland another arrangement was made involving Mr. McFarland, involving the wheat pool, and involving the government of Canada, and I believe that all three were parties to the agreement which was reached.
At the time we were in the position that a certain situation existed with regard to the grain stocks of the different pools. I stated at the beginning and stated yesterday that there were really five pools in two of the provinces and only one pool in the other. Each of the three provinces had a wheat pool, but only two of the provinces, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, had what are called coarse grain pools. Each one of these provinces had a flax pool, a rye pool, a barley pool and an oat pool, and the persons who were delivering grain to one of these pools were not necessarily the same as those who were delivering grain to other pools. Those who sent grain to the barley pool did not necessarily send grain to the rye pool; those who sent to the oat pool did not necessarily send to the flax pool, and so on. They were separate pools and to a degree at least were composed of different persons.
During the crop year 1930-31, with the grain of which we are now concerned in so far as it was delivered to the pools, there was delivered to the oat pool 5,317.000 bushels; to the barley pool, 6,356.000 bushels; to the rye pool, 2,257,000 bushels, and to the flax pool, 1,431,000 bushels;


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the date?


James Garfield Gardiner: That was the year ending July 31, 1931. As has been stated on a number of occasions, no provision was made whereby the wheat board could handle coarse grains when it was set up under the act of 1935 unless provision were made by order in council under a certain section of the act, and no order in council to that effect has been passed up to the present time. So that in so far as the act of 1935 is concerned it applies to wheat and wheat only.
I was interested last night in listening to a review given by the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) of the view that is held in western Canada with regard to what was agreed to between the pools and the federal government in connection with payment for the coarse grain that came out of the 1930 pool. The statement made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is one which has been made in every part of Saskatchewan and, I think, in every part of the three western provinces. It has been made to the individuals who delivered coarse grain to the pools of the two provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The statement has been made through the press by what have been indicated as official announcements; it has been made through other sources, and for that reason of course the people did get the idea that the agreement between the wheat board and the wheat pools, approved by the government by order in council, made provision for payment upon coarse grains as well as upon wheat.
But we were told in the discussion yesterday and the day before that that was not the intention and that that could not have been done under the order in council as drafted. The reference made to the order in council last evening, however, directed particular attention to the wording of the order in council, and we had a very learned and logical argument by the hon. member for
Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner

Selkirk (Mr. Thorson), based upon some of the statements that were made in that regard. I think probably there is some justification for the position taken by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. The statement has been made to me; it has been made to other members of the government and members of the wheat committee of the government, that such an agreement was understood to have been entered into. Since the discussion on this bill began we have had it said on the floor of the house that no such provision was made in the order in council, and that no such provision could have been made under the legislation of 11335. That statement was made by the then Prime Minister, the present leader of the opposition.
I should like to make one or two statements with regard to these coarse grains. Before finally dealing with this matter I should like to refer to some of the pools as against the other. Rye was all disposed of in 1932, and if the government of Canada ever intended to make final payments in connection with the rye pool, those payments should have been made in 1932. A government of Canada had no right to hold the moneys of the farmers of western Canada who had delivered rye to the pool and whose rye had all .been sold back in 1930, 1931 and 1932 until four days before the election, when it was announced to the people of western Canada that payment was going to be made.
The same thing is true with respect to payments in connection with flax, except that the time is not quite so great as it was in the case of rye. The flax had been sold prior to July 31, 1933. If the government of Canada ever intended to return the flax payments to the farmers who had delivered the flax, to return to them the money that had actually been received for the flax, it should have been returned not later than July 31, 1933, and not held until four days before the election in 1935.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I direct the attention of the hon. minister to what he has said. The government did not at any time receive any money from the sale of these grains. That has been cleared up so often that I cannot understand why the hon. member continues to say it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Technically speaking, I am not correct. The money received for these grains went into a bank account guaranteed by the government of Canada. The losses in connection with any of the grains forming the pools that had bank accounts guaranteed by the government were to be

paid by the government. If the grains that had entered into these pools were sold at a profit, there was no reason in the world why Mr. McFarland or anyone else should have held that money one day longer than the time when the grains were actually disposed of.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was no reason why the producers should not have distributed it. That is the real answer. It was in their hands, not ours.


James Garfield Gardiner: The right hon. gentleman surely does not mean to infer that the government of Canada had not to be consulted about the distribution of that money.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I certainly do. There
was no need of consulting them at all if they sold these coarse grains and wanted to distribute the money to the people. The government never owned any wheat. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) said yesterday that the government never owned any wheat.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not want to dispute with my right hon. friend. Any one in the house can see the force of the statement I have just made. All of this money went into one bank account which was guaranteed by the government of Canada. It could not get out of there in the manner suggested, without the government being consulted.
The barley was all disposed of before this order in council was drawn up and that money should have been paid, if it ever was going to be paid by the government, and not held until four days before the election.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Once more it is my sad duty to rise and point out that the statement is incorrect, and it is known to be incorrect. I say "known," because the government did not have the money and could not disburse it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not want to repeat the foundation which I have laid already.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In whose name was the
bank account?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not want to repeat the statements made by my right hon. friend as they have been placed upon Hansard already. These statements indicate that he took absolute control of wheat and the financing of wheat through Mr. McFarland, on July 31, 1931.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not wheat.


James Garfield Gardiner: Wheat, barley, oats,
rye and flax; all the grains. That has been placed upon Hansard already.

Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner


Ernest Edward Perley: The evidence given before the committee last year, to show the reason why coarse grains were not included, was that Mr. McFarland never held a bushel of coarse grain during all his operations.


James Garfield Gardiner: During the discussion
in the house a statement was made, I think by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, that one of the reasons why payments should be made upon coarse grains, and why they should have entered into the agreement, was that coarse grains had been used in connection with the stabilization. I think I am correct in making that statement. If the coarse grains had been used in connection with the stabilization, I would agree that the hon. member's statement of the position was correct, but I read from the report of the auditors as follows:
As mentioned previously, there does not appear to us to be any clear evidence in the accounts that the operations did involve a measure of stabilizing-
These operations having to do with coarse grains. I continue:
-our views in the matter being outlined generally in our comments relating to each grain.
As one goes through this report of the auditors he will find that that is referred to time after time. The auditors are of opinion that there is no ground upon which to base stabilizing activities in coarse grains. In order to have it on record, perhaps I should read that statement more fully than it appears on my notes. This becomes very important when we consider whether or not these payments should be made. The following is to be found on page 36:
In our comments regarding the accounts of oats, barley, flax and rye, reference has been made to our lack of information as to whether or not the operations in these grains could, to any degree, be considered as part of the stabilizing operations. As mentioned previously, there does not appear to us to be any clear evidence in the accounts that the operations did involve a measure of stabilizing, our views in the matter being outlined generally in our comments relating to each grain.
That is hardly a definite opinion that these grains were not used in stabilizing, but I have before me a very definite opinion in this regard given by no less an authority than Mr. McFarland. I have a copy of an address which he delivered in Calgary just a few weeks ago, a copy being sent to each hon. member, I believe. About the centre of page 16 will be found these words:
Defenders of the unrestricted open futures system have contended that speculators have
been afraid to buy wheat because of government's stabilization and wheat board operations. Wheat as cheap as 40 cents and 50 cents did not tempt them to take the hedges.
Well my friends, there have been no stabilization or wheat board operations whatsoever at any time in barley, oats or rye.
No stabilization operations whatsoever at any time in barley, oats or rye.
Those grains were left entirely to the open futures system.
This is the gentleman who was handling the grain, and he says that they were not used in stabilization. Since the auditors have found that in so far as any information they have been able to gather, there is no evidence that these grains were used in stabilization, and since the gentleman who was handling them himself says with regard to three of them that they certainly were not used in stabilization operations, I think we can come to the conclusion that no payments can be made on coarse grains on the basis of such operations.


Major James William Coldwell: Is there any evidence to show that the premiers of the prairie pi ovinces at any time asked the pools to withhold from the market barley and oats in order to protect those provinces during the drought or shortage of feed?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know that there is any evidence that the premiers of those provinces asked the pools to withhold those grains. I think probably evidence can be found that the governments of western Canada asked all the grain companies, not paying particular attention to the pools, but including all those having grains in their elevators, in so far as possible to retain those grains in the locations in which they were, in order that farmers might be able to get their seed in the spring or feed in the winter without moving those grains back from positions further east. These requests were made not only with regard to pool grain but with regard to all grain, and no special claim can be made on the part of the pools as a result of that operation, particularly, as is pointed out, because the other companies had the most of those stocks. So there really is no ground there for paying money to the pools separately from any of the other grain organizations.
The government, then, as a result of conclusions not so definitely, but fairly definitely, stated by the auditors; as a result of the very definite statement made by Mr. McFarland himself, and as a result of the fact that no provision could legally have been made for payment in connection with coarse grains in any order in council drawn under the act
Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner

of 1935, has come to the conclusion that it would not be proper to pay the amounts that were claimed in regard to coarse grains by the wheat pool people when the order in council that has been discussed in this house was drawn up. I will deal with that in a little more detail in a moment, from the account.
One other matter needs to be dealt with in connection with the claims. A claim of $862,487.57 was made on account of expenses incurred by the provincial pool organizations in the year ended July 31, 1931. In each of the three pools of western Canada expenses had been incurred during that year. The total amounts to $862,4S7.57, and a claim was made on the government that these expenses ought to be paid. At this point I desire to remind the house once more that on July 31, 1931, there was a definite cut off. Prior to that date the contract pools were still operating. It is true that they were operating under the guidance of Mr. McFarland, who was representing the lending banks, but they were operating as contracting pools down to July 31, 1931. During the time they were operating as contracting pools the pools were taking, not from the initial payment, but from the interim payments if any were possible, reserves to the amount of, I think, two cents a bushel. These reserves had been taken from the very first year that the pool was set up. While there were no reserves in connection with the 1930-31 crop, because there was no interim payment, there are reserves, amounting I think, to more than $6,500,000, held by the pools to-day, gathered in at the rate of two cents a bushel on the wheat delivered in the previous years, and the government believes that all the expenses of the pool in addition to those that are taken care of through the guarantee that the government has given to the banks in connection with the pooling of that year, should be taken care of by the pools themselves out of the reserves that have been accumulated for that purpose. I think every member of the house will agree with me in this, that it would not be fair to the people of Canada in general to take from the federal treasury $862,487.57 to pay into the treasury of pooling organizations that have a reserve already built up of $6,500,000 to take care of that very kind of thing. For that reason, along with others that I have stated, it is not the intention of the government to pay these particular moneys to the wheat pools through the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited.
That deals with the coarse grains and with the amount of expenses in so far as we are

refusing to pay the amounts which have been claimed by the wheat pools in connection with expenses. I have in my hand the report of the auditors; at page 35 will be found the exhibit which has been referred to on one or two occasions during these discussions. I think I should read one sentence which is immediately under the figures that appear on this page, before reading the figures themselves, in order to indicate to members of the house and to place upon Hansard exactly when and why these figures were made up.
The above figures in so far as they relate to grain are in accordance with computations made by the company as of February 29, 1932, summaries of which are given on schedule IV, included with the exhibits attached hereto in respect to each grain pool.
The meaning of that is that on February 29, 1932, the pools conceived the idea of figuring out what their position was at that time, and they computed that the amount which should be available for distribution $6,509,269156.


Mr. THORSON:: 1930 wheat.


James Garfield Gardiner: 1930 wheat, yes. They computed that the amount available from the coarse grains amounted to $890,658.44, and that the amount of the expenses of the year I have referred to was $S62,487.57. The pool people claim that because those grains had that value for distribution on February 29, 1932, and because the handling of them was in the hands of John I. McFarland under the direction, more or less, of the government of Canada, the government of Canada should pay those amounts of money to the pool, in spite of the fact that those grains had been sold at lesser rates later on and that they were bearing charges for storage during the period from then on. Well, there might be some justice in the claim for payment on coarse grains if they could have based the claim upon stabilization, as apparently they are able to base their claims in connection with wheat. But since they were not able to base their claims in connection with coarse grains upon stabilization, the government has given consideration to the matter from the standpoint of what we would consider justice to the people who put their grain into those pools, and we intend to return to them $350,000. Why? Because the grain was sold at a price sufficiently high to bring $350,000 more than the initial payment these people received back in 1930. In order to indicate that this is the correct figure I

Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner
want to give the exact figures as they appear at page 34 of the report of the auditors:
Barley surplus	$ 15,482 58
Flax surplus	
210,926	05Rye surplus	
124,276	02Total	$350,684	65
Under the provisions of this bill that amount of money will be returned to these three different pools in each of two provinces, making six different pools in all.
That deals fully with the coarse grains and the expenses. The most important item is still left, that having to do with the wheat delivered to the 1930 pool. I think it most important that in connection with this matter we should know the policy of the then government in connection with the handling of wheat. In order to get the policy I do not know of any better place to go than to Hansard for the remarks of the then Prime Minister and to Mr. McFarland for his opinion in regard to the matter. According to the annual report from which I have just been reading it will be found that Mr. McFarland said:
Impressed as I was with the seriousness of the situation, and firmly believing that over production was the cause of unprecedented low prices, and furthermore that over production was caused by excess acreage and could be corrected in only one way, namely by a decrease in seeded acreage, I decided to issue an immediate warning and at once prepared an article in the stongest language at my command, and gave it under date of the 29th of November, 1930, to the public press.
In other words, Mr. McFarland stated that his policy was to reduce acreage.
... I decided to issue an immediate warning and at once prepared an article in the strongest language at my command, and gave it under date of the 29th of November, 1930, to the public press.
That was in order to impress upon the public mind this fact:
Impressed as I was with the seriousness of the situation, and firmly believing that over production was the cause of unprecedented low prices, and furthermore that over production was caused by excess acreage and could be corrected in only one way, namely by a decrease in seeded acreage . . .
That was his opinion back in 1931, and he repeats it in 1932, in the report of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did I understand the
hon. gentleman to give the first date as November 29, 1930?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, November 29,
1930, just two days after Mr. McFarland took office. Then on June 12, 1935, when
the wheat bill of last year was under discussion, the right hon. leader of the opposition, then Prime Minister, dealt with this question at considerable length. At page 3859 of u-nrevised Hansard for 1935 he deals with this question of acreage and makes statements which, to those of us who come from western Canada, are very enlightening with regard to the view held by the right hon. gentleman at that time. He said:
I come now to a point which I think is perhaps somewhat interesting as it indicates the average increase of acreage in other countries.
Then the right hon. gentleman goes on to deal with the increases in acreage in the different countries with which we are competing in the markets of -the world, and after having reviewed these increases he makes this statement:
If you take these figures you will see that on the basis of the Argentine increase which was only 32-1 per cent, we should have an increase of only 13 per cent instead of 161 per cent; Australia should have only 10 per cent instead of 96 per cent and the United States 62 per cent instead of nine-tenths of one per cent. For reasons which are obvious these are the increases which should have obtained.
That is, those increases, rather than the ones that were made, should have obtained.
Argentina which has been forcing its wheat upon the markets of the world has increased its acreage relatively less than our own country and other wheat producing countries. Further than that, the Argentina had actually decreased its wheat acreage at one time before it started in to increase the area sown. We are sometimes prone to blame the Argentine for the action it has taken in forcing its wheat upon the markets of the world at a low figure.
The whole trend of this speech at this point is to criticize the increase in acreage in the Dominion of Canada and to compare that increase with the comparatively small increase in the United States. The years selected for the comparison are those from 1909 to 1913 for the first figure and 1933 for the comparative figure. Every member of this house who has been following the situation in connection with wheat knows that prior to the war the United States had reached the point at which it did not pay them to sow more acreage to wheat. Even prior to the war they were encouraging their people to go into the sowing of crops other than wheat. During the war they, like Canada, set up a board and put it to work to increase the wheat acreage. Immediately the war was over the United States set up

Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner

another board to get their people out of wheat production, because the lands of the United States were more valuable to the farming population of that country for the production of something other than wheat.
But what was the situation in Canada? From 1909 to 1913 we were just settling the wheat areas of western Canada. The wheat areas in the southwestern part of Saskatchewan and the central and eastern part of Alberta were not producing wheat in 1909 to anything like the extent they have been producing wheat since that time. As a matter of fact I think we produced only some
35,000,000 bushels of wheat in Saskatchewan in 1906, the year in which that province was formed. But in 1928 we produced 321.000,000 bushels of wheat. My right hon. friend would tell us that we should go back in wheat acreage to within thirteen per cent of where we were in 1913. If we went back to that position we would be carrying out some of the suggestions that were made to me during the last two or three years from Ottawa to the effect that we should discontinue growing wheat in the southwestern part of Saskatchewan, that part which produced during one year within 35,000,000 bushels of all the wheat that the agreements the right hon. gentleman entered into in 1932 with regard to wheat exports from this country would have allowed for the whole Dominion of Canada. The agreements of 1932 would have compelled us to go back in our exports to within 35,000,000 bushels of the amount produced in 1928 in only that comparatively small part of the Dominion of Canada south of the Qu'Appelle and Saskatchewan rivers. Does he know that in 1928 in that section of Saskatchewan we produced 165,000,000 bushels of wheat for export? Does he know that in his agreements of 1932 he would, if he could, have reduced acreage so far that we would have exported only 200,000,000 bushels from all Canada? If he does, I would like to ask him to go to that part of Canada and preach that doctrine and see what the people think. In fact I think he found that out last fall.
But when the then Prime Minister and Mr. McFarland found that they could not decrease the acreage they then decided upon the policy that they have followed throughout this whole period. It is stated thus on page 3860 of unrevised Hansard for 1935:
I wonder if the true significance of those figures will find lodging in the minds of hon. members of the house. While the average consumption had increased from 1,841,000.000 bushels in 1923-24 to 1927-28 to 2,123,000,000 bushels in 1933-34


Now, see how much the right hon. gentleman really cares about the importance of figures when he is dealing with them; let us go back and see where he gets that 1,841,000,000.
Mr. Bennett:	The hon. member will see,
as I proceed. The average production of the world for the period 1923-24 to 1927-28 was
1,240,000,000 bushels.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the annual average for a five year period.


James Garfield Gardiner: Does my right hon.
friend mean to say that that is all the wheat produced in the world?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He means just what that says.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is what it says.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it does not.


James Garfield Gardiner: Let me read it again:
The average production of the world for the period 1923-24 to 1927-28 was 1,240,000,000 bushels.
That is the average annual production. Does he still stand by that figure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As far as I know. It
has never been controverted; I took it from an official source.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then I shall have to
bring some official figures later. But that does not touch the point as far as policy is concerned. Here is what he says:
There is the answer to your problem and I submit it is quite impossible to find any other answer than that you must take care to accumulate your surplus and by the efforts of your country and other countries remove that from the market at a price which will not destroy those who produce it. That is what you must do.
I say that that is exactly what Mr. McFarland and the government of Canada did on July 31, 1931. There had been accumulated by the pools a surplus of 76,375,000 bushels of wheat down to July 31, 1931.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A statement of that sort should be corrected by the hon. gentleman himself. The surplus carried over when the government came into power as of July 31, 1930 was in excess of 125,000,000 bushels.


James Garfield Gardiner: But I am dealing with 1930 pool wheat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But that is the accumulated surplus.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the accumulated surplus of 1930 pool wheat only.

Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely the hon. member is more familiar with the statistics than I am; that is his business. He will remember that the surplus carry-over inherited by the government that came into office on August 7, 1930, was in excess of 125,000,000 bushels.


James Garfield Gardiner: That has no bearing on what I am talking about at all. I am discussing pool wheat. There was a carry-over of the 1928-29 pools of 43,000,000 bushels, and that 43,000,000 bushels was disposed of as a result of arrangements made as between the provinces and the pools prior to the time the provinces implemented their guarantees given to the pools in connection with handling that wheat. On July 31, 1931, there were 76,375,000 bushels of 1930 pool wheat in the hands of Mr. McFarland; that was at the time the change was made that I said was a cut off on July 31, 1931. Now what was done with that wheat? Well, the auditor's report shows that that quantity of 76,000,000 bushels was dealt with in accordance with the policy laid down by the then Prime Minister and Mr. McFarland. It was actually taken off the market, put into an account by itself, retained in that account in order to stabilize the price to other people who were producing wheat throughout the length and breadth of Canada, and it is because these 76,000,000 bushels were taken off the market and kept off the market from 1931 to 1935 that the wheat pools have been claiming that they should have payment in connection with that wheat. The government is inclined to think their claim is well founded and that some payment should be made as a result of the fact that this wheat was taken and kept off the market, for the purpose, as the leader of the opposition would admit, whether it accomplished the purpose or not, of raising the price to other people, the same people who produced grain in other years. There is really no other ground for the claim than that.
Now, the problem that the government were then faced with was whether sixty cents was a proper price, whether we should pay the price up to a sixty cent basis. In order to determine that -we had to give consideration to certain factors. There is one thing that, in all the discussion that has taken place in connection with this matter, has not yet been explained and that I think ought to be explained; it is what I reserved my right to discuss further in connection with the order in council last evening, the question why these payments were held up for four years until the week before the election. Not even a rumour came out to the people of this country that 12739-994
any payments were going to be made in connection with the 1930 crop other than claims that were being made from time to time by representatives of the pool organization. But just while we were in the midst of the election, to be exact on October 10, 1935, rumours were published in the papers referred to last evening by the leader of the opposition. Those rumours had to do with certain statements that were made in the Winnipeg Free Press and also in the Regina Leader, but I will refer at the moment only to that made in the Winnipeg Free Press. This statement was made in an editorial on October 9:
Upon the strength of the rise in wheat prices the government stabilization agency (which is still doing business) would authorize the pool to issue cheques to pool members in adjustment of payments made on delivery of the crop in 1930-31.
Now, after having made that statement in their editorial, and having repeated, prior to writing it, these rumours going around with regard to the payment on the 1930 grain, the Free Press had their reporter interview W. A. McLeod, and W. A. McLeod's reply on October 9 was read to this house last evening. It might be well here to ask ourselves who W. A. McLeod is. Mr. W. A. McLeod is chief publicity man for Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, the gentleman who writes most of the official documents that go out from the pool in order to indicate what the pool is doing and what it is expecting. When the Free Press submitted these rumours to Mr. McLeod he is reported as having made this statement:
The Free Press Wednesday asked W. A. McLeod, prominent pool official, when these payments would be made. Mr. McLeod said there was no truth whatever in the report. "It's a damned lie," he said, "and you can tell that to whoever told the Free Press."
That statement was read just in those words by the leader of the opposition last evening, but he did not read the statement that was refuted by that remark. I have here the Western Producer, the official organ of the wheat pool, and the organ in which W. A. McLeod publishes all his publicity if he publishes it at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The "if" is rather significant.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would like to call my hon. friend's attention to this, published on October 10, and distributed throughout Saskatchewan :
Adjustment is approved of 1930 wheat pool deliveries.

Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner
That word "approved" is very significant:
Basis upon which the pool stocks are taken over by the Canadian wheat board is officially announced.
Note that, "officially announced."
Coarse grain adjustment also made. Lower initial payments to be adjusted to 60 cents a bushel on basis No. 1 Northern at Fort William.
Those are the headings to this article, which goes on to say:
L. C. Brouillette, president of the central board of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, stated to-day that negotiations have been completed for the taking over of all wheat and contracts from Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, by the Canadian wheat board as provided in section 7 of the act. It has been made possible at last to provide for the adjustment of payments to the members of the .1930 pools who received for their wheat an initial payment of less than 60 cents a bushel delivered basis No. 1 northern Fort William and to members of the coarse grain pools who received less than the highest initial prices.
Listen to that:
-and to members of the coarse grain pools svho received less than the highest initial prices.
It goes on:
"For over four years pool members have been hoping that such an equitable adjustment could be made," said Mr. Brouillette. "If the 1930 pool carry-over had been thrown on the market it would have been impossible to have carried on the stabilization operations carried on by John I. McFarland, general manager of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, at the request of producers and prominent Canadian citizens, and with the financial backing of the federal government for his operations. For over two years of these operations the 1930 pool carry-over composed nearly 100 per cent of the holdings which were used in the stabilization operations.
Then he goes on to deal with the matter more in detail. That is the source from which people all over western Canada gathered the opinion that these payments were to be made. This article was put out, and put out as an official statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By whom?


James Garfield Gardiner: By Mr. Brouillette,
president of the organization of which Mr. W. A. McLeod is the publicity agent. The article goes on:
It is impossible to make any accurate estimate of how much these stabilization operations have meant to all producers of wheat from the time they were undertaken until the stocks and contracts have now been taken over by the

Canadian wheat board. It is admitted by all competent authorities that the increased price received by wheat producers as a result of these operations amounted to many cents per bushel.
I had not intended to read the following paragraph had my hon. friend not asked his last question, and I want him now to pay particular attention to this sentence:
And the total benefits to growers have been estimated between $150,000,000 and $200,000,000 as the operations covered the marketing by Canada of close to 1,750,000,000 of bushels.
Did my hon. friend ever see that before?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have never seen the paper before.


James Garfield Gardiner: He saw the statement posted all over Canada on bill-boards by his party to the effect that these profits had been made by farmers as a result of the operations of his government and Mr. McFarland.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the hon. gentleman controvert it?


James Garfield Gardiner: The right hon. gentleman was not at all concerned, at that time, with trying to prove to the people of Canada that he had no responsibility for Mr. McFarland. He was not at that time trying to indicate to the people of Canada that he would take no responsibility for the financing of coarse grains and for returning the money of the people of Canada to those who had delivered to the coarse grain pool.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That statement, of course, is a direct one. I turn to page 4261 of Hansard of last year, and I read:
Mr. 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 Garfield Gardiner: What I want to ask the hon. gentleman is this: How did these men get the opinion that they were going to be paid for coarse grains?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Apparently through Mr. Brouillette.


James Garfield Gardiner: How did my hon. friend from Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) get the opinion that those words in the order in council meant coarse grains? How did every farmer in western Canada who delivered a bushel of grain to the wheat pools in 1930 get the idea that those words meant coarse grains? Every farmer who delivered a bushel of grain in 1930 to the pools of Saskatchewan and Manitoba had the idea given to him more or less officially by the people with

Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner
whom my right hon. friend was negotiating at that time, given to the farmer, through this organ of theirs, which says that the statement is an official statement, that an agreement had been reached to pay on these coarse grains. What I would like to point out to the house is that nothing has been produced to indicate that any member of the pool or any man who delivered any of that grain to_ the pool knew at that time that the government of Canada had changed the first draft of the order in council. Not a single one of them knew. And so far as the members of the house are concerned, there was not a single member who knew until yesterday that that order in council had been built up and had been signed in the manner in which it was except the men who signed it.
When these facts were brought out yesterday my right hon. friend wanted to know whether we had any idea that anything sinister had been done by the government. Well, I repeat what I said yesterday, that there was no intention on my part and no intention on the part of any member of the government to imply anything sinister in the shape of taking money out of the treasury of Canada for the benefit of any member of the government, but I have no hesitation in saying to-night that there could have been only one intention on the part of the government in holding these moneys up week after [DOT]week and month after month, yes, and in some cases year after year, after the farmers of Canada were entitled to them, and then bringing them out as an offer to the people of western Canada four days before the election. I do not think the last has been heard of the question as to when the change was made in the draft order in council, why it was made, and why it was not announced to the people of Canada. On the very day that this article went out as an official statement, that document was being produced in the city of Ottawa, and no statement went out to the people of Canada before election day that a change had been made in the order in council until-*


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the people only
knew of an order in council, the only one that ever was, which contained a provision with respect to an auditor's certificate.


James Garfield Gardiner: All that the people knew was what appeared in the newspapers, and every member of the pool and of the pool organization, and the man who was in this city negotiating will back me up in the statement that it was understood at that time that coarse grains were to be paid for.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who was he?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will give you his name-


Richard Bedford Bennett: You said that he will back you up; I am entitled to know his name.


James Garfield Gardiner: Any time the hon.
gentleman wants to produce this investigation he was talking about yesterday, I will produce the man.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not an answer. The hon. member said: I will give the name in this house to anyone who wants it. I should like to know the name.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have indicated to the hon. gentleman how he will get the name.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: If he will carry out his threat of the day before yesterday with regard to an investigation into the whole matter I will produce the man.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman has made a statement and I simply 'say that I should like to know the name. I avail myself of his offer. If he withdraws it, well and good.


An hon. MEMBER:: What are you afraid of?


James Garfield Gardiner: I don't think I need tell him the name.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to know,
because I am a member of the house.


James Garfield Gardiner: You know the way to find out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think that is an answer to the question. The hon. gentleman said that he would give the name and I have asked him to give it. I am a member of this chamber and I think I have a right to avail myself of his generous offer. What is the name of the man?


James Garfield Gardiner: And I said that I would give it if he would produce the means. If he will produce the means I will give it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The investigation still
stands. I might have raised a question of order but I have not done so; the hon. gentleman has been discussing for the last two hours something entirely foreign to the matter; but I only say that the wheat investigation, as I understood, was to commence immediately after the recess ended.


James Garfield Gardiner: After the order in council
was secured by the present government-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: The name.
Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner


Richard Bedford Bennett: Others than I want the name.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will give the name much too soon for his own satisfaction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have a right to know the name.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not have to produce the name and the right hon. gentleman cannot force me to produce it. But I will produce it at any time if he produces the means of presenting it, which he has threatened to do.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am only one member, but other members have asked that the offer made by the hon. gentleman be implemented.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do not worry; I have a right to say what I am saying.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think the Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has the floor; there is no point of order.


Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: Allow me to
hear what the Speaker has to say.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Order;
the Speaker is standing.


Walter Edward Foster: The Minister of Agriculture has the floor and cannot be interrupted without his consent.


James Garfield Gardiner: I said a moment ago
that there was no question, so far as the government is concerned, whether a certain amount of money should be paid in connection with the wheat. I wish now, if I am permitted to do so, to establish the amount, which we think ought to be paid, and why we think it ought to be paid. The amount claimed by the pool organization is based upon the statement which I read to the louse a few moments ago. It is based upon i statement made on February 29, 1932, at which time it is claimed that an amount of $6,509,269.36 could have been realized for distribution. They claim that is the amount to which they are entitled.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the then price of wheat?


James Garfield Gardiner: I cannot say exactly
at the moment without looking it up but it

was around sixty cents. The reasons why sixty cents is a reasonable amount to ask for are to be found in these facts. As indicated in the remarks I made this afternoon, the federal government first became interested in this matter of an initial price at the time that an initial price of sixty cents had been set. Prior to that time the federal government had not been financially interested in the wheat pools; the provincial government was carrying the load. But as a result of the first conference held by the federal government, the provincial governments and the banks, an initial price of sixty cents was set. Another reason why sixty cents might be regarded as a reasonable price is the fact that the valuation that was given the 1930 wheat, when the cut off was made on July 31, 1931, was 60J cents a bushel, and that figured out would give the amount that is proposed in the bill. Then, wheat sold at sixty cents prior to February 29, 1932, would have brought an amount in excess of the amount that is paid by the wheat pool had it been credited to the 1930 crop. In other words, there was 76,000,000 bushels of wheat sold after the federal government entered upon the guarantee. Prior to February 29,	1932 there was approximately
76.000,000 bushels of wheat sold at a price which would have brought sixty cents a bushel to the farmers had the sales been credited to the 1930 pool wheat, and what the wheat pool people claim is that it is perfectly proper that this 76,000,000 bushels should be paid for at the price that might have been realized had the 76,000.000 bushels of the 1930 crop been credited with the sales instead of being held off the market entirely and other grain sold in its place.
We might go further than that. Mr. McFarland took charge of the wheat market on July 31, 1931, and he was selling wheat over a considerable period of time. There is one period that is very interesting-July, 1933. I have before me the prices offered every day upon which wheat was sold or bought through the operations of Mr. McFarland during the month of July, 1933. I find that on July 3, 1933, the price of October wheat was 81J cents, and it runs along 82|; 81J; 82$; 83$; 84$; 86f; 90$; 90$; 93; 95; 95$; 81; 80; 75; 78; 85; 90; 83; 81; 80. It will be noted that wheat started at eighty-one cents at the first of the month, then went to ninety-five cents in the middle of the month and came back to eighty cents at the end of the month. During the first half of the month Mr. McFarland was selling wheat, and his operations resulted in a position of this kind. On June 24 he had

Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett
71.070.000	bushels of wheat; on July 3, 69,-
242,000	bushels; on July 8, 65,368,000; on July 15, 48,792,000; on July 17, 42,461,000; on July 18, 42,461,000; on July 19, 42,461,000; on July 20, 46,111,000; on July 21, 62,216,000; on July 22, 65,619,000. What were the cash prices on those dates? On June 24 the cash price was 701 cents per bushel; on July 3, 72i cents; on July 15, 95 cents and on July 22, 73| cents. What happened? On July 3, Mr. McFarland had 69,242,000 bushels of wheat. The price that day was 72J cents. He sold 1,928,000 bushels. On July 8 he sold 4,040,000 bushels; on July 15 he sold 16,545,000 bushels and on July 17, 6,333,000 bushels in his stabilization activities. He reduced the amount of wheat that he held from 69,000,000 bushels on July 3 to 42,000,000 bushels on July 17.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is exclusive of the 1930 wheat.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, that is the other wheat; he had got the 1930 wheat off the market and he was dealing with the other wheat. What did he do after that? He did just what every man who is speculating in wheat does. For three days he sat and looked at it and it went to ninety-five cents a bushel on July 15. He sold 6,333,000 bushels on July 17, when it went down to 93i cents a bushel. He looked at it the next day and it went up one-half cent. He looked at it one day longer and it went down 6J cents. Then he thought he had better start stabilizing, so he bought 4,180,000 bushels, and wheat went down nine cents a bushel. He thought he was not stabilizing fast enough, so he bought
15.705.000	bushels, and wheat went down | cents per bushel. Then he took another try at it, so the next day he bought 3,303,000 bushels, and wheat went down 4J cents. Then he thought he had better stop for a little while. What do we find? He started out with 69,242,000 bushels and he ended up with
65.619.000	bushels.
The wheat pool people say that the average price at which wheat was sold by Mr. McFarland on the days that he sold it for future delivery in October is ninety-two cents a bushel. They say that if you take ninety-two cents a bushel for the 76,000,000 bushels of wheat that they held off the market in order to bring this about, it will give sixty cents a bushel to every farmer who delivered wheat at fifty-five or fifty cents a bushel. They say they are entitled to sixty cents per bushel.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And pay the carrying charges.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, and pay the carrying charges. They say that they are entitled to sixty cents a bushel because of the activities of Mr. McFarland during the month of July, 1933. If my right hon. friend will take the trouble to trace the activities during the summer of 1934 he will find that they are just the same. This is the man who has been so anxiously looking round for shorts in the market, but he always bought more wheat every time the market was going down then he sold when the market was going up. He had more wheat at the end of the period than he had at the beginning. At the end of July, 1934, he had 100,000,000 bushels as against 95,000,000 bushels at the beginning of the month. It is because of these activities that supporters of the pool claims believe that some payment should be made and that the proper amount is sixty cents per bushel.
The government of the day has come to the conclusion that they are right. We are inclined to believe that they should have that payment in full. This will amount to
86,509,000	with an additional 8350,000 required for the pools that were operating in the coarse grains. We intend to ask them to accept this as final settlement in connection with taking over the wheat and the wheat contracts and the other operations of Mr. McFarland and the government of the day in connection with coarse grains. In conclusion, that is why I move the second reading of the bill which has for its objective the doing of this very thing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, for two hours and a half the chamber has listened to the most violent political speech that I have heard in it for many years about a matter that affects the welfare of every province in the Dominion of Canada, and which was made purely as a vindictive pronouncement against those who had endeavoured to stabilize the price of wheat and prevent disaster from coming to the farmers of western Canada. The hon. gentleman must have realized that he could have said all that is relevant to this measure-I notice the Minister of National Defence is looking up the dictionary; will he look up the word "vindictive"?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is what I am doing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is used properly in this instance. I was going to observe that the minister could have dealt with the whole matter on the basis that he has now presented
Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett

it in no more than fifteen minutes. He has presented to the house a bill to which is attached a preamble. There is a rule, which will have to be observed, that you cannot place a preamble in a public bill without offering some public document as proof thereof. I need hardly point out that there is one sentence in the preamble that disposes of this whole matter in its entirety. When I read this to the chamber I am satisfied that every hon. member who knows anything of parliamentary practice and procedure-there are experts among those present -will realize at once that the mere reading of this one paragraph in the preamble would have been sufficient for the purpose of founding this bill. The preamble covers many pages. Let us look at it and see what this particular phase of it is, a rather interesting one too. It asserts that an agreement was made between the wheat board and the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, to take over this wheat. It asserts also that this arrangement was made on December 2, 1935. The following will be found on page 2 of the bill:
Whereas a transfer of wheat and contracts to purchase or take delivery of wheat in respect of which the government of Canada had given a guarantee was made by Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, to the Canadian wheat board as of December 2, 1935, subject to final settlement of the terms of such transfer;
There is your connection. There is a settlement of this whole measure made on December 2 and not a single scintilla of evidence has been produced to show what the terms were. The order in council has not been produced. A statement is made in the preamble of a public bill and not a word is given in evidence or a statement made by the minister in charge as to there being any foundation for the statement contained in the bill. I now say that we must have presented to this house-we should have had it when the resolution was before us-the conditions of the contract of December 2, 1935, showing the terms under which this wheat was bought from the wheat pool under Mr. Murray, and bought by him from the wheat producers.
Perhaps the gentleman to whom the minister refers will be able to give us some evidence upon this point. Perhaps the gentleman whose name he was to give us in secret, but not in public, will be able to give us some evidence upon this point. Perhaps the minister himself will be able to give us some evidence upon this point. Perhaps the order in council upon which this bill must be framed will be produced before we proceed

further with this measure, because under the Wheat Board Act enacted last year, section 7, paragraph (f), it was provided that this could be done only with the approval of the governor in council. Where is that approval? Where was it yesterday and the day before when the resolution was under consideration? Where was it during all these discussions that have no relevancy to the matter at all? Why were we not told when the minister stood in his place and imposed-I use the only word that expresses it-a false position upon this committee and upon this house, as to what the facts were, trying to make it appear that this wheat had been purchased by the old board under Mr. McFarland from the wheat producers, whereas he now says, in the bill which we see for the first time to-day, that on the second day of December, 1935, this board acquired this wheat, under terms of which I have no knowledge, under terms of which this house has no knowledge, under terms of which this country has no knowledge, upon which no statement has been made to the press, with respect to which no observations have been made to the people. Nothing of this sort has been done. Why has it not been done? Why have we not been told? That is what I want to know. The house has not forgotten the statement made by the minister that everything was to be done in the open. But is there a man anywhere in this house to-night who can give a statement as to what are the terms of that order in council under which this wheat has been bought? Perhaps the gentleman who gave him his information in secret will now give it to us in public. If we cannot get it from the minister perhaps we will get it from some person on the street corners. It may be published in the Reporter, or what is the name of that journal?


Charles Avery Dunning: The Producer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps it may appear in the name of the gentleman who has been giving this information in secret and is about to shout it from the house tops. This house has been imposed upon.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hon. gentlemen may
laugh. I expected that some of them would. That is their idea of doing things in the open. I expected that they would laugh, but the privileges of parliament have been invaded. This house has been insulted. Every member of this house has been insulted. It is quite clear that we cannot proceed further with this measure until this information is brought down. It is clear we cannot proceed with

Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett
this after having heard these words. The cynicism of the Minister of Finance will not escape the just condemnation of people who regard parliamentary institutions as having some value. Let us look at this paragraph on page 2:
Whereas a transfer of wheat and contracts to purchase or take delivery of wheat in respect of which the government of Canada had given a guarantee was made by Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, to the Canadian Wheat Board as of December 2, 1935, subject to final settlement of the terms of such transfer-[DOT]


Charles Avery Dunning: Exactly; subject to final settlement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly, but this bill could not be introduced until that had been done, and now we have not the information before us.


Charles Avery Dunning: This bill represents the final terms of settlement. That is what it is here for.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That statute says that there must be approval by the governor in council before this can be validly done. I would expect the Minister of Finance to engage in those heroics for which he is so noted, but cynicism is not argument.


Charles Avery Dunning: "Heroics." Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say to you, sir, and 1 appeal to the judgment of every fairminded member of this house, that when he in his calm moments reads the recital in that document and reads the statute to which I have referred, paragraph (f) of section 7, he will realize that there must be approval by the governor in council, which can be done only by order in council, and until that is produced, until we know its terms, this legislation cannot be proceeded with.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who says so?


Charles Avery Dunning: The terms are here stated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not it. Some one asks, "Who says so?" I would say, the common sense of those who believe that our institutions are set up for the purpose of being worked in accordance with the provisions of the long constitutional practice that has prevailed.
All that was necessary in this bill before the house was a recital of that agreement and the order in council under it and a validation of it by an authorization of the payment of the money. I can say this at least without being subject to ridicule by hon. gentlemen opposite, that I have read something of parliamentary institutions-"read," I said, without saying that I know anything of them.
But I will look over this house to every member of the legal profession and ask him, and I will ask every man acquainted with our parliamentary institutions and their working, if he ever before saw an effort such as this to put through legislation with a preamble such as this, after the speech we have listened to, without the production of either the terms of the agreement or the order in council validating the sale made by the wheat producers to the wheat board.
Mr. Speaker, I shall ask that this house permit the minister to lay on the table of this house at the appropriate time the order in council under which this was approved. Otherwise it is an invalid and illegal proceeding, and until this has taken place I move the adjournment of the debate.


Walter Edward Foster: It is moved that the debate be now adjourned. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Walter Edward Foster: Motion carried.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will bring down the order in council, Mr. Speaker.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not because of the order in council, but as a courtesy to my right hon. friend which I think, under the circumstances he has a perfect right to ask, after the address to which we have just listened; I think it is only a matter of reasonable parliamentary courtesy to permit the adjournment of the debate by the leader of the opposition and give him ample time to reply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That entirely begs the issue. The hon. gentleman has risen after the motion has been declared to be carried. I am wholly indifferent; if this house desires to proceed with the debate .1 am perfectly content. But I desire to point out to the house that the essential document upon which this bill is based is not before this house.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Speaker, I understood you not to have put the question. There were calls of "carried" and "no." I rise on behalf of the government to say that under the circumstances I thought it was a courtesy to permit the adjournment of the debate. But we cannot at all admit that this debate cannot proceed because of the absence of an order in council the essential terms of which are right in the bill. We will, of course, produce the order in council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But of which we never heard until the bill was brought down.
Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett


Charles Avery Dunning: This debate is not being adjourned because the order in council is not on the table.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then I cannot accept the adjournment of the debate on any other ground.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, then, go on with your speech.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no further observations to make until the order in council is produced.


Charles Avery Dunning: My right hon. friend recognizes that in that case he loses his right to speak further.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He quite understands
that. He understands that he has been denied the order in council, which he must have if he is going to make a speech. Therefore he cannot make it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am quite prepared to bring down the order in council, but if the right hon. gentleman would take the trouble to read the bill, he would find the provisions he is asking about are right in the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That does not help in the least.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have read the orders in council for every paragraph of the preamble except the order in council asked for; it is available to be brought down, and will be brought down. But I think, in view of the attitude the right hon. gentleman is taking, we ought to proceed with the debate. I do not think he should run this house any longer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear; I agree.


Walter Edward Foster: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion? Carried.


Charles Avery Dunning: Was the motion to adjourn the debate declared carried?


Walter Edward Foster: Yes, it was carried.


Major James William Coldwell: I rise to a point of order. I understood the motion to adjourn the debate had not been carried; I understood the Minister of Finance to make that contention, and I rose to say something in connection with this matter.


Charles Avery Dunning: I made the contention, but I believe I was over-ruled by the Speaker. That is my position; I am sorry that I cannot help my hon. friend.
Motion (Mr. Bennett) agreed to and debate adjourned.



NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 26, consideration of the motion of Hon. Mr. Howe for the second reading of Bill No. 17, respecting the national harbours board.
Mr. THOMAS VIEN (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, when this debate was adjourned I *was endeavouring to urge that in his report Sir Alexander Gibb highly praised the excellence and efficiency of the harbour commissions of Montreal and Vancouver. He said:
They provided a type of administration at least the equal of any that was to be found elsewhere on the north American continent; and notwithstanding mistakes, which no system can prevent, the developments under the two harbour commissions have generally been sound and economically justified.
With regard to costs, at page 73 of the report I find this paragraph:
According to my information, and from the careful inquiries that I have made, I am satisfied that these costs are not seriously challenged by competing ports, except where the latter may be partially assisted by special rail rates.
I also urged that the complete survey and exhaustive investigation had revealed that nowhere in the word is there in existence a system similar to the centralization system provided by this bill. It was tried in France and later discarded as being unsatisfactory and unwarranted; after the laws of 1912 and 1920 autonomous local boards were reverted to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Only in two harbours in France.


Thomas Vien: But any other local authority could request the institution of a harbour board. I am referring particularly to the harbours of Le Havre and Bordeaux. I refer again to the Gibb report at page 29, paragraph 75; In the Dutch East Indies a system of departmental officials with local advisory councils, adopted in 1910, has been found to be inflexible, dilatory and unenterprising, and public opinion is veering towards the substitution of practically autonomous local councils or boards. In British India local boards with wide powers are in effect, and the report states that they have obtained considerable success due particularly to the fortunate selection of chairmen and commissioners.
At page 29, paragraph 77 of the report, a parallel is drawn between transportation conditions in India and in Canada, and points of similarity are set out. There seems to be, therefore, some contradictions between the

National Harbours Board-Mr. Vien
findings of fact and the recommendations favouring intense centralization in Canada and also between the suggestion contained at page 31, paragraph S3, that there should be a central board with wide powers, and the recommendation at the same time that considerable latitude should be left to the port manager. If the central board has wide powers, certainly the authority of the port manager must be restricted.
Certain abuses have been pointed out. No doubt they should be corrected, but it seems to me unreasonable and unwise that we should be called upon to scrap a system which has been found to be as excellent and efficient as any to be found elsewhere in order to adopt a system which has been tried in other countries and found unsatisfactory. To my mind the proper remedy is that all capital expenditures should be subject to a vote by parliament; that all expenditures, even of appropriated money, should be subject to approval by order in council, and that all operating receipts and expenditures should be subject to the audit of the auditor general for Canada. Is there anything, for instance, which would prevent the construction of wharves, elevators or other works coming under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works, just as any other public work in Canada does?


Mr. ISNOR:: May I ask the hon. member
a question? I should like to inquire whether it is his intention to make a comparison between the section he quoted, paragraph 77 at page 29, and the proposed system embodied in the bill now before the house.


Thomas Vien: I shall leave that to my
hon. friend; I had not contemplated doing that in the remarks I desire to address to the house in the very limited time I have at my disposal. II should like to make clear that the point I am urging the house to consider is that the fullest possible autonomy should be left to the various local port authorities if we want to avoid what has been styled by Sir Alexander Gibb in his report as an inflexible, dilatory and unenterprising system from which public opinion is veering in another country in which that system has been tried.
The conclusions of the report, I am afraid, have been influenced by high officials who in some departments of the state constitute a bureaucracy. I understand their point of view, trying to draw to themselves greater power, influence and emoluments, and no doubt Sir Alexander Gibb had long conferences and consultations with them before he
submitted his report to the government. Such a doctrine of intensified centralization is well known and quite natural in the mouth of our bureaucracy, but to my. mind it is contrary to the spirit and letter of British principles of government and of our own constitutional act. Against that bureaucracy we protested from the stump throughout the country not so very long ago that bureaucracy the immortal Lincoln condemned when he said:
Let us highly resolve that the government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Under British principles of government local autonomy is fostered. These principles did not always obtain; they did not obtain prior to the independence of the United States. But we all know what the results were. They did not obtain in the days which preceded the insurrections of 1837-38 in Canada. We all know what battles were fought to gain responsible government and local jurisdiction and autonomy. Ties freely accepted bind all sections of the British empire. They would become unbearable to any British subject if local autonomy and freedom of action were taken away. British statesmen understood that when self-government was granted to the autonomous dominions. The development and unity of the empire have been maintained only because these principles have been respected.
Sections of our people inhabit distant sections of our country. They differ as to origin, character, traditions and interests. The maritime provinces, Quebec, Ontario, the prairie provinces and British Columbia have different problems; they cannot be kept together unless they are allowed to enjoy a fair measure of justice and equity, autonomy and freedom. The rumblings of dissatisfaction, distrust and unrest have often been heard and discussed in this house. I remember the days after 1922 when our Progressive friends from the west in this house threatened secession unless there took place some readjustment of conditions under which they were labouring. They clamoured for the reinstatement of the Crowsnest Pass Agreement Act, and the act was reinstated as far as grain and grain products are concerned. A little later our friends from the maritime provinces also voiced their recriminations against conditions created for them as a result of their entrance into confederation. They said that the natural market for their products was close at hand, but being part of the Dominion of Canada they were excluded from

National Harbours Board-Mr. Vien
the United States market so far as most of their products were concerned. They complained also that they had not received a railway freight rate structure which they had anticipated in their agreement to enter the Canadian confederation. As a result the Duncan report was made and was later implemented by the Maritime Freight Rates Act.
There is at present in Quebec a great body of public opinion holding the view that the
3,000,000 French-Canadians who live in this country do not receive adequate consideration, and the simple reading of the government telephone book bears out the statement that they do not receive fair and equitable treatment in the distribution of government offices. The estimates tabled in this house also show that public moneys are much more freely expended outside Quebec than on matters affecting that province.
People in Quebec, in British Columbia, in the maritime provinces have expressed through their representatives in this house their desire to continue to control their own local affairs. In their opinion the purport of this bill is to withdraw from their hands the administration of their ports, to centralize it in the hands of bureaucratic officials, and so another slice of their local autonomy will have been taken away from them. All this has created in Quebec and elsewhere a great deal of discontent. I should like to read a short article in substantiation of my statement, taken from the Canadian Forum of March, 1936, at page 12, entitled French Canadian Nationalism :
There is a movement on foot amongst the French-Canadians that Canadians would do well to study. Unnoticed by the English press, unsuspected by the public at large, it is steadily gaining strength in Quebec. It has its own clubs, its youth organizations, its newspapers. What is of vastly more importance, it has the backing of the Catholic church.
This is the movement for the creation of an independent French and Catholic republic on the banks of the St. Lawrence.
It is well known that the Abbe Groulx has been preaching this idea for many years. The world war gave it popularity amongst a people conscripted to fight other people's battles on foreign soil, but during the years of "prosperity" little more was heard of it. With the depression, however, it has again sprung into prominence, and this time it is a force to be reckoned with. For Paul Gouin, the leader of the Action Liberale Nationale party, which now holds forty-two seats in the provincial legislature, has himself publicly voiced the hope of French-Canadian independence. Basing himself on the remarks of Cardinal Villeneuve, made in 1922, he recently spoke of the_ "supernatural vocation" of the French race in America, where, in the midst of this north American Babylon it was 
destined to become the "modern Israel." The hope, he admitted, could not be immeditely realized, but it was something towards which his fellow countrymen would never cease to strive.
I am not discussing the merits or demerits of these ideas thus propounded; I am simply urging as a Liberal that the legislation brought down should be revamped to provide the fullest possible measure of autonomy to local authorities, which in my opinion are better able to judge the needs and requirements of the population which they are called upon to serve. I urge that there should be three harbour commissions created, one for the maritime provinces, one for the St. Lawrence river and one for British Columbia; that the best possible men should be selected for these commissions, and that the chairmen of these commissions should be called in an advisory capacity to the minister when needed. Thereby we would retain in each of the different sections of our country local autonomy, and the minister would receive from proper sources the information and assistance of which he stands in need.
I want to conclude by saying that the slogan of all schools of true Liberalism is the utmost possible liberty for every individual and every section of our people. I am not talking of licence; I am speaking of liberty. Any governmental action that interferes with this individual liberty is an attack on liberty itself. The ruggedness, independence, initiative and vigour of the individual are essential factors in the upbuilding of the nation, and they should be encouraged, not stifled, by governmental agencies.
I hope the government will see its way clear to amend its legislation so as to provide these three commissions, one for the maritime provinces, one for the ports on the St. Lawrence river, and one for British Columbia, for thereby it will give to every section of Canada that reasonable degree of local autonomy which we stand for, which they have enjoyed in the past, and which they hold very dear.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Speaker, before this bill goes to committee I wish to say just a few words upon it. I do not intend to deal with the merits or the demerits of the bill, but having had a great deal to do with bringing the harbour of Saint John under a commission in 1928, and having heard the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Ryan) deal with this question the other night, I think it is incumbent upon me to draw the attention of the minister to this fact, that the passing of this bill in its present form, repealing as it does the three acts in

National Harbours Board-Mr. Stevens
regard to the harbour of Saint John, I would regard as breaking faith with the port of Saint John if the bill is not amended to protect certain interests in that city.
In the act creating the harbour commission of Saint John there are certain covenants which are not contained in any other harbour commission act, for the reason that Saint John at that date occupied the unique position of being the only harbour in the dominion that had provided its own transportation facilities without any help from the government of Canada in their construction. It is true that the federal government did help through the Department of Public Works in the dredging of the harbour, the dredging of certain places where wharves were constructed, but the real work, the greater part of the construction of those wharves, was carried on and paid for by the city of Saint John itself, at a cost of somewhere between three and four million dollars.
When in 1928 it was decided to place the harbour of Saint John under a commission, the federal government by act of parliament entered into certain agreements with that city. They paid to Saint John a valuation fixed by arbitrators for the constructions which the city had carried on for a number of years. The city passed over to His Majesty the King, not to the harbour commission of Saint John, certain properties, and those properties were to be administered by a harbour commission. There are in that act certain covenants by which the city of Saint John binds itself to do certain things provided the government, on its part, at a later period does certain things. If the bill now before the house is adopted in its present form without amendment, it will be breaking faith with the city or harbour of Saint John, and I would ask the minister seriously to consider an amendment to the bill by which those covenants entered into in 1928 will be properly safeguarded and satisfaction in every way given to the people of the constituency of Saint John-AIbert.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise not to offer any serious criticism of the bill but rather to make a few suggestions which I hope the minister and his colleagues will take into consideration and possibly, as suggested by my hon. friend from one of the Montreal ridings, amend the bill before it is finally disposed of by this house.
Perhaps it might not be out of place for me to say a few words regarding the origin of the organization of the great port of Vancouver and the creation of a harbour commission there. It was one of the first tasks I undertook when I entered parliament
twenty-five years ago. My proposal at that time to the government of the day, the Minister of Marine then being, I think, the Hon. Mr. Hazen, later Sir Douglas Hazen, was a form of commission similar to the Mersey Trust of Liverpool or the Port Trust of London. I believe that a similar type of port administration is in vogue in Sydney, and of course in other ports. I made a very careful study at the time of the Mersey Trust of Liverpool and of the London Port Trust. The principle involved there is that responsible groups such as shippers, handlers of cargoes, shipping interests, the board of trade and bodies of that kind, and the city itself, I believe, have the nominating of the members of what is known as the Port Trust. I am not familiar with what may have been done in recent years to amend that organization, but I know that in those days it was along the lines I have mentioned, and so I had prepared a bill, and proposed it to the government of the day, for setting up such an organization for the harbour of Vancouver. Furthermore, it was proposed in that bill that such bodies should control not only the harbour of Burrard inlet, or Vancouver itself, but also the mouth of the Fraser river and New Westminster. Later on two other harbour commissions were created, one at New Westminster, and another one known as the North Fraser harbour board, which, I believe, was later merged with the Vancouver harbour board.
I think any student of the situation on the Pacific coast will admit that it would be in the interest of the public generally if there was some authority directly over all these activities in the lower mainland. In any case I would suggest to the minister that before this bill is finally passed consideration should be given to some form of local council, an advisory council, if you will, which, I believe, has already been suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). There should be some form of local advisory council to act in cooperation with the board proposed to be set up under this bill.
That is one suggestion, but I was also impressed the other day by the observations of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). Lie referred to the matter of harbour boundaries and expressed some doubt as to the adequacy of this bill in preserving the present boundaries of harbours or in giving legal status to them. Coming from one of his experience and standing as a lawyer, that, I admit, rather perturbed
1560	COMMONS
National Harbours Board-Mr. Stevens
me, because on looking over the bill I notice that in reference to boundaries it simply declares in subsection 2 of section 6 that:
The boundaries of the harbours of Halifax, Saint John, Chicoutimi, Quebec, Three Rivers, Montreal and Vancouver shall be as described in the several acts constituting the corporations, or as may be determined from time to time by order of the governor in council, and any such order shall be published in the Canada Gazette.
Then I notice that at the conclusion of the bill there is this section, 39:
The acts mentioned in the schedule to this act and the Quebec Harbour and River Police Act, chapter one hundred and sixty-nine of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, are hereby repealed.
I see, in connection with this very lengthy schedule, there are several acts relating to the harbour of Vancouver, including the original act of incorporation, which are all repealed.
I am not a lawyer, nor do I ever dare to offer views on law, but following the expressions of doubt by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George I am going to ask the minister to have this point very carefully checked, whether in view of the repeal of the other acts, the original act and its amending acts, this description in the present bill is sufficient to preserve the legality of the boundaries of Vancouver harbour. I do not speak without some knowledge. As I say, I do not pretend to express my legal views; far be it from me to dare to do that in this house, but I do speak from some knowledge of the difficulties that have arisen from time to time. For instance, I would remind the government-and if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) were in his seat he would recall it at once, because he was an arbitrator in the matter-of the dispute between the harbour commission of Vancouver, acting under the dominion government, and the provincial authorities regarding the boundaries of Vancouver harbour in False Creek, and also the dispute as to the right or the jurisdiction of the harbour commissioners in extending out along Point Grey, although I find that in the act constituting the original charter of Vancouver harbour it describes the harbour as all within Point Atkinson and Point Grey. But I am quite certain that at the present time, or for some time since this dispute with the provincial government, the harbour commissioners have not actually had jurisdiction.
The minister must bear in mind that merely stating in this measure that the boundaries shall be as described in the various acts incorporating these harbours, will scarcely

protect the new form of administration in their control over the territory which supposedly is now within the harbour. I think there is a real difficulty there and one which should be very carefully considered. It is not something to be treated lightly, because it affects, for instance, the question of ships moving within the area, the control of the foreshore, the right to construct wharves, or the right of the administration to indicate the kind of docks that shall be constructed. So many factors, so many activities are affected, that nothing but grief can come unless there is great safeguard provided in the bill. That is the second point I would bring to the attention of the minister.
The third point I suggest is this: While I have not fully considered the question of bylaws, I should like to ask the minister when we get into the committee stage to be prepared to demonstrate that the power under the new measure covers fully the powers in the present individual harbour commissioners' acts with respect to bylaws. I am a little doubtful whether certain powers are taken in this new legislation which are at present in existence, having been found to be very necessary. Let me refer, for example, to matters of order and regularity and the prevention of theft and depredation. The harbour commissioners of Vancouver- and I speak only for them-have worked out a system of cooperation with the city police. Whether it is still in existence I am not certain, but I know that for a great many years it worked very satisfactorily, and I regard it aS of considerable importance, because after all the line of demarcation between the property of the harbour commissioners and that which is directly under the city is undoubtedly difficult to define or to keep track of. My hon. friend from Van-couver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer), who is the mayor of the city, will be in a better position to speak on that point than I am.
There is another very important matter and I admit it is highly controversial so far as Vancouver is concerned. There is a great difference of opinion regarding it among the authorities, and while I respect the opinion of others who differ from myself on it, yet I think it is a matter that is of first importance. I refer to the question of harbour railway control or, as the powers of bylaw in the old act recite, the regulation of railway and other traffic on the quays and wharves of the corporation in the harbour, the prevention and removal of obstructions, impediments or hindrances to traffic, and furthermore the enforcement of arrangements made or to be made under the powers given

National Harbours Board-Mr. Stevens
by the act with railway companies having connection with the harbour.
I would impress upon the minister the fact that there are some very sharp cleavages of opinion with respect to the interpretation of the rights of the Canadian Pacific railway and of the Canadian National Railways in Vancouver. I am not putting that in quite proper language, because it is necessary to understand the situation physically in order to interpret what I am saying. The Canadian Pacific railway has an excellent position in regard to the waterfront of the harbour of Vancouver; on the other hand the Canadian National has but very meagre access to the waterfront of the main harbour of that city. The Canadian National comes from Westminster over the Great Northern railway, so far as passenger traffic is concerned, and freight traffic as well is switched across from there. Its access to the harbour is certainly very much restricted at the present time. Shortly after the incorporation of Vancouver harbour I made a personal study of the situation. I urged upon the government, of the day, and did so for years and yeaTs, the establishment of a terminal harbour railway. The story is quite a long one.
I frankly admit that there were those of eminent authority, whose views merited every consideration, who took the attitude that this should not be done; that the Canadian Pacific railway could handle all the traffic to the wharves. I do not wish to say anything derogatory of the Canadian Pacific railway, but I think it would be asking perhaps too much of human nature to expect the officials of one great railway company to treat with impartiality traffic originating from or to go over the rails of another competing system. I do not think that is possible of attainment. In saying this I want to make it very clear that I am not reflecting upon the excellent character of the chief officials of the Canadian Pacific railway in Vancouver. Indeed, I think I can count most of them as my friends. However I think it is asking more than human nature is capable of discharging to expect that they would allow traffic to go off their lines on to another line with absolute impartiality. If a shipper desired that this should be done, of course it would be done, as we all know the law, but we are all aware that many little impediments could be thrown in the way of the movement of goods from one line on to another.
All through the years I felt that it was highly desirable that a harbour terminal railway should be established in Vancouver, and
it was so established. This railway has not made the progress I hoped it would although it has been developed to a certain extent. I think there are a couple of locomotives owned by the harbour commission which move cars into the government wharves and elevators or take cars from the Canadian National and the Great Northern rails to the wharves or for interchange with the Canadian Pacific, or vice versa. I believe this ought to be developed more completely, and may I say to the minister that that administration under the old commission is not carried into force in this new bill.
I am going to say very frankly what is in my mind. What I am afraid of is that in the drafting of this bill this matter has been overlooked, and when it becomes law we shall wake up to the fact that the Canadian Pacific railway controls absolutely the movement of freight in the harbour of Vancouver. I want to place myself clearly on record so that we shall not be surprised and taken unawares later on should this happen. Again, 1 repeat that in making this statement I am in no sense reflecting on the management of the Canadian Pacific railway. I assert that we ought not to subject the Canadian National, the Great Northern, the Northern Pacific or the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul or other railways having access to Vancouver from the south or over the Canadian National lines to the control of the Canadian Pacific in that way. I think that is all I wish to say in connection with the bylaws. I submit to the minister before I leave this point that I do not think the new bill makes provision for taking care of this situation to which I have referred.
There is one other point I wish to make. It must be borne in mind that Vancouver is in competition directly and most acutely with the port of Seattle, and to a lesser degree with the ports of Portland, Tacoma and San Francisco. That may not mean much to one who is unacquainted with traffic on the Pacific, but when one considers that competition in trade moving from the American continent to the orient is largely a matter of the route over which the traffic moves, thep he gets some idea of the importance of the control of the harbour at Vancouver or Prince Rupert or the other ports. However, it must be recognized that Vancouver is the port through which the great movement of goods occurs. Unless there is full provision for meeting that competition this bill will be a retrograde movement. I strongly advise the creation of a local advisory council, or the government could make me extremely happy by organizing
1562	COMMONS
National Harbours Board-Mr. Stevens
something along the lines of the Mersey Trust to which I have already referred. If we do not anticipate meeting this competition, we may lose this trade in such a way as never to recover it.
I am somewhat handicapped in not having any records before me, but I should like to indicate the nature of this competition. For instance, it occurs in the facilities of berthing, the regulations controlling the movement of ships in the harbour. Another form of competition is in connection with rates on a great variety of cargo. Rates on grain are not so significant, but rates on canned salmon and upon other special classes of cargo moving in and out of these ports are important. I will give an illustration. Prior to a very few years ago there were no facilities in the port of Vancouver for handling vegetable oils. That may not seem an important matter to those who think a few tons of vegetable oil will not make much difference, but it might mean that a ship would go to Seattle instead of coming into Vancouver. Frequently a steamer with a full cargo has been sent to Seattle to unload because there were no facilities in Vancouver to take care of vegetable oils. Seattle thus got the advantage not only of handling oils but of handling all the other cargoes. Facilities were created in the harbour of Vancouver to handle these oils, which assisted in the movement of goods.
Another line of competition is in pilotage charges, but that is not a matter for the harbour commissioners. There are also port charges of various kinds. Then, there is the question of silk shipments which enters quite another field. The shipment of silk depends largely upon dispatch, but I am sorry to say that this traffic has dropped off materially in recent years because the silk is now carried from Japan and the orient through the Panama canal to New York and other ports on the Atlantic. On the other hand, it has been one of the most valuable items of traffic through Canada ever since I went to British Columbia forty-two years ago. I can remember when the old Empress liners of the Canadian Pacific, little 5,000 ton boats, used to bring in cargoes of silk. Special trains would be waiting which would have the right of way over the fastest passenger trains to carry the silk across the continent for shipment to Great Britain. Down through the years the competition for this silk has been extremely keen; the Canadian Pacific are operating some very fine vessels on the Pacific, and we should take more care in guarding the facilities of the harbour in that respect.
I am not going to delay the house with a further argument on the matter. I trust
[Mr. Stevens. 1
the minister will not think I am opposing in any sense his efforts to improve the administration of the harbours of Canada. In that respect I am entirely in sympathy with him. At the same time I recognize that there have been weaknesses in connection with the harbours.
I cannot speak as to the last two years, but prior to two years ago the harbour of Vancouver had paid in full its interest on loans from the government and had maintained its sinking fund intact. I am not quite certain whether that has been continued right up to the present; I think not; but on the whole it will be found that it has paid its interest and maintained its sinking fund in pretty good shape, the interest rate, which I think used to be 5^ per cent, being reduced to five per cent. I suggest, if this matter is not covered in the new bill, that the interest rate should be reduced materially, because five per cent is too high a rate for a public body of that kind to be asked to maintain under modern conditions.
Again I say that I do not wish to leave the impression that I am criticizing the minister for his bill. I think the tone of the debate, and particularly the observations of my hon. friends the member for Outremont ('Mr. Vien), the member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), and the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), have been such that the minister will agree they have been full of constructive suggestions and have displayed a genuine anxiety to do what is in the best interests of the country. In that spirit I offer these few suggestions to the minister.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: There is one matter to which I should like to direct attention because it is fundamental to port development in Canada. I associate myself with the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Vien) and the hon. member for East Kootenay (Mr. Stevens), and base what I have to say very largely upon Sir Alexander Gibb's findings as set out in section 83 of the report. He says:
It is essential to avoid emasculating the local administration, since no centralized control can replace an efficient and active local administration, or the special knowledge and initiative of the local business community, both of which are vital to a port's prosperity.
I unhesitatingly condemn, on conclusions sanctioned by past experience, the centralization in the city of Ottawa of the control of the development of the port of Vancouver. I have no reason to believe that men living in Ottawa can ever have the understanding, the sympathy and the faith that are neces-

National Harbours Board-Mr. McGeer
sary to support and sustain the development of a port upon the Pacific ocean. The government of Canada, unfortunately, I think, for the dominion, is to some extent in an out-of-the-way place. I think a majority of members overlook the fact that there is such a thing as the Atlantic ocean; and that being so, it is hardly reasonable to expect them to appreciate that there is such a thing as the Pacific ocean. I remember one day appearing before the board of railway commissioners, and I wanted to emphasize the fact; I said, "Mr. Chairman, I would like to put something on record this morning." He said, "Very well, what is it?" I said, "Mr. Chairman, I would like to record that Vancouver is in Canada, on this side of the Pacific ocean, and incidentally, on this side of Tokyo, Japan." The chairman of the board of railway commissioners said, "I think, Mr. McGeer, everybody on the board is aware of that fact." I said, "Mr. Chairman, when I looked at the rates on grain moving from Calgary to Vancouver and checked then* up with the rates on grain from Calgary to Tokyo, I found that it costs considerably more to move grain from Calgary to Vancouver than it does to Tokyo, and I therefore suspected that somebody might have misplaced the location of Vancouver and Tokyo."
Let me draw to the attention of the house one other illustration of what Sir Alexander Gibb had in mind when he referred to initiative of a type that grows out of the business community around the port as being essential to the port's well-being. In 1914 the Panama canal was completed. That great achievement of the United States republic synchronized with another great achievement of the north American continent, the completion of the Canadian National or the Canadian Northern Pacific railway through the Yellowhead pass, which meant a complete elimination of mountain grades on Canada's internal transportation systems as far as the Rocky and the Selkirk mountains were concerned. Everyone believed that as a result of the completion of the railway through the Yellowhead pass and the completion of the Panama canal, Vancouver would become a world port distributing grain from western Canada to the advantage of the Alberta farmer.


Thomas Vien: And it did.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: My friend says that it did, and very largely through his intelligent efforts, for which we in the west are profoundly thankful.


Thomas Vien: Thank you.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: But not until men of the superior intelligence of the hon. member for Outremont graced the board of railway commissioners. "Yes, it did/' says my hon. friend, but the hon. member for East Kootenay remembers the construction of the elevator and its completion in 1916, and its standing idle on the shore of Burrard inlet until many years afterwards, when rate adjustments were made and general prejudices were broken down. Once the board of railway commissioners reduced the rate on grain to the port of Vancouver to a basis, not of equality but of a reduction of the discrimination to a measurable equality, Vancouver became the greatest grain port in the world, and is in that happy position to-day. I quite appreciate the fact that that never would have happened had it been left to men in Ottawa, subject to the influence of everything from Winnipeg to the Atlantic seaboard, including not only the port of Buffalo, but the port of the city of New York. I cannot quite understand how this particular commission can function in Vancouver and have a harbour commission functioning in New Westminster.
The point mentioned by the hon. member for East Kootenay is of the utmost importance. To-day the port of Vancouver serves a great many railways, the British Columbia Electric, the Great Northern, the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National, but I wonder whether hon. members are aware of the fact that the Canadian National system ends at Port Mann on the banks of the Eraser river and can come into the port of Vancouver only over a leased foreign railway under circumstances which make the cost of moving freight from Port Mann into the shipping basin of Burrard inlet, which is under the jurisdiction of the Vancouver harbour commissioners, almost as great as the cost of moving freight from Alberta to Port Mann. The necessity of the harbour development of Vancouver is the very thing that Sir Alexander Gibb pointed out as being essential, and that is ignored and overlooked in this bill.
I want to appeal to the minister to reconsider that particular phase of the matter, because I must say this: After all, we hope that Canada can continue to be a united nation from the Atlantic to the Pacific, but I want to say to the members of this government that when you assume the responsibility for centralizing control of port development at Ottawa you also assume responsibility for avoiding sectional dissatisfaction with administration in Ottawa, and there are a great many who are beginning to feel that there is not the consideration coming from the central authority in Ottawa that makes it to the best

1564	COMMONS
National Harbours Board-Mr. Howe
interests of sections at far distant points to remain in confederation. It is all very well to say that we are going to improve the administration of the harbours of Halifax and Vancouver, but let me point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that Vancouver is competing with Seattle in one of the world's most rapidly developing and most important shipping basins, namely the gulf of Georgia and Puget sound. If one takes a trip along the Pacific coast, as I did recently, and notes what is taking place in San Diego, San Pedro, San Francisco bay and Seattle, it will be recognized that Vancouver is now moving into competition with ports on the Pacific coast that have the backing of the United States government, which is establishing a naval war strength on the Pacific surpassing anything ever developed by any other nation in the world. So, it is not going to be easy to maintain the standard of port service in Vancouver without very much in the way of faith in the future as to what the Pacific ocean trade will be, and if a federal control assumes the responsibility, that responsibility must be fulfilled to a much greater extent than anything that has been undertaken in the past.
There is one other section of the bill to which I should like to refer; that is the section with reference to the power to make rates. Section 15 of the bill reads:
The board may levy such rates and tolls as are fixed by bylaw and may, with the approval of the minister, commute any rates-
I quite appreciate that in the administration jf a port like Vancouver, which competes not only with the other Pacific coast ports but with ports throughout the world, bargaining for traffic is essential, but I question the wisdom of having the power to commute rates left to the responsibility of a minister of the crown. In the first place such power vested in a minister is a power that the minister will hesitate to exercise for fear of partisan criticism. That will mean delays, deferred action and lack of action which will work against the best interests of the port.
I only want to say that nothing is more important in the life of the Dominion of Canada to-day than the development of our internal and external transportation systems, and nothing can make a greater contribution to economic recovery than the proper and effective development of our Canadian port facilities, for we are just as much a maritime nation as is Great Britain. For the distribution of our products into the markets of the world we are not going to find our facilities

completed by the development of internal systems; we must go forward on a much wider basis than has been the case previously in the development of our ports and our external facilities for the distribution of our goods.
I reserve my further remarks until we are in committee on this bill, but I should like to close with this appeal to the government and to the minister in charge of this bill. In your desire to provide efficient and economic administration do not overlook the fact that there is something to be gleaned and something to be gained by respecting the autonomy and the power of loyal communities to build up their own trading facilities.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to make some rather extended remarks in closing this debate, but as the hour is getting late and I should like to have a vote before eleven o'clock I shall be very brief. I want to say that I appreciate the friendly and helpful spirit in which this debate has been conducted. A great many suggestions have been made; every one of them has been and is being analyzed by the officers of my department, and each will be discussed when the bill is in committee. I may say that the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Ryan) brought to my attention one omission which was made. I do not know that the omission would have meant anything very serious, because of course we would have respected the spirit of it, but we did omit an essential portion, and an amendment has been prepared restoring that to the bill. Similarly other suggestions, on being examined, have been found to have merit, and there again amendments are being prepared.
The suggestion has been made that this bill has been hastily drawn up. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it has been a most laborious task to prepare the bill, and it has been in the course of preparation for some three months. I am not a legal man, but I have been in a number of conferences attempting to guide the spirit and tone of the thing. We have had the best legal assistance obtainable in the public service, from the officers of the Department of Justice and the legal officers of the Department of Railways. The bill has been carefully studied, but it is a very large subject and it is obvious that further suggestions have to be made. I dare say that after we have finished with it in the committee we shall find that in practice further improvements can still be made. One

Questions
point I have noticed with great interest is how many copies of the Gibb report are in circulation. I thought they would all have been lost in the four years since the report was brought down, but they are all out and dusted off and we have heard a good deal about it. Once again let me thank hon. members on both sides of the house for the helpful spirit in which they have examined this bill. Any further remarks I will reserve until the committee stage.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Young in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Dunning the house adjourned at 10.55 pan.
Monday, March 30, 1936


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROSS W. GRAY (Lambton West) moved the first reading of Bill No. 25, (Letter A of the Senate) to incorporate the Economical Mutual Fire Insurance Company.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. GRAY:: This bill is to incorporate by private legislation a company which has been incorporated provincially and which in all particulars will conform to the general act respecting dominion insurance companies.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
James Ralph Kirk, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Antigonish-Guys-borough, introduced by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and Hon. J. L. Ilsley.

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

Mr. MAYBANK:: 1.	What was the total amount spent by the Canadian National railways in 1935 for new rolling stock?
2.	What percentage of such expenditure was spent in the Canadian National railways shops at 1 ranscona, Manitoba ?
3.	How many refrigerator cars were fabricated in the Transcona shops?
4.	If the tender price of the Canadian National Railways for such refrigerator cars was the lowest tender for such work, by how much was it lower than the nearest competitor ?
5.	How many man-hours of labour (in the railway shops) were necessary to fabricate such refrigerator ears?
6.	Is it the intention of the government to arrange to give further labour of the same sort to the railway workers of the said and other railway shops?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Contracts were placed for locomotives and cars of various kinds amounting to a total of $6,791,155 (estimated), but only a portion of this equipment had been delivered at the end of 1935.
2.	9-8 per cent.
3.	Order was placed on Transcona for 125 refrigerator cars, 1 car being completed at December 31, 1935, and 96 were completed at March 20, 1936.
4.	The Canadian National management does not call for tenders from its own shops, but prepares estimates of cost for its own guidance.
5.	It is estimated that the construction of the 125 refrigerator cars at Transcona will require approximately 197,500 man-hours.
6.	This question relates to matters of government and railway policy which will be considered in due course, and in the light of railway requirements.


VALCARTIER CAMP-PURCHASES OF SUPPLIES
Mr. WEKMENLINGER:: 
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Yes. The Department of National Defence.
2.	Purchases were made on a tender basis.
3.	October, 1935.	-
A. J. Blondeau, Loretteville, P.Q.
C. Mathieu, St. Gregoire, P.Q.
Questions

October, 1935,.
G. Letellier, Quebec, P.Q.
B.	Parent, Loretteville, P.Q.
Epicene Moderne, Loretteville, P.Q.
J. Coulombe, Loretteville, P.Q.
November, 1935.
Epicerie Moderne, Loretteville, P.Q.
G. Letellier, Quebec, P.Q.
A. J. Blondeau, Loretteville, P.Q.
C.	Mathieu, St. Gregoire, P.Q.
December, 1935.
Frank Byrne, Charlesbourg, P.Q.
January, 1936
Frank Byrne, Charlesbourg, P.Q.
R. O'Connor, Regd., Quebec, P.Q.
February, 1936
Frank Byrne, Charlesbourg, P.Q.
R. O'Connor, Regd., Quebec, P.Q.
March, 1936
R. O'Connor, Regd., Quebec, P.Q.
R. Goulin, Boisehatel, P.Q.
J. N. Gosselin, St. Jean, lie d'Orleans, P.Q. J. B. Cloutier, Loretteville, P.Q.
J. Dufour, Charlesbourg, P.Q.
J. Byrne, Charlesbourg, P.Q.
L'Econome, Regd., Quebec, P.Q.
O.	Lachance, St. Laurent, He d'Orleans, P.Q. A. Robert, Beauport, P.Q.
4.	October, 1935, J. Coulombe, Loretteville, P.Q.
November, 1935, C. Mathieu, St. Gregoire,

December, 1935, F. Byrne. Charlesbourg, P.Q.
January, 1936, R. O'Connor, Regd., Quebec, P.Q.
February, 1936, R. O'Connor, Regd., Quebec, P.Q.
March, 1936, R. O'Connor, Regd., Quebec, P.Q.
5.	Not applicable.
6.	October, 1935, 6 cents per pound (codfish).
November, 1935, 5i cents per pound (codfish).
December, 1935, 6i cents per pound (codfish).
January, 1936, 4%o cents per pound (codfish).
February, 1936, 4%o cents per pound (codfish); 12 cents per pound (halibut).
March, 1936, 4J cents per pound (codfish) ; 11 \ cents per pound (halibut).
7.	No.
TMr. I. Mackenzie.]


Mr. WERMENLINGER:: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence or the Department of Labour purchase turkeys, in the month of December, 1935, for the Valeartier Camp ?
2.	Were tenders called for?
3.	If so, what persons were asked to submit tenders ?
4.	If no tenders were called, to whom was the contract awarded?
5.	What was the contract price?
6.	What quantity was purchased?
7.	Were complaints made respecting the quality of turkeys supplied?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Yes. The Department of National Defence.
2.	Yes.
3.	John Bowles, Ste. Catherine, P.Q.
Mrs. A. Durand, Loretteville, P.Q.
Delphis Dion, Loretteville, P.Q.
Emile Lortie, Loretteville, P.Q.
Frank Byrne, Charlesbourg, P.Q.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	Thirty cents per pound.
6.	3,939 pounds.
7.	No.


VALCARTIER CAMP-HORSES
Mr. WERMENLINGER:: 1.	Does the Department of National Defence or the Department of Public Works hire horses at Valeartier camp, province of Quebec?
2.	If so, what are the names of persons from whom such horses were hired from October 14 last to date?
3.	What price is being paid by the departments for the use of such horses?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	The Department of National Defence takes in horses for unemployment relief purposes.
2.	Belleau, J. G., Ancienne Lorette, P.Q.
Corrigan, P., Valeartier Village, P.Q.
Cote, Nap., St. Gregoire de Montmorency,

Couture, J., Loretteville, P.Q.
Daigle, J. 0., St. Gerard, P.Q.
Drolet, A., Ancienne Lorette, P.Q.
Drolet, A., 976 St. Valier, Quebec, P.Q.
Drolet, C., Ancienne Lorette, P.Q.
Drolet, N., Ancienne Lorette, P.Q.
Fitzpatrick, E., Valeartier Village, P.Q.
Fournier, M., 306 Richelieu St., Quebec, P.Q.
Lang, W., Valeartier Village, P.Q.
Leclerc, A., St. Gregoire, Co. Montmorency, P.Q.
Lepire, J., St. Bernard, P.Q.
Moore, A. A., R.R. No. 1, St-Sauveur, Quebec, P.Q.
Murphy, H. Park, St. Charles, Quebec, P.Q.
McLaughlin, J., Valeartier, R.R. No. 2, P.Q.

British North America Act
O'Neill, J. J. Dr., Petite Riviere, P.Q.
Petitclere, L., Ancienne Lorette, P.Q.
Roehette, J., Loretteville, P.Q.
Rochette, P., St. Gerard, P.Q.
Rowley, J., L'Ormiere, Loretteville, P.Q.
Savard, A., Loretteville, P.Q.
Savard, Fr., Loretteville, P.Q.
Yilleneuve, J., St. Gerard, P.Q.
3.	Employed on relief basis at 40 cents per day, plus forage provided at departmental expense.


ST. ANSELME, QUE., FOUNDRY
Mr. THAUVETTE:: 1.	Did the marine department make purchases from the St. Anselme Foundry, St. Anselme, Dorchester county, in the years 1931, 1932, 1933, and 1934?
2.	If so, for what amount each year?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	1931-32	$17,443	781932-	33	
1,137	261933-	34	
2,109	821934-	35	
1,966	54


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	Is it the policy of the Post Office department to permit sub-post offices to be located in large departmental stores?
2.	Are any sub-post offices located in large departmental stores?
3.	If so, what are the names of firms and where are such stores located?
4.	What are the names, addresses and amounts paid to eacli such sub-post office?
5.	Are any employees paid by the post office or government, on duty in any of these subpost offices?
6.	If so, what are the names of employees, where are they employed and what are their respective salaries?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. BROOKS:: For a copy of all letters, correspondence, telegrams and other documents in the possession of the Post Office department regarding the dismissal or retirement of Raymond M. Robichaud, postmaster at Shippigan, Gloucester county, New Brunswick.


J. L. ROUSSEAU
Mr. MALLETTE:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, reports, advertisements and other documents in the possession of the Post Office department, dated from 1932 to date, relative to the appointment of J. L. Rousseau to sub-station O, St. Laurent, Montreal.


PUBLIC SERVICE-APPOINTMENTS AND DISMISSALS
Richard Bedford Bennett: For a copy of all orders in council passed since the 23rd of October, 1935, providing for appointments to the public service.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For a copy of all orders in council passed since the 23rd of October, 1935, effecting dismissals from the public service.


Ross Wilfred Gray: For a copy of all orders in council passed between the 7th of August, 1930, and the 23rd of October, 1935, inclusive, effecting dismissals from the public service.


Ross Wilfred Gray: For a copy of all orders in council passed between the 7th of August, 1930, and the 23rd of October, 1935, inclusive, providing for appointments to the public service.


ORDER IN COUNCIL P.C. 1467
Mr. BOULANGER:: For a copy of the order in council P.C. 1467, dated July 22, 1922.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) if he would lay upon the table all correspondence between the dominion government and the several provincial governments with respect to the proposed amendments to the British North America Act which are set out in the draft address to His Majesty, and any other documents which have passed between the respective governments, to which the dominion government is a party, regarding the proposed amendments.


Ernest Lapointe: I shall be pleased to lay on the
table any correspondence relating to the subject matter of the address on the order paper before it is discussed in the house. I may say to the hon. gentleman that the correspondence with regard to the matter is not ended; it is still proceeding. As far as the other correspondence is concerned, I will see to it that my hon. friend is supplied with it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I hope there is nothing in
the suggestion "before the address is submitted to the house." I assume it is intended to submit the address to the house during the present session.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, it is intended; I hope so.
C.N.R.-Roundhouse Facilities



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):: On the basis of a communication from the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Engineers of Winnipeg I wish to ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Howe) a question. He has knowledge of the matter and therefore, without delaying the house with an explanation, I will put the question. Is it so, that the managements of the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways are attempting to put through plans for the amalgamation of roundhouse facilities in the city of Ottawa, and, if so, might this be considered as the entering wedge for a widespread unification of services, in other words, piecemeal amalgamation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no direct knowledge of this. After it became the subject of press comment the chairman of the board of trustees of the Canadian National Railways was good enough to send me a memorandum on it. This particular plan is in line with the coordination for which both the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific have received a mandate from this parliament under the terms of the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act of
1933.	It seems to be a rather obvious move in that direction. I am told that the saving is about $35,000 per annum.
PROFESSIONAL DOG RACING On the orders of the day:


Ernest Lapointe: On March 25 the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Wilton) asked me whether any requests or communications had been received by the Department of Justice with regard to permitting professional dog racing in Canada. I answered that I did not know of any but that I would investigate. I find that there has not been of recent date any such communication with regard to dog racing.
PURCHASE OF CANADIAN SILVER On the orders of the day:


René-Antoine Pelletier: I wish to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) a question. It was announced some time ago by the United States treasury that the United States was purchasing silver from the Bank of Canada. If that is true, is the United States government making payment 
in silver certificates or in federal reserve notes, which are not legal tender in Canada, or in gold, for the silver purchased from the Bank of Canada?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): The agents for the United States treasury in the purchase of silver are the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The Bank of Canada, in selling silver to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, acting on behalf of the United States treasury, receives payment by way of credit to the account of the Bank of Canada in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in United States funds. As the purchaser of silver the United States pays in its own funds. If Canadian funds are required the Bank of Canada of course sells United States funds at the current rate of exchange and purchases Canadian funds.



UNION STEAMSHIP COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: On Wednesday last I directed a question to the Postmaster General (Mr. Elliott) with reference to forty-five Japanese, Canadian citizens, many of whom are ex-service men formerly employed with the Union Steamship Company and who have been denied reinstatement following an industrial dispute last June. It is now stated by the management that the present government will not permit reinstatement on the ground that they are orientals and that such reinstatement might involve the loss of mail contracts. I now desire to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) whether any such stipulation is made with regard to subventions or subsidies granted the Union Steamship Company.


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Categorically, the answer would be no, but perhaps I might give a word of explanation. The men who walked out as a result of some industrial dispute-men employed on subsidized vessels-numbered twenty-four, Japanese. No representations whatever have been received by the government with regard to taking these men on again. No representations have been made by us to the steamship company. However, a letter has been received from the steamship company. It may throw a little light on the question:
I am being pressed very strongly indeed by the Japanese consul for reconsideration of the case of the Japanese citizens 'who walked out of our service last year. Every one of these men is properly naturalized and paid at the same rate as white men, so that I may yet

Employment Commission-Mr. Rogers
have to make a decision in favour of these old faithful servants whose services were very valued. I am deferring it as long as possible because we hesitate to discharge good white men who have stepped into the breach and helped us over the emergency. I will, however, advise you at once if there is any change in this regard.
Nothing further has been received by the department.


Mr. HEAPS:: What was the date of that letter?


William Daum Euler: February 19, 1936.



SEED GRAIN


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of Bill No. 23, to assist the province of Saskatchewan in financing the cost of seed and seeding operations for the crop year 1936.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of Bill No. 14, respecting the establishment of a national employment commission.
He said:	In moving the second reading
of this bill I am fully aware of my responsibility as a member of the government in commending this legislation to the favourable consideration of the house. The problem of prolonged unemployment in this and other countries is a challenge to the political intelligence of our generation. No one can have a daily contact with that problem without realizing that upon our ability to deal with it effectively may depend the maintenance of institutions and traditions which have long been established in this country. I have no desire to exaggerate the gravity of the situation. As a matter of fact I shall point out presently that we have strong grounds for confidence as we face the immediate future. Nevertheless, even when it is conceded that there has been a perceptible improvement in economic conditions during the past year, we are still faced with the fact that the problem of unemployment remains unsolved. Moreover the resources of public finance have been impaired in the interval as a result of mounting debts and increasing taxes which have been incurred and imposed as internal measures of defence against want and destitution. This much may be said at
the outset in order to emphasize the importance of the question which is now before us for consideration.
I do not suggest that any member of this house is wanting in a sense of obligation to find a remedy for unemployment. It is well to remember, however, that familiarity sometimes breeds indifference, and our constant companionship with unemployment and relief these past few years may lead us to accept it as a disagreeable but inevitable feature of our social environment in the post-war world. As individuals we must guard ourselves against the complacent acceptance of conditions as we find them to-day. As members of parliament and as a government the placid acceptance of present conditions would be little better than a voluntary declaration of political bankruptcy.
There is another consideration which no one will wish to overlook at this time. Our experience of unemployment has brought home to us more forcibly than any other feature of government policy that it is the constant purpose of the state to promote the welfare of its members and that the organized power of the state should be used steadfastly towards a realization of that purpose. During the past few years Canada and other countries have suffered incalculable injury as a result of the dislocation of international trade and a very serious contraction of normal industrial activity. The victims of the depression in Canada alone may be counted by the hundred thousand. We often think and speak of this problem in statistical terms; we are compelled to do so for purposes of comparison and analysis; but behind these figures of unemployment and relief there is, as each of us well knows, the harsh reality of human privation and frustration. Even when we deal with it objectively, as we are compelled to do, we must be conscious at all times of the extraordinary patience and fortitude of those whose lot it has been to go in company with fear and pain during a period which now exceeds the duration of the world war. We could ask no higher incentive for our labours here than the remembrance of the manner in which our people generally have endured the conditions which have prevailed during these troubled and trying years.
The major proposal contained in this bill is not new. It was urged most strongly upon the late administration by the present Prime Minister in succeeding sessions of the last parliament. On every such occasion the proposal was rejected, and for reasons which, I venture to say, carried less conviction with each passing year. The final decision, however, lay with the government of the day, and that government made it
1570	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. Rogers
abundantly clear that it did not recognize the necessity or the advantage of establishing a representative national body to assist in the formulation of measures to deal with unemployment and relief. It may be conceded that there is room for honest difference of opinion as to the utility of a national commission of this kind to assist the state in a period of grave economic crisis. The late administration held one view on this matter; we hold the contrary view. In the general elections of last October the issue between us was referred to the electorate. It is needless to point out that policies in relation to unemployment and relief occupied a very prominent place among the various questions that were pronounced upon by the Canadian people at that time. As a result of the verdict of the electorate, we are now under a new dispensation, and this government is pledged to approach the urgent problem of unemployment upon the basis of a nation wide cooperative effort through the medium of a national employment commission. The measure now before the house is evidence of our intention to carry out this undertaking.
On second reading of a bill, Mr. Speaker, it is the practice to confine debate to the principle of the proposed legislation-
Richard Bedford Bennett: It was.


Mr. ROGERS:: -leaving the details for discussion in the committee stage. The principle of this bill may be expressed very briefly. We have to determine whether the abnormal conditions created by unemployment and relief require something more than the normal machinery of government to deal with them effectively. If wre are agreed that the normal machinery of government is inadequate to meet the existing situation we must then consider whether a national employment commission as provided in this bill will perform a useful function as an aid to government in attacking this stubborn problem that has defied solution during the past five years.
May I say at once that we as a government have faced these questions and have answered them in the affirmative, and I hope it may be possible to persuade the house generally that in making this decision and in bringing down this legislation we are taking appropriate measures for an organized effort to meet the most serious challenge that has confronted this country in a time of peace.
In supporting the proposals set out in this bill, Mr. Speaker, I wish to state and discuss some of the broad considerations of policy which call for the establishment of a national employment commission at this time. May I first state these considerations and then develop them in the order given:

1.	After an experience of five years we are compelled to recognize that unemployment is a persistent condition which does not respond quickly to ordinary legislative methods. This suggests the wisdom of a national survey of the entire problem as a preliminary to the formulation of long range measures to expand employment and thereby reduce the tax burden of relief.
2.	Previous administrative methods have failed to secure and utilize information respecting unemployment and relief which would make it possible to subdivide the problem into its various sections of economic and social significance.
3.	In our federal constitution there is a well established division of responsibility in relation both to the administration of relief and to the maintenance of social services. In order to avoid friction or duplication in the administration of relief it is necessary to secure a more effective and continuous coordination of effort in relation to the entire problem. Experience has proved the need of some kind of nexus, or connecting link, between the various governmental agencies having a responsibility in relation to relief.
4.	The experience of the past five years has also proved beyond question that it is not within the power of government to end unemployment by its own unaided efforts. There is a growing recognition that victory over the depression and unemployment cannot be won by a pitched battle on any front, but only by a sustained campaign along the entire front of our economic life. The success of this campaign requires that the leadership of government should be supported and supplemented by the cooperative effort of organized industry and commerce, financial institutions, labour organizations and social service agencies throughout the entire dominion.
Those, sir, are the broad considerations of public policy upon which we believe it is possible and desirable to erect at this time a national employment commission as a means of affording advice and also of securing the coordination of all governmental agencies in a determined effort to deal constructively, and I trust successfully, with this problem of unemployment.
Let me refer now to the persistence and the magnitude of the problem of unemployment and relief as it exists to-day and as it has developed during the past five years. Members of the house may recall that in a previous debate I gave an undertaking that on second reading of this bill I would place

Employment Commission-Mr. Rogers
before the house a survey of the unemployment situation as careful and as comprehensive as it was within my power to give. I intend to carry out that undertaking this afternoon. I have suggested that this problem of unemployment and relief is a persistent problem, and I should like to support that statement by reference to two tables which with the consent of the house I shall place upon the pages of Hansard. First I am going to give a comparative statement of the numbers on relief in the month of February in the years 1933, 1934, 1935 and 1936. I shall give the appropriate headings and then carry the numbers across the various years I have mentioned. First I give those on direct relief, not including the dried out areas in western Canada:
Heads of Families
February,	1033	
259,799February,	1934	
248,183February,	1935	
240.051February,	1936	
243,003
I come now to dependents on heads of families on relief.


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I ask a question there? Do the figures given for each month include heads of families?


Norman McLeod Rogers: These figures are for the month of February in each year, in order to obtain a basis of comparison.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Do these figures include the heads of families?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have just given the heads of families. I come now to the dependents.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In addition to the heads? Mr. ROGERS: Yes.
Dependents on Heads of Families
February,	1933	
1,046,132February,	1934	
859,118February,	1935	
849,652February,	1936	
786,679
It will be noted that there is a substantial decrease in that category. I come next, then, to individual cases on direct relief:
Individual Cases on Direct Relief
February,	1933	
66,760February,	1934	
44,541February,	1935	
47,137February,	1936	
51,149
The totals in this category are as follows- that is, including all those on direct relief exclusive of the dried out areas:
February,	1933	
1,372.691February,	1934	
1,151,842February,	1935	
1,136.840February,	1936	
1,080,831
I come now to the dried out areas in western Canada, which I think it is very appropriate to treat as a separate category. For the convenience of the house I might now place the entire table on Hansard:
The Dominion-	-Summary of Relief Statistics			
Month of	Month of	Month of	Month ofDirect Relief-	February,	February,	February,	February,(Not including dried out areas in west) 1933	1934	1935	1936*1. Heads of families	248.183	240,051	243,0032. Dependents on heads of families.. .,	
1,046,132	859.118	849.652	786.6793. Individual cases	44,541	47,137	51,1494. Total number	1,151,842	1,136,840	1,080,831Relief in Dried Out Areas in West	- (A)	(A)	(B)	(B)5. Heads of families	
16,273	35,491	33,985	31,1856. Dependents on heads of families.. .	
73,228	159,709	138,984	124,0897. Individual cases	, .. .. 82	178	5,243	1,6708. Total number	
89,583	195,378	178,212	156,9449.	Homeless persons cared for in federally operated camps and by western provinces	10.	Number eared for by farm placement plan.11.	Number given relief work on wage basis(not including dependents)	
Relief Settlement-
12.	Settlers and dependents approved to end
of month	
13.	Total number assisted including dependents
(except for line 11) and those receiving partial relief	
53,883	40,762
9,867	14,808
103	74,428
7,715	13,841
1,533,842	1,491,059
34,748	31,911
12,009	14,169
51,055	7,982
18,229	18,586
1,431,093	1,310,423
"Preliminary figures.
(A)	Saskatchewan only.
(B)	Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
1572	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. Rogers
It will be seen on comparison of those figures that there has been since 1933 a steady decrease in the total number of those on relief, but it would be a misuse of language to say that it was a substantial, or indeed a very encouraging decrease.
I should like to place upon Hansard a table giving the amount of disbursements by the dominion government under the various relief acts. With the consent of the house I shall place this upon Hansard without giving the separate figures, although if any hon. member desires them I am ready to give them now. The total is just under $200,000,000. That includes only the expenditures by the dominion government under the various relief acts.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Covering the four year
period?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Covering the entire period. It does not include the public works construction acts and supplementary acts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Including loans to provinces?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No, that is not included
either. It seemed to me that the loans to the provinces created a contingent liability, and in our consideration of the entire question we thought we should keep the two distinct.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And the guarantees?


Norman McLeod Rogers: They do not appear in
this table. This table covers simply direct disbursements.


Mr. MacNICOL:: The minister spoke of
the entire period; would he give the beginning of the period?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is from 1930. I have
not on this table the actual date of commencement, but it covers the disbursements under the various relief acts, and the first relief act was in 1930, passed at the special session. The table showing dominion disbursements under the various relief acts is as follows:
Dominion Unemployment Relief
As at March 24, 1936.
Disbursement Summary
All Relief Acts by Provinces (not including Public Works Construction and Supplementary Acts)
Province
Paid	Federal works	
to provinces	in province	TotalPrince Edward Island	
$	764,512Nova Scotia	
5,271,040New Brunswick	
3,402,554Quebec	
34,247,181Ontario	
60,618,808Manitoba	
13,847,789Saskatchewan	
23,823,352Alberta	
10,085,311British Columbia	
16,304,74999	$ 8,296	12	$ 772.809	1161	1,098,246	04	6,369,286	6524	1,180,664	10	4.583,218	3463	3,304,914	32	37.552,095	9536	9,403,299	64	70,022,108	0026	2,012.132	88	15.859,922	1463	2,119,325	21	25,942,677	8408	3,053,334	35	13.138,645	4310	6,308,928	30	22,613,677	40Total	
$168,365,299 90	$28,489,140 96Not allotable to specific provinces	Administration

Grand total

I should like now to deal with the employment situation as it is revealed in the figures supplied by the bureau of statistics, and also to give a synopsis of the figures of relief recipients which I have just presented to the house. There are two statistical indices showing the trend of employment and industry throughout Canada, both of which are now available over a considerable period of years. One is the series of index numbers of employment in industries other than farming, fishing and domestic service, compiled by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics from reports furnished by employers; the other is the series giving the percentages

of their members who are unemployed as reported by the trade unions to the Department of Labour.
Let us consider first the index numbers of employment, and what conclusions we are justified in drawing at this time from a study of those index numbers. The bureau of statistics index numbers are all related to a base of 100 points which represents the average for the months of the year 1926. In other words the average figures of employment for 1926 are taken as the base. The index for March 1, 1936, stood at 98-9. The pre-depression peak for the same month, March, was reached in 1929 when the figure

Employment Commission-Mr. Rogers
was 111-4. March, 1930, showed only a slight decline, to 110-2. The index therefore shows a net drop on March 1 of this year compared with the same date in 1930 of approximately 10-2 per cent.
But this does not mean that the drop in employment in the six years has been only 10-2 per cent; for otheT factors enter. Those factors arise chiefly from two considerations. First, these index numbers do not take into account the normal increase in population. Assuming the percentage of the population seeking gainful employment remains constant, then the number seeking gainful employment increases each year in proportion to the gain in general population. The estimate of population increase over 1930 is approximately eight per cent, so that this factor would indicate the need of adding a minimum of eight per cent to the visible difference between March of 1930 and March of 1936 to measure more nearly the net decrease in employment in that period. The reason for referring to this addition as a minimum is that not all persons were employed on March 1, 1930. If such addition be made it would indicate a net relative decrease of at least 18-2 per cent in the employment reported upon in the six years up to March 1, 1936.
A little later I propose to refer to a feature of our economic situation which in our consideration of the problem in the past few years has, I believe, been overlooked. I refer to seasonal unemployment This country is susceptible in a peculiar degree to seasonal variations of employment. Referring again to the index numbers may I explain that there are included as employed persons some thousands who are on relief works or are in relief camps. The figure for March 1, 1936, is thus supported by this factor, while that for March 1, 1930, was not influenced in like manner. In the nature of things it is proper that we speak of these men on relief works as employed persons. At the same time in our consideration of the implication of these figures it is rather important that we make the necessary deductions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Employed by
municipalities, provinces and the dominion?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, engaged on relief
works generally. It is to be noted that the index numbers relate to industrial employment only. Among other industries they exclude farming. Due to crop conditions in recent years the farming industry is now able to absorb substantially fewer men than it did in normal times. This factor is not covered in the index numbers, and figures are lacking on this phase of employment. However,
observations lead to the belief that the decrease in farm employment afforded would be at least as great as that in industrial employment. I hope it will be possible presently to obtain further and more accurate information upon this phase of the problem. Thus to indicate the probable decline of 18-2 per cent in general employment from March 1, 1930, to March 1, 1936, is not to overlook the fact that the same index numbers show that material progress has been made in the recovery of employment since the low of the depression. That low was reached on April 1, 1933; but to use the same month as we used before, March, at which time the index stood at 76-9-a very low point indeed in relation to the basal figure of 100, which represents the average of employment in the year 1926. From March 1, 1933, to March 1, 1936, the index moved up 22 points, or approximately 28-6 per cent. I believe we are justified in saying that there is some cause for encouragement in that improvement. This 28-6 per cent improvement upon the low point of March 1, 1933, may be taken to indicate the extent of employment recovery in the last three years, subject to a deduction of at least four per cent for the assumed increase in the numbers of persons seeking gainful work.
To sum up, Dominion Bureau of Statistics index numbers of employment in industries other than farming, fishing and domestic services, indicate that at March 1 of this year industrial employment showed an apparent net recovery of not more than 24-6 per cent in relation to March 1, 1933, which was the low point, but a net decrease of not less than 18-2 per cent relative to March 1, 1930. These are the figures after making allowances to compensate for the normal growth in the number of persons seeking gainful employment. In these calculations allowances not made, however, are those for the influence of relief work on the trend of employment. It should also be pointed out that these percentages are not directly comparable one to the other, as they are on different bases, that of the recovery being based on the abnormally low level of 1933.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the hon. member the actual figures?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am sorry I have not the figures with me. If I can obtain them I shall be very pleased to do so during the committee stage.
May I add a word in parenthesis at this time to the effect that it is extremely difficult to get an actual computation of the employment created by relief works. For example,
1574	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. Rogers
on highways immediate employment is afforded to those doing actual construction work, but it has always been the hope of governments in connection with any program of public works that there would be collateral employment created, and that the industries which provide materials used on highways, as a result of such expenditures would be able to expand employment. Indeed I believe it is that criterion which to a great extent ought to guide us in determining the direction of our expenditures on relief works.
I now come to the figures on employment as revealed by the trade unions. The general trend of employment, as shown by the index numbers, is corroborated in a general way by the Department of Labour figures of unemployment. The recession in employment set in somewhat earlier among trade unions than was indicated by the index numbers of general employment. On February 28, 1930 the percentage of unemployment was 11-5 per cent. For the same date, the last day of February in succeeding years, the heaviest unemployment was reported on February 28, 1933, when it was 24-3 per cent. I might say that when we take the February figures we do bring in prominently the feature of seasonal unemployment in the construction industries. On February 29 of this year there was a net reduction shown in unemployment in the trade unions, the figure standing at 13-8 per cent. So that in the figures supplied by the trade unions we do find corroboration of the conclusions which would reasonably be based upon a study of the index numbers of employment established by the bureau of statistics.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I take it that included all trade unions.


Norman McLeod Rogers: All unions reporting to the Department of Labour, and my impression is that that is nearly all-inclusive. Again if I find my statement is not correct I shall be pleased to make the necessary correction in committee. In neither of these two indices is any allowance made for persons in part time employment. I refer to persons working less than the normal working week, of whom there were a considerable number at all times during the depression. So much, then, for the employment situation as it exists to-day.
It does seem to me that the analysis of the situation based upon these figures points very clearly to the magnitude of the problem stiil confronting us, and to the persistence of the unemployment situation.
I now come to the second consideration of policy which in our view recommends the establishment at this time of a national em-

ployment commission. Hon. members will recall that the first consideration was the persistent magnitude of the problem. I believe that factor has been demonstrated beyond any possibility of contradiction. The next point was that previous administrative methods failed to secure and utilize information respecting unemployment and relief which would make it possible to subdivide the problem into its various sections of economic and social significance. Hon. members may recall that during a previous discussion I made the statement that when I became Minister of Labour, the Department of Labour did not have in its possession and had not been previously instructed to obtain that information respecting the unemployment and relief situation which would have made it possible for us to analyze and interpret the relief problem in terms of human values. I think some exception was taken at that time to my use of the term "human values," but I made it quite clear that I had in view that information respecting the situation which would enable us to examine it in its true economic and social significance, including the collection of information respecting the previous occupations of those who were unemployed and the length of time recipients of relief had been receiving state assistance.
At the dominion-provincial conference held in December of last year a subconference on unemployment and relief considered the data which were available in respect of relief recipients, particularly as to its adequacy as a basis for a comprehensive study of the relief situation. Finding that it was desirable to have statistics much more complete as a regular feature of relief administration, a subcommittee was appointed to inquire into this question under the chairmanship of Doctor R. H. Coats, dominion statistician. This subcommittee, which consisted of representatives of the dominion and the several provinces, recommended that a reregistration of direct relief recipients be undertaken by the provinces and the municipalities for the purpose of procuring uniform data. It was suggested that the provinces would forward to the Department of Labour the data secured in order that a tabulation and analysis might be made, thus ensuring a classification of direct relief recipients on a dominion basis. A technique, including specimen forms, was also recommended. This report of the subcommittee was adopted by the subconference on unemployment and relief. In giving consideration to the establishment of a national employment commission, the subconference considered the recommendation in connection

Employment Commission-Mr. Rogers
with statistics embodied in the subcommit' tee's report and proposed the following:
In cooperation with the provinces and municipalities to carry out as early as possible a dominion-wide registration and classification of those on relief who are capable of selfsupporting work.
After further consideration following the conference it was the opinion of the Department of Labour that the collection of statistics adequate to warrant a classification of persons on relief would involve some considerable time, so much so that if statistics were to be available within a reasonable time after the establishment of the proposed commission it would be desirable that steps should be taken forthwith to put into effect a new statistical system in order that later delays might be obviated. With this object in view various forms were drafted by the Department of Labour and were distributed about the middle of January, to be returned in their completed form each month by the provinces and municipalities to the department at Ottawa. At this point I should like to say that in connection with this effort to obtain more adequate information we have received nothing but the most cordial cooperation from the provinces and municipalities concerned. I take it that this is due to their realization of the value, certainly at this stage of the problem, of this more precise information which will enable us to divide this problem of unemployment and relief into its appropriate sections of social and economic significance. If we simply consider the numbers of those who are on relief, running over a million, the problem seems staggering and discouraging and almost insoluble. A great Greek philosopher, with whom I am sure my right hon. friend is familiar, once said that if we desire to solve a complex problem we should resolve it into its elements. That is what I believe we can do in connection with this whole question of the classification of those on relief. I believe it is going to assist us to approach in a more scientific and I trust more sensible way the whole matter. To what extent actual reregistration of those on relief should be undertaken in order to accommodate the records of the municipalities to the statistical requirements of the Department of Labour was left to the provinces and the municipalities to determine, each for themselves, more particularly in view of the fact that several of the larger municipalities had then but recently completed such reregistration. The criterion in this regard was always the adequacy of the information immediately available on relief cases from existing municipal records. Where municipalities had made reregistrations of
their relief recipients just immediately before the inception of the dominion classification, further reregistrations were unnecessary. Some municipalities periodically reregister relief recipients, and in many instances such local authorities collected the information required by the department at the next reregistration.
A third group of municipalities had partial information, and the deficiencies have been or are being met by securing further details from the relief recipients. The fourth and perhaps the largest group of municipalities have undertaken a reregistration of relief recipients in order to give their records a degree of uniformity with the rest of the country. It should be remembered that in all instances the provinces and municipalities have undertaken to cooperate with the Department of Labour in the securing of the requisite data.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is this information to be secured by the federal or the provincial and municipal authorities?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The actual information is being secured by the municipal and provincial authorities, but upon the basis of forms supplied by the federal Department of Labour. It might be observed that nearly four thousand local authorities are distributing relief through the nine provinces, and are furnishing us with the requisite information. The federal authorities distributing direct relief have also been asked to cooperate in supplying information covering their cases on a basis comparable to that used by the provincial and municipal authorities. Under this heading would come the Department of National Defence in respect to the relief camps heretofore operated under that department; as well as under the parks branch of the Depart-of the Interior. There would be the Department of Indian Affairs in respect to the Indian population, the Department of Pensions and National Health in respect to certain war pensioners, and the Department of the Interior in respect to the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
The returns received by the Department of Labour to date have been ample to permit of some preliminary tabulations being made, and from the progress made it is anticipated that in the course of a few weeks it will be possible to commence making a regular monthly tabulation of all phases of the relief situation. I should point out at this stage that there is clearly a difficulty in the matter of the various provinces and municipalities accommodating themselves immediately to the new forms. At the same time we have been impressed by their desire to secure information for us and the results thus far obtained have
1576	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. Rogers
amply justified the view expressed by the dominion-provincial conference, and strongly held by the Department of Labour, that this information is necessary if we are to take a careful inventory of the unemployment and relief situation at this time. In other words, we wish to test the feasibility of obtaining this information and making the classification. When established, the national employment commission will have this information coming to it regularly and will be able to analyze in relation to particular aspects, not only the relief problem but the problems of production and potential reemployment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does it come direct from the municipalities to the Department of Labour or through the provincial governments?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It comes to the Department of Labour from the provincial governments. We provide the requisite number of forms to the provinces and they distribute them to the municipalities, so that we have preserved as it were the established lines of communication in that regard.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Could the minister supply us with copies of the forms?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, gladly. If my hon. friend will call at my office at any time I shall be glad to give him the forms. Very shortly I propose to place on Hansard tabulations which we have made as a result of this new method of obtaining information on relief and unemployment. With the consent of the house I shall place on Hansard some
tables setting out the information required by the Department of Labour under this new method of obtaining statistics on unemployment and relief. I have referred to the methods we have followed in securing this information. I believe it will be the wish of the house that this information be made available as soon as possible for consideration and study, and I propose with the consent of the house to place upon Hansard a number of tabulations based upon these new statistical data.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps you will give some of them.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, as I go along.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Why does the minister call it new? Have they not had this in the welfare department at Toronto in the last two or three years?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is new for the dominion government to assemble this information, and it was also a departure from previous policy for the dominion government to indicate that it attached any importance to the assembling of that information at Ottawa. We felt that if we were to get the problem into a national focus, which surely is desirable, it was essential to secure the information from all the governments in the manner I have indicated here.
Table I is a summary statement of persons in respect of whom direct relief was paid by the municipalities and/or provinces in January, 1936. This is very largely an analysis of figures comparable to those which have already appeared in another table:
Per cent of
Classification of Direct Relief Recipients (Preliminary Figures)
Table I
Summary statement of persons in respect of whom direct relief was paid by the municipalities and/or provinces in January, 1936.
Note: only provincial-municipal direct relief in respect of which the federal grants in aid are paid is herein included.
,	,	Totals for all Canada
Employable Persons,-
i.e., persons over 16 years, available for
immediate employment	
Dependents of Employable Persons,-
i.e., wives, children under 16 and children
over 16 at school full time	
Unemployable Persons,-
i.e., persons over 16 years not available for employment because of physical or
mental cause	
Dependents of Unemployable Persons,-
i.e., wives, children under 16 and children
over 16 at school full time	
Farmers on Relief	
Dependents of Farmers,-
i.e., wives, children under 16 and children
over 16 at school full time	
Transients,-
i.e., persons resident in the municipality
less than 30 days continuously	
Grand total of persons on municipal and/or
provincial relief	

Male 251,681	Female 80,499	Total 332,180	grand total 26.94173,863	324,897	498,760	40.4427,317	20,951	48,268	3.918,839 65,235	17,706 3,256	26,545 68,491	2.15 5.55107,885	150,261	258,146	20.93996	4	1,000	.08635,816	597,574	1,233,390	100.00
Employment Commission-Mr. Rogers
Next is a summary statement of employable persons and their dependents, other than unemployable dependents over sixteen years of age, in respect of whom direct relief was paid by municipalities and/or provinces in January, 1936. Perhaps I might place that table before the house.


Mr. STIRLING:: Who expresses an opinion as to who is employable and who is not?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I will refer to that in a few moments; it is a material question. Actually the opinion is expressed and the classification made by those who originally register the applicant for relief, which means the municipality; and I think we may say that under this definition of unemployable the criterion is physical or mental unfitness. There are those who contend, with some ground I think, that a long period of idleness, or advancing age, may produce a condition of unemployability, and it will be desirable as we go along to try to find some more precise definition of unemployability, something that will possibly go beyond the very obvious criterion of physical and mental unfitness. It is not an easy problem to solve. You find very marked unemployment in the age group of sixty to seventy. It is very questionable whether many in that age group are going to be reemployed, and that does raise at least a question as to the attitude that should be adopted in relation to the higher age groups: whether, for example, we may not have to consider the problems of certain age groups as being somewhat different from those of other age groups. I simply suggest to my hon. friend now that the information supplied as to unemployability comes directly from the municipalities, and the dominion has not sought to lay down any hard and fast definition. In many of these matters it seems to me that as we gather this information and analyze it we shall be able to see our way more clearly. And that after all is the desired objective.
Referring to table II, covering employable persons, a summary statement of employable persons and their dependents, other than unemployable dependents over sixteen years of age, in respect of whom direct relief was paid by municipalities and/or provinces in January, 1936, employable persons total, male, 251,681, female, 80,499, or a total of 332,180, they are subdivided as follows-and remember that we are dealing now solely with employable persons receiving relief. These are the categories: heads of families, male, 156,592, female, 18,026, or a total of heads of families on relief of 174,618.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On relief and employable.


Norman McLeod Rogers: On relief and employable.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think those words were left out.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am grateful for the correction if they were left out. I am dealing with employable persons on relief. I come now to employable dependents, and I would point out in maldng this classification that we regard a dependent as employable when he or she is over sixteen.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the age limit for the unemployable?


Norman McLeod Rogers: There is no age limit in that regard.


John Ritchie MacNicol: For industrial workers?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The dominion government has not laid down any hard and fast definition of unemployable; it is left with the municipalities at the present time, in filling in returns, to indicate who of the relief recipients are unemployable. No doubt age would be a determining factor in many cases in that decision. As I intimated a while ago, physical and mental illness appear to have explained very largely the selection of those who are unemployable.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In industry, age is an important determining factor. As a man passes the ages of forty, forty-five and fifty years, the probability of his being reemployed decreases very materially.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, I have no desire to dispute the point made by the hon. member. I merely suggest that at this time we have not made any strict definition of unemployability; that is left with the municipalities. The point raised by my hon. friend is important, of course, and possibly we may have an opportunity to discuss it further when this bill or its companion bill is in committee.
I come then to the individual cases. Employable persons: male, 45,324; female, 8,009; total 53,333. I am proceeding with the breakdown of that larger figure of employable persons, 332,180.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Has the hon. gentleman figures at hand as to the total number of employable persons in Canada, or the total number employed in Canada?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I should be glad to find that information for my hon. friend and submit it in committee. I have not in these tables the total number of those who are now
employed in Canada. Is that the question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have no doubt that information can be secured and I shall be glad to secure it.

Employment Commission-Mr. Rogers


Richard Bedford Bennett: I apologize for troubling the minister, but I should like to know whether in making the calculations he dealt with the men in camps and the men on farms as permanently employed or as employable; that is, the single homeless men who are in camps.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have two separate tables dealing with those who are in relief camps, and other tables dealing with those who are in the dried out areas.


Mr. MACKENZIE  ICING@: Does this include those?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is all I wanted to know for the moment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does that include single men?


Norman McLeod Rogers: This does include individual cases, those cases which come under
provincial-municipal direct relief. Offhand I would be inclined to say it did not include those who are in relief camps, but I have not that precise information here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So would I, but I wanted to be sure about it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have a separate table dealing with inmates of relief camps.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Do I understand that this summary is complete for the entire dominion?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. Some of the tables I am going to give presently are what might be termed .representative tabulations, that is, the tables dealing with age groups and occupations, but this table covers all those in respect of whom direct relief was paid by the municipalities or provinces in January, 1936.
Classification of Direct Relief Recipients (Preliminary Figures)
Table II
Summary statement of employable persons and their dependents (other than unemployable dependents over 16 years) in respect of whom direct relief was paid by the municipalities and/or provinces in January, 1936.
Note: Only provincial-municipal direct relief in respect of which the federal grants in aid are paid is herein included.
Totals for all Canada
Employable persons	
The above are comprised of:
Heads of families	
Employable dependents	
Individual cases	
Dependents of employable persons	
The above are comprised of:
Wives	
Children under 16 years	
Children over 16 years at school full
time	
Total of Employable Persons and their dependents	
Per cent of grand total in receipt of
Male 251,681	Female 80,499	Total 332,180	relief 26.94156,592 49,765 45,324	18,026 54,464 8,009	174,618 104,229 53,333	14.16 8.46 4.32173,863	324,897	498,760	40.44162,670	154,325 159,107	154,325 321,777	12.52 26.0911,193	11,465	22,658	1.83425,544	405,396	830,940	67.37
The third table is an analysis by provinces of employable persons in respect of whom direct relief was paid by the municipalities
and/or provinces in January, 1936. This is simply a break-down of the figures I have just submitted.

CLASSIFICATION OF DIRECT RELIEF RECIPIENTS (Preliminary Figures)
Table III
Analysis of Employable Persons in Respect of whom Direct Relief was Paid by the Municipalities and/or Provinces in January, 1936.
Province	Heads of families	Employable dependents	Individual cases	Total of employable persons	Per cent of Dominion totalMale	Female	Total	Male	Female	Total	Male	Female	Total	Male	Female	Total	Prince Edward Island..	600	200	800	387	290	677	75	26	101	1,062	516	1,578	0-48Nova Scotia	3,870	437	4,307	1,197	887	2,084	637	182	819	5,704	1,506	7,210	217New Brunswick	6,000	350	6,350	1,000	1,000	2,000	250	75	325	7,250	1,425	8,675	2-61Quebec	47,190	6,400	53,590	16,280	21,800	38,080	9,450	3,100	12,550	72,920	31,300	104,220	31-37Ontario	61,641	4,142	65,783	21,465	19,215	40,880	10,939	1,784	12,723	94,045	25,141	119,186	35-89Manitoba	12,578	2,047	14,625	2,632	3,091	5,723	6,261	1,272	7,533	21,471	6,410	27,881	8-39Saskatchewan	4,350	2,150	6,500	1,550	1,050	2,600	800	200	1,000	6,700	3,400	10,100	3-04Alberta	6,588	745	7,333	2,538	3,913	6,451	6,321	536	6,857	15,447	5,194	20,641	6-21British Columbia	13,775	1,555	15,330	2,716	3,218	5,934	10,591	834	11,425	27,082	5,607	32,689	9-84Dominion totals	156,592	18,026	174,618	49,765	54,464	104,229	45,324	8,009	53,333	251,681	80,499	332,180	100-00
Note.-"Employable" as used above refers to persons who may be regarded as immediately available for gainful employment.
Employment Commission-Mr. Rogers
1580	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. Rogers
The fourth table is an analysis by provinces of the dependents of employable persons. Does my hon. friend desire that information?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It may be serviceable if the summary of the minister could be given as he goes along, to enable one to follow his presentation-his admirable presentation, if he
will permit me to say so-and to get the general sense of the whole matter. But I certainly do not wish, as far as I am personally concerned, to put him to the trouble of reading it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If I may do so, as I proceed I shall make comments, as they seem appropriate, on various tables. Table IV:
CLASSIFICATION OF DIRECT RELIEF RECIPIENTS (Preliminary Figures)
Table IV
Analysis of Dependents (other than employable or unemployable dependents over 16 years) of Employable Heads of Families, in respect of whom Direct Relief was paid by the Municipalities and/or Provinces in January, 1936.
Province	Wives Female	Children under 16 years	Children over 16 at school full time	Total	Percentage of Dominion totalMale	Female	Male	Female	Prince Edward Island	640	1,062	1,298	155	195	3,350	0-7Nova Scotia	3,768	5,050	4,988	64	75	13,945	2-8New Brunswick	5,200	8,100	7,950	225	225	21,700	4-4Quebec	50,180	48,120	48,110	*	*	140,410	29-4Ontario	58,892	67,850	65,500	2,842	2,530	197,614	39-6Manitoba	12,653	12,246	11,837	2,451	1,634	40,821	S-2Saskatchewan	4,250	4,800	4,250	3,350	4,050	20,700	4-2Alberta	6,274	3,312	3,764	733	790	14,873	30British Columbia	12,468	12,130	11,410	1,373	1,966	39,347	7-9Dominion Totals	154,325	162,670	159,107	11,193	11,465	498,760	100 0
'Children over 16 years at school full time unreported from the province of Quebec.
The fifth table is a summary statement of unemployable persons and their dependents in respect of whom direct relief was paid.
Classification of Direct Relief Recipients (Preliminary Figures)
Table V
Summary statement of unemployable persons and their dependents (other than employable dependents over 16 years) in respect of whom direct relief was paid by the municipalities and/or provinces in January, 1936.
Note: Only provincial-municipal direct relief in respect of which the federal grants in aid are paid is herein included.
Totals for all Canada
Unemployable persons	
The above are comprised of:
Heads of families	
Unemployable dependents	
Individual cases	
Dependents of unemployable persons	
The above are comprised of:
Wives	
Children under 16 years	
. Children over 16 years at school full
time	
Total of. unemployable persons and their dependents	
IMr. Rogers.]
Male 27,317	Female 20,951	Total 48,268	Per cent of grand total in receipt of relief 3.919,647 12,412 5,258	3,599 14,946 2,406	13,246 27,358 7,664	1.07 2.21 .628,839	17,706	26,545	2.158,326	8,631 8,512	8,631 16,838	.69 1.37513	563	1,076	.0936,156	3S.657	74,813	6.06
Employment Commission-Mr. Rogers
I think it might be of advantage, perhaps, if I deal with that. The analysis of unemployable persons is as follows: heads of families, male 9,647; female, 3,599; total, 13,246. You have another class, obviously, of unemployable dependents, not necessarily of course the dependents of the unemployable; they were as follows: male, 12,412; female, 14,946, making a total of unemployable dependents, 27,358.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that the whole of Canada?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. I am not quite through yet. The 13,246 was the total of unemployable heads of families, male and female, for the dominion. Then individual cases, male, 5,258; female, 2,406; total, 7,664.
The recapitulation is as follows: total of unemployable persons as revealed so far by this census: male, 27,317; female, 20,951; total, 48,268. That is not a large percentage in relation to the entire number of those who are on relief. As a matter of fact it has been suggested by some of the provincial officials who are closely in touch with this question that unemployability ought to run somewhere in the neighbourhood of fifteen per cent, but I have no doubt that as time goes on the accuracy of these figures will improve. We must remember that we are dealing here only with unemployables actually on the relief rolls.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Direct relief.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, on direct relief. That question is of very considerable significance when we remember that prior to the assumption by the dominion of responsibility in relation to unemployment relief, these unemployables would have been recognized as the
charges of municipalities or of provinces. It is just an indication, I think, of the manner in which the fences of our federal system have been broken down during these past few years, and it draws attention to the fact that we must either make a new survey and erect new fences or repair the old ones if we are going to return to a satisfactory system of relationships between the dominion and the provinces. I simply mention that in passing. It is of importance that we should have knowledge of the extent to which unemployables have been transferred to the unemployment relief rolls during recent years.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Does the Minister of Labour expect in his survey to find many unemployed who are not connected directly or indirectly with relief?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I wish I could answer that question. It is one of the blind spots in the situation. We were faced with that problem in connection with this classification. It is possible to get that information for those who are receiving relief, arising out of their necessity to give the information when they receive relief. But I know of no way in which you could secure accurate information as to the volume of unemployment beyond the relief situation unless we required, possibly by proclamation, a registration for that purpose. I am not certain that this would be desirable; I am not satisfied as yet that it would be feasible, but at any rate that information is not now available in accurate detail.
If I might refer now to other tabulations based upon this information, first there is an analysis by provinces of unemployable persons in respect to whom direct relief is paid:
12739-101J

CLASSIFICATION OF DIRECT RELIEF RECIPIENTS (Preliminary Figures)
Table VI
Analysis of Unemployable Persons in respect of whom Direct Relief was Paid by the Municipalities and/or Provinces in January, 1936
Province	Heads of families	Unemployable dependents	Individual cases	Total of unemployable persons	Per cent ofMale	Female	Total	Male	Female	Total	Male	Female	Total	Male	Female	Total	totalPrince Edward Island.	135	135	270	65	55	120	65	60	125	265	250	515	107Nova Scotia	85	36	121	59	63	122	19	27	46	163	126	289	0-60New Brunswick	124	66	190	34	64	98	6	14	20	164	144	30S	0-64Quebec	320	90	410	10,600	12,400	23,000	60	40	100	10,980	12,530	23,510	48-71Ontario	7,038	2,324	9,362	1,203	1,762	2,965	2,235	1,888	4,123	10,476	5,974	16,450	34-07Manitoba	89	15	104	152	180	332	13	47	60	254	242	496	1-03Saskatchewan	
Alberta	650	850	1,500	160	240	400	350	150	500	1,160	1,240	2,400	4-97British Columbia	1,206	83	1,289	139	182	321	2,510	180	2,690	3,855	445	4,300	8-91Dominion Totals	9,647	3,599	13,246	12,412	14,946	27,358	5,258	2,406	7,664	27,317	20,951	48,268	100-00
Note:-"Unemployable" as used above refers to persons who may be regarded as unemployable through physical or mental incapacity, although such persons would be seeking gainful employment except for such incapacity.
g
g

tn
Employment Commission-Mr. Rogers

Employment Commission-Mr. Rogers
The next is an analysis by provinces of their dependents.
CLASSIFICATION OF DIRECT RELIEF RECIPIENTS (Preliminary figures)
Table VII
Analysis of Dependents (other than employable or unemployable dependents over 16 years) of Unemployable Heads of Families, in respect of whom Direct Relief was paid by the Municipalities and/or Provinces in January, 1936.
Province	Wives Female	Children under 16 years	Children over 16 at school full time	Total	Percentage of Dominion totalMale	Female	Male	Female	Prince Edward Island	
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Albcrtaf	160 74 112 380 6,162 82 610	186 77 120 590 6,089 78 830	227 93 108 540 5,901 75 1,200	29 1 * 291 21 60	36 1 4 * 307 9 100	638 246 344 1,510 18,750 265 2,800	2-4 0-	9 1-	3 5-7 70-6 10 10-6British Columbia	
Dominion totals	1,051	356	368	111	106	1,992	7-58,631	8,326	8,512	513	563	26,545	100-00
* Children over 16 years at school full time unreported from the province of Quebec, t Alberta reports that unemployable persons and their dependents are a strictly municipal responsi-
Now follows an analysis by provinces of farmers' families in respect of whom direct relief was paid by the municipalities and/or provinces in January, 1936. I think it might be of advantage if I placed that information before the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Including the dried-out
area?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Employment Commission-Mr. Rogers

Employment Commission-Mr. Rogers


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the grand total? Classification of Direct Relief Recipients


Norman McLeod Rogers: The grand total, including dependents, is male, 173,120; female, 153,517, or a total of 326,637.
Other tables are as follows: an occupational classification, with representative figures, showing the percentage distribution of employable recipients of direct relief; an age group classification, with representative figures showing percentage distribution of employable recipients of direct relief; an age group classification of unemployable persons with a representative table, giving length of time on relief:
Classification of Direct Relief Recipients
(Final Figures for Municipalities Included) Table IX Occupations
Representative figures showing percentage distribution of employable recipients of direct relief, under occupational classification.
Municipalities included in tabulation:
Nova Scotia-Glace Bay, Halifax, Sydney; New Brunswick-Saint John; Quebec-Joliette, Lachine, Quebec, Sherbrooke, St. Jean, Thet-ford Mines, Verdun; Ontario-Belleville, Chatham, Galt, Hamilton, Kingston, Kitchener, London, Owen Sound, Sault Ste. Marie, St. Catharines, St. Thomas and Windsor; Manitoba- Winnipeg; Saskatchewan-Moose Jaw, Prince Albert and Saskatoon; Alberta-Calgary, Edmonton, Lethbridge and Medicine Hat; British Columbia-entire province.
Figures are for December, 1935, except'in the case of Nova Scotia where January, 1936, figures were used.
Total number of employable persons included in tabulation: Male, 76,506; female, 16,581; total, 93,087.
Total number of employable persons on direct relief, as given by preliminary figures, December, 1935-315,863.
Percentage of total included in this tabulation-29-5 per cent.
Occupations
Male Fem'e Total Perc. Perc. Perc.
Labourers, general	
Mercantile and office workers
Professional workers	
Workers in domestic, hotel, restaurant and related
services	
Workers in farming industry Workers in fishing industry.. Workers in logging industry. Workers in mining industry. Workers in manufacturing industry	
Workers in construction industry	
Workers in transportation and communication industry Never regularly employedunder age 25	
age 25 and over	
32-5	[DOT]7	26-99-7	12-2	10-11-3	1-3	1-33-4	48-5	11-43-7	[DOT]2	3-1[DOT]8	[DOT]0	[DOT]71-8	[DOT]0	1-53-2	[DOT]0	2-614-5	7-8	13-313-3	[DOT]0	10-99-4	*5	7-85-1	23-1	8-31-3	5-7	2-1
Total
100-00100-00 100-00
(Final Figures for Municipalites Included) Table X
Ages of Employable Persons
Representative figures showing percentage distribution of employable recipients of direct relief, under age groups.
Municipalities included in tabulation:
Nova Scotia-Glace Bay, Halifax, Sydney; New Brunswick-Saint John; Quebec, Joliette, Lachine, Quebec, Sherbrooke, St. Jean, Thetford Mines, Verdun; Ontario-Belleville, Chatham, Galt, Hamilton, Kingston, Kitchener, London, Owen Sound, Sault Ste. Marie, St. Catharines, St. Thomas and Windsor; Manitoba-Winnipeg; Saskatchewan-Moose Jaw, Prince Albert and Saskatoon; Alberta-Calgary, Edmonton, Lethbridge and Medicine Hat; British Columbia -entire province.
Figures are for December, 1935, except in the case of Nova Scotia where January, 1936, figures were used.
Total number of employable persons included in tabulation:
Male-78,612; female-17,347; total-95,959.
Total number of employable persons on direct relief, as given by preliminary figures, December, 1935-315,863.
Percentage of total included in this tabulation-30.4 per cent.
Age Distribution
Male,	Female,	Total,Per-	Per-	PerYears	centage	centage	centage16 to 20...	.. 11.5	39.6	16.521 to 30...	.. 22.3	24.8	22.731 to 40...	.. 23.0	10.2	20.741 to 50...	.. 19.9	10.4	18.251 to 60...	.. 16.4	9.3	15.161 to 70...	.. 6.5	5.1	6.4Over 70....	.. .4	.6	ATotal ...	.. 100.0	100.0	100.0
Classification of Direct Relief Recipients (Final figures for municipalities included)
Table XI
Ages of Unemployable Persons
Representative figures showing percentage distribution of unemployable recipients of direct relief, under age groups.
Municipalities included in tabulation:
Nova Scotia-Glace Bay, Halifax, Sydney; New Brunswick-Saint John; Quebec-Joliette, Lachine, Quebec, Sherbrooke, St. Jean, Thetford Mines, Verdun; Ontario-Belleville, Chatham, Galt, Hamilton, Kingston, Kitchener, London, Owen Sound, Sault Ste. Marie, St. Catharines, St. Thomas, and Windsor; Manitoba-Winnipeg; Saskatchewan-Moose Jaw, Prince Albert, and Saskatoon; British Columbia-entire province.
1586	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. Rogers
Figures are for December, 1935, except in the case of Nova Scotia where January, 1936, figures were used.
Total number of unemployable persons included in tabulation: Male, 7,379; female, 2,860; total, 10,239.
Total number of unemployable persons on direct relief, as given by preliminary figures, December, 1935-48,841.
Percentage of total included in this tabulation, 21-0 per cent.
Age distribution-
Male	Female	TotalYears	percentage	percentage	percenta16 to 20.	... 3.4	10.4	5.321 to 30.	... 5.5	15.9	8.431 to 40.	... 7.0	12.9	8.741 to 50.	... 10.5	15.8	12.051 to 60.	... 19.4	16 4	18.661 to 70.	... 41.7	21.5	36.0Over 70.	... 12.5	7.1	11.0Total.	... 100.0	100.0	100.0



CLASSIFICATION OF DIRECT RELIEF RECIPIENTS

[Stage Direction]
Table XII
Length op Time on Relief
Representative returns from municipalities indicated, showing length of time continuously on relief, of heads of families and individual cases (continuity of relief in these returns is not considered as broken by any period "off relief" of less than one month).
Nova Scotia
Table includes returns from Halifax, Glace Bay and Sydney (January, 1936).
Length of time on relief	Employable persons	Unemployable persons	Family heads	Individual cases	Total	Family heads	Individual cases	TotalPer cent	Per cent	Per cent	Per cent	Per cent	Per centLess than 1 year	26-5	37-7	28-4	19-8	200	19-81 to 2 years	21-2	15-9	20-3	16-5	12-5	15-32 to 3 years	26-5	17-9	25-1	22-0	17-5	20-63 to 4 years	19-2	23-8	191	27-4	17-5	24-44 to 5 years	6-2	3-9	5-8	12-1	30-0	17-65 to C years	0-4	0-8	0-5	2-2	2-5	2-3Over 6 years	0	0	0	0	0	0
The above percentages are based upon reports covering:
	Employable persons			Unemployable persons		
Male	Female	Total	Male	Female	TotalFamily heads	1,669	225	1,894	58	33	91Individual cases	256	102	358	17	23	40
New Brunswick
City of Saint John (December, 1935)
Length of time on relief	Employable persons	Unemployable persons	Family heads	Individual cases	Total	Family heads	Individual cases	TotalPer cent	Per cent	Per cent	Per cent	Per cent	Per centLess than 1 year	30-4	38-1	30-6	190	400	2101 to 2 years	14-8	26-2	15-1	13-2	400	15-82 to 3 years	14-5	190	14-7	17-5	5-0	16-33 to 4 years	40-3	16-7	39-6	50-3	15-0	46-94 to 5 years	0	0	0	0	0	05 to 6 years	0	0	0	0	0	0Over 6 years	0	0	0	0	0	0
[Stage Direction]
Employment Commission-Mr. Rogers
The above percentages are based upon reports covering-
	Employable persons			Unemployable persons		
Male	Female	Total	Male	Female	TotalFamily heads	1,292	158	1,450	123	66	189Individual cases	15	27	42	6	14	20
CLASSIFICATION OF DIRECT RELIEF RECIPIENTS Table XII
Length of Time on Relief (Continued)
Representative returns from municipalities indicated, showing length of time continuously on relief, of heads of families and individual cases (continuity of relief in these returns is not considered as broken by any period "off relief" of less than one month).
Quebec
Table includes returns from Joliette, Lachine, Quebec, Sherbrooke, St. Jean, Thetford Mines, Verdun (December, 1935).
Length of time on relief	Employable persons	Unemployable persons	Family heads	Individual cases	Total	Family heads	Individual cases	TotalPer cen	Per cent	Per cent	Per cent	Per cent	Per centLess than 1 year	38-6	41-8	38-8	38-9	61	34-21 to 2 years	14-6	15-5	14-6	16-5	34-7	1912 to 3 years	23-7	17-5	23-2	34-5	44-9	35-93 to 4 years	14-7	220	15-4	9-4	10-2	9-64 to 5 years	80	30	7-6	0-7	4-1	1-25 to 6 years	0-4	0-2	0-4	0	0	0Over 6 years	0	0	0	0	0	0
The above percentages are based upon reports covering:
	Employable persons			Unemployable persons		
Male	Female	Total	Male	Female	TotalFamily heads	6,511	169	6,680	226	70	296Individual cases	539	85	624	40	9	49
Ontario
Table includes returns from Belleville, Chatham, Galt, Hamilton, Kingston, Kitchener, London, Owen Sound, Sault Ste. Marie, St. Catharines, St. Thomas and Windsor (December, 1935).
Length of time on relief	Employable persons	Unemployable persons	Family heads	Individual cases	Total	Family heads	Individual cases	TotalPer cent	Per cent	Per cent	Per cent	Per cent	Per centLess than 1 year	32-3	62-0	371	161	38-8	24-01 to 2 years	17-9	15-4	17-5	16-6	15-7	16-32 to 3 years	21-5	12-6	201	25-6	19-3	23-43 to 4 years	18-3	7-9	16-6	24-7	18-1	22-44 to 5 years	6-4	1-7	5-6	10-2	5-2	8-55 to 6 years	1-9	00	1-6	3-2	1-4	2-6Over 6 years	1-7	0-4	1-5	3-6	1-5	2-9
The above percentages are based upon reports covering:
	Employable persons			Unemployable persons		
Male	Female	Total	Male	Female	TotalFamily heads	2,245	1,248	13,493	1,380	684	2,064Individual cases	2,236	422	2,658	610	497	1,107
Employment Commission-Mr. Rogers
Table XII
Length or Time on Relief-Continued
Representative returns from municipalities indicated, showing length of time continuously on relief, of heads of families and individual cases (continuity of relief in these returns is not considered as broken by any period "oS relief" of less than one month).
Manitoba
City of Winnipeg (December, 1935).
Length of time on relief	Employable persons	Unemployable persons	Family heads	Individual cases	Total	Family heads	Individual cases	TotalLess than 1 year	
1	to 2 years	
2	to 3 years	
3	to 4 years	Per cent 38-7 n-5 11-	4 12-	4 11 -8 7-8 6-4	Per cent 631 6-8 7-6 5-7 7-4 9-4 0	Per cent 49-3 9-4 9-8 9-5 9-9 8-5 3-6	Per cent	Per cent 380 23-8 14-3	Per cent 38-0 23-8 14-34	to 5 years	
5	to 6 years	
Over 6 years	4-8 14-3 4-8	4-8 14-3 4-8
The above percentages are based upon reports covering:-
	Employable persons			Unemployable persons		
Male	Female	Total	Male	Female	TotalFamily heads	6,575 4,903	972	7,547 5,794	Individual cases	891	21	21
Saskatchewan
Table includes returns from Moose Jaw, Prince Albert and Saskatoon (December, 1935).
Length of time on relief	Employable persons	Unemployable persons	Family heads	Individual cases	Total	Family heads	Individual cases	TotalPer cent	Per cent	Per cent	Per cent	Per cent	Per centLess than 1 year	21-2	33-3	21-6	11-2	15-1	11-51 to 2 years	13-4	26-7	13-9	16-4	22-1	16-62 to 3 years	14 5	17-8	14-6	19-0	18-6	2013 to 4 years	21	8-9	19-7	18-7	20-9	19-14 to 5 years	17-2	13-3	17-1	18-5	20-9	19-35 to 6 years	13-6	0	131	16-2	2-4	13-4Over 6 years	0	0	0	0	0	0
The above percentages are based upon reports covering:-
	Employable persons			Unemployable persons		
Male	Female	Total	Male	Female	TotalFamily heads	2,412	78	2,490	150	277	427Individual cases	59	31	90	57	29	86
[Mr. Rogers.)

Employment Commission-Mr. Rogers
CLASSIFICATION OF DIRECT RELIEF RECIPIENTS Table XII
Length oe Time on Relief-Continued
Representative returns from municipalities indicated, showing length of time continuously on relief, of heads of families and individual cases (continuity of relief in these returns is not considered as broken by any period "off relief" of less than one month).
Alberta
Table includes returns from Calgary, Edmonton, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat (December, 1935).
Length of time on relief
Employable persons
Family
heads
Per cent
Individual
cases
Per cent
Total Per cent
Unemployable persons
Family
heads
Per cent
Individual
cases
Per cent
Total Per cent
Less than 1 year,
1	to 2 years....
2	to 3 years....
3	to 4 years....
4	to 5 years....
5	to 6 years....
Over 0 years....
13-9
15-4
7-2
44-0
14-9
4-4
0-8
14-	2 13-2
15-	2 18-4
0-8
The above percentages are based upon reports covering:
	Employable persons			Unemployable persons		
Male	Female	Total	Male	Female	Total4,958 111	750	5,708 368	257	
British Columbia
Table includes returns from the entire province (December, 1935).
Length of time on relief	Employable persons	Unemployable persons	Family heads	Individual cases	Total	Family heads	Individual cases	TotalPer cent	Per cent	Per cent	Per cent	Per cent	Per centLess than 1 year	16-2	21-9	18-6	16 5	202	1901 to 2 years	11-8	12-7	12-2	12-3	11-4	11*72 to 3 years	15-4	17-7	16-4	17-6	181	18-03 to 4 years	22-3	18-5	20-8	20-5	18-5	1914 to 5 years	27-3	21-5	24-8	28-5	22-8	24-65 to 6 years	6-6	7-1	6-8	4-3	8-1	6-9Over 6 years	0-2	0-6	0-4	0-3	0-9	0-7
The above percentages are based upon reports covering:
	Employable persons			Unemployable persons		
Male	Female	Total	Male	Female	TotalFamily heads	12,788	1,507	14,295	1,207	82	1,289Individual cases	9,535	811	10,347	2,525	186	2,711
Employment Commission-Mr. Rogers
I may say that in order to secure this information, samples, so to speak, were taken in the various provinces in the absence of complete returns, but we have reason to believe that the conditions which existed in those municipalities from which the information was secured would be probably uniform throughout Canada.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This sample method has been found very inaccurate in some cases.


Norman McLeod Rogers: There will be an opportunity for correction later, and as a matter of fact our objective is not to continue the sample method but rather to get complete returns in connection with all these matters.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Was a complete survey
carried out and a classification made in the province of British Columbia?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. I may say to my
hon. friend that there was a complete survey made in the province of British Columbia,
and without making any invidious comparison I feel that the department of labour of that province is to be commended upon the figures presented and the promptitude with which they were sent to the Department of Labour here. Undoubtedly the reason was that they had realized the importance of obtaining this information some time previously and had set up the necessary machinery to obtain it.
The two final tables deal with the men in the relief camps. It might be of interest to the house, perhaps, if I gave the age group classification and the occupational classification of the men in the relief camps. This is a summary statement of men in the relief camps of the Department of National Defence as of January 31, 1936. The total number of men in camps was 20,302. The first information is with regard to the period of their continuance in the camps, given by provinces; I think that is of some importance :
Nova Scotia.. . New Brunswick.
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan.. .
Alberta	
British Columbia
Numbers.. .
Under 1	1 to 2	2 to 3year	years	years364	86	26682	282	1081,781	521	4243,488	1,091	754769	299	1351,014	212	1431,317	449	2633,411	1,207	91912,826	4,147	2,772Over 3	Per cent byyears	Total	provinces51	527	2.632	1,104	5.456	2,782	13.767	5,400	26.628	1,231	6.10	1,369	6.762	2,091	10.3261	5,798	28.6557	20,302	100.0
Now I come to the ages of the men in the relief camps, which I think is a matter of considerable social importance.
That last figure, with regard to the men over sixty years, amazed me when I first saw it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the minister proceeds to that, without interrupting him may I ask how many of those who have been in the camps for more than three years are permanent instructors? It will be recalled that a certain number of unemployed who had technical training were paid small sums of money and became instructors.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That question cannot be
answered on the basis of the information I have here, but again I shall be glad to secure the information if possible. Now I come to the ages of the men in the camps:


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is supposed to be single unemployed men?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. Then, previous occupations of men in relief camps-I am particularly anxious to place this on Hansard in order to indicate something of the pressure of the unemployment situation upon the various occupations throughout the dominion, and also to indicate something of the reserve capacity which exists in these camps as soon as opportunities for employment may be found:
Ages of Men in Camps of Department of National Defence
	Number	Per cent
18 to 20 years.. ..	.. .. 2,136	10.521 to 30 years.. ..	.. .. 5,686	28.031 to 40 years.. ..	24.641 to 50 years.. ..	.. .. 3,847	18.951 to 60 years.. ..	13.9Over 60 years	4.1Totals	100.0

Department of National Defence Previous occupations of men in relief camps-
Occupation	Number	P.C.Labourers 	9,192	45-3Mercantile and office workers ..	1,257	6-2Professional 	712	3-5Domestic, hotel, restaurant, etc.	1,009	5-0Farming	1,509	7-4Fishing 	108	*5Logging 	1,014	5-0Mining 	627	31
Employment Commission-Mr. Rogers
Manufacturing	
694	3-4Construction	
1,619	8-0Transportation and communication	
1,027	5-1
Never regularly employed:-
under 25 years of age	
1,058	5-2over 25 years	of	age	
476	2-3
20,302
With the permission of the house I should like to place upon Hansard these various tabulations in order that the information may be available in the most satisfactory way, as well as for discussion at a later stage
Now to return to the figures in respect to unemployment and relief. As revealed by these various tabulations it would appear that the large problem of unemployment and relief may be subdivided into three quite distinct sections, which may call for the application of different administrative and remedial policies over a period of years. First I would speak of the social problem of relief. Let me return to the total figures of those who are receiving assistance from the state because of either industrial unemployment or agricultural distress. This total figure for February is 1,310,423. That includes employables and unemployables with their dependents, together with those receiving relief in the drought areas of the wheat producing provinces, both heads of families and their dependents. That is the problem in its largest terms. This grand total of those receiving state assistance may be described as the social problem arising out of the existing economic situation. It has its origin in the elementary obligation of the state to provide for the subsistence of its members-to use the term employed by Jeremy Bentham-and who are in necessitous circumstances through no fault of their own. It is the political expression of the moral principle that we are members one of another and have duties towards our neighbours who are in distress. In our approach to this social problem we must be guided by a number of considerations which have been established in conscience or reason and confirmed by experience. We must for example see to it that a sufficiency of food and shelter and medical attention is provided for those who are in need.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And clothing.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Clothing obviously should be included. We must also ensure that our administrative organization for the relief of distress is developed to the highest possible point of efficiency and economy. In a federal state the obligation to care for those in necessitous circumstances rests upon a well established gradation of responsibility, involving
first the municipalities, then the provincial governments, and finally the dominion government when the problem of relief has assumed national dimensions. This division of responsibility in relation to relief requires clearly a very careful coordination of effort by governmental authorities and private welfare agencies, if waste and duplication are to be avoided and a reasonable service is to be rendered to those in need.
There is another consideration which must also be kept in mind as we approach the problem of unemployment and relief in its social aspect. I have suggested that a sufficiency of food and shelter, clothing and medical attention must be provided for those in need. That is not in dispute. In making this provision, however, there is equally an obligation upon governments to see that the arrangements for relief do not encourage the acceptance of voluntary idleness by relief recipients, or permit employers of labour to transfer to the state their obligation to pay a living wage but to conduct their operations with a due sense of social responsibility. I mention that here because some cases have been brought to my attention of employers of labour who have taken advantage of the existing situation and have paid wages upon so low a scale that those receiving those wages were receiving less than they would obtain if they were on relief. And I know it has been the practice in some municipalities to pay part time relief to some of those whose wages fall below the relief scale. Obviously such a situation is intolerable. It does seem to me that if on investigation we find an employer of labour who is taking advantage of this situation, we as a government are entitled to use the weapon of publicity to the fullest possible extent in order to brand that policy as high treason to the state in a time of great emergency. I grant you it should be done only after careful investigation. I have not referred this afternoon to the names of any employers, and I do not do so because I realize that even though the information may have been given to me in good faith it would not be fair to those employers to make the charge until I am fully satisfied as to its validity.
Finally it must be borne in mind that the relief of distress rests upon practical considerations as well as upon a moral obligation which has been assumed by the state as an association for the promotion of human welfare. The greatest resource of any country consists of its workers with hand and brain. This in the ultimate analysis is the true wealth of nations. Upon its labouring population the state depends for its productivity and its

Employment Commission-Mr. Rogers
real income in terms of goods and services. This is a truism, but we must not ignore its implications because it is so familiar and selfevident. It is to the interest of the state, quite apart from the question of obligation, to preserve the health and vigor of its people and as far as possible to prevent the impairment of the technical skill and efficiency of its workers. The provision of unemployment relief has been and is now a heavy financial burden, but any failure on our part to bear this burden would be tantamount to the wasting of an estate by a life tenant, and would mean irreparable injury to those who will inherit from us in years to come. In any long range view of governmental policy a just and reasonable provision of unemployment relief is a measure for the conservation of the human resources of the nation. All of us want our relief administration to come to an end as soon as possible. We realize that it must be surrounded by safeguards, but let us not forget that in its essential character it partakes of a policy of national conservation.
Apart from the provision of subsistence for those who suffer from involuntary unemployment, the social problem of relief calls for the careful segregation of unemployables from employables, and the formulation of special measures to deal with those who will no longer be able to work, even when work becomes available. I believe it is clear from our examination of this social aspect of the wider problem of unemployment and relief that there is a clear necessity resting upon us to study and analyze it along the lines I have indicated, in order that we may develop the appropriate long term measures to deal with it in its various aspects.
So much for the social problem of unemployment and relief. I have dealt with it inadequately. I do not wish to weary the house with a discussion of the problem, and there will be ample opportunity to develop some of these features when the house is in committee.
I pass now to what may be described as the economic problem of relief. Let me turn to the total figure of adult employables now in receipt of relief. In this connection I find the figure of 332,180 for January, subdivided as follows: Heads of families, 174,618; employable dependents, 104,229 and individual cases, 53,333. Are we not justified in saying that this figure of employables on relief represents the measure of the economic problem, as distinguished from the social problem? I use those terms for reasons which I believe will become apparent upon reflection or examination. If work can be found for employable heads of families now on relief we would no

longer have to be concerned with the provision of state assistance for their dependents. If in addition, or concurrently, work can be found for the individual employables the economic aspect of the relief problem will be under effective control.
Once more I should like to introduce a matter which may not be quite in line with what I have just been saying. It seems to me that if we are to induce a proper attitude towards this newer problem, so far as possible we should dispense with the relief figures running into millions in our discussion of unemployment. The relief problem is not an economic problem, but obviously a social one. It is also a problem of public finance. The economic problem is more manageable, and we should face it with the clear understanding that it is manageable.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The first proposition is subject to one limitation. It does not follow that dependents may not have to have relief because the heads of families have secured work. The position would depend entirely on the age of the dependents.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, that is correct. But I am sure my right hon. friend will agree with me when I say that if it is possible to secure employment for the heads of families such employment should to a great extent bring about a liquidation of the problem of supplying relief for their dependents.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Depending on how much is going to be paid. If it is to be on a relief basis it again involves the question of how we are to give a proper standard for a family, and also the other question mentioned by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) during the campaign, namely sustenance for children. I do not see anything in the bill about this latter point. I was going to ask if anything along those lines had been in contemplation and if we were going to assume responsibility for the children of the nation whose parents are not able to take care of them. I thought the promise to care for children was the most commendable feature of the right hon. gentleman's appeal during the last election campaign.


Norman McLeod Rogers: No doubt the hon. member is aware that the actual determination of relief scales lies with the provinces and municipalities.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Yes, they have had control of relief administration and fixed relief allowance upon a purely emergency basis.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Unquestionably this is a matter which will require further study, When we think of the economic problem it is self-evident that the only satisfactory

Employment Commission-Mr. Rogers
and permanent cure for unemployment is employment. It is equally clear that there are only two kinds of employment, namely private and public. Public employment is directly under the control of governments, but is subject to the limitations imposed by the mechanism of public finance. Private employment is not directly under the control of governments but is affected, nevertheless, by conditions which may be created by government policy.
When we ask ourselves how we should approach the economic problem it seems to me it is evident that short range and long range measures will have to be applied. It is our view that if we are to secure a proper revival of industry in Canada it must be upon the basis of trade policies which will permit a more satisfactory exchange between this and other countries. It is our further view that the secondary industries in Canada are based essentially upon the prosperity and welfare of our great primary industries. This government has already given indication of its determination to wTork out a policy of that type, having faith that in due course it will not only assist the primary industries but create a home market in the only sense in which a home market ever exists in Canada, namely by placing purchasing power in the great agricultural areas of Canada, where the potential market for the secondary industries exists. It is not a case of pitting the secondary industries against the primary industries, and of suggesting that these must always be in opposition. Rather it is a question of finding, by experience with and examination of the true interests of Canada how it may be possible to reconcile the true interests of the primary industries and the legitimate interests of the secondary industries.
I believe it is useless for us to repair the superstructure of our economic life, as represented by our secondary industries, if its foundation as represented by our primary industries is crumbling away. I am not going to speak at length as to what may be done by public employment to meet the economic problem to which I have referred. I may state however that I am quite sure it has been proved by the experience of all countries that public employment of itself is not a solution. I repeat, it is not a solution. It would cost this country somewhere between $300,000,000 and $400,000,000 to put at work the employables in the category to which I have just referred.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Per annum?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, per annum. It is
conceivable that this country might pursue a
policy of that kind this year and the year after, but it is not conceivable that this or any other country could continue a policy of that kind without adopting with all its implications the philosophy of socialism. None of us can see the shape of events to come; it is beyond our powers to know the direction in which we are ultimately tending, but this we do know, that the electorate of Canada is not prepared at the present time to accept a socialist state. We are under an obligation to preserve the foundations of the state as we have it to-day, recognizing at the same time our obligation to provide the maximum of human welfare for those who are members of the state. But surely in our whole attitude toward the provision of relief works, towards the creation of public employment as a solution of this problem, we must remember not only that we are dealing with a situation which exists to-day, but that we are trustees for a nation which has a to-morrow. If in dealing with this situation we, under the insistent demands of the present, are forgetful of cur duty to those who will inherit from us in time to come, I think we shall be unworthy of the confidence reposed in us by the Canadian electorate.
This then should mean that it is the duty of this government, as it is of any government, to try to find the means of using public works for the provision of relief so far as that is possible and reasonable, and at the same time to stimulate private employment by every means within our power. Upon the basis of the improvement that has taken place, upon the basis of the cooperation which I believe can be achieved through the instrumentality of a national employment commission, I believe that we may continue to make steady progress along the lines I have indicated and do so without at the same time impairing the foundations of our economic life. Apart altogether from the question whether sufficient public employment can be created to take up the slack, there is another question whether we are going to develop through government policy an attitude of complete dependence upon the state for the provision of employment. I suggest that upon the basis of the experience that we have had thus far with relief works we are not justified in assuming that the provision of such works upon a large scale would under present conditions produce that amount of human motivation which would make for the maximum efficiency.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Does the minister
believe that private industry will be able to absorb all the unemployed who are employable?

Employment Commission-Mr. Rogers


Norman McLeod Rogers: I do not think I have said that. If I might answer my hon. friend now I should like to put to him something which I had intended to refer to a little later. We sometimes forget that this world has passed through depressions before. It is well to remember that the world has passed through very serious crises before. Sometimes for moral discipline and mental exercise I turn to the pages of Carlyle, as my hon. friend probably has done at times. I should like to refer him to the opening chapter of Past and Present, which was published in 1843, during a period of acute distress, not only in Great Britain but in other parts of the world. I ask my hon. friend to listen to these words:
The condition of England, on which many pamphlets are now in the course of publication, and many thoughts unpublished are going on in every reflective head, is justly regarded as one of the most ominous, and withal one of the strangest, ever seen in this world. England is full of wealth, of multifarious produce, supply for human want in every kind; yet England is dying of inanition. With unabated bounty the land of England blooms and grows; waving with yellow harvests; thick-studded with workshops, industrial implements, with fifteen millions of workers, understood to be the strongest, the cunningest and the willingest our earth ever had; these men are here; the work they have done, the fruit they have realized is here abundant, exuberant on every hand of us; and behold, some baleful fiat as of enchantment has gone forth, saying, "Touch it not, ye workers, ye master-workers, ye master-idlers; none of you can touch it, no man of you shall be the better for it; this is enchanted fruit!"...
Of these successful skilful workers some two millions,-
The population of England at that time would be only a little more than two-thirds of what it is to-day, or possibly only one-half. I continue:
-it is now counted, sit in workhouses, poor-law prisons: or have "out-door relief" flung over the wall to them-the workhouse bastille being filled to bursting, and strong poor-law broken asunder by a stronger. They sit there, these many months now; their hope of deliverance as yet small. In workhouses, pleasantly so named, because work cannot be done in them. Twelve hundred thousand workers in England alone: their cunning right-hand lamed, iying idle in their sorrowful bosom; their hopes, outlooks, share of this fair world, shut in by narrow walls. They sit there, pent up, as in a kind of horrid enchantment; glad to be imprisoned and enchanted, that they may not perish starved.
I wonder if it would be possible for my hon. friend to produce a more burning indictment of social conditions than is found in those words.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Modern machinery
makes it that much worse to-day.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am coming to another point. There is a vast difference in the attitude of Carlyle and that of some of the modern reformers towards the solution of the economic and social problems. Some of the modern reformers of our own day have tended to simplify the problem and suggest that there was one simple way out of it, but I believe the entire teaching of history is against any such view. Carlyle was at all times a social reformer, but he was also a great student of history. Let me read these words, which occur a little later in Past and Present:
It seems to be taken for granted, by these interrogative philosophers, that there is some "thing," or handful of "things," which could be done; some act of parliament, "remedial measure" or the like, which could be passed, whereby the social malady were fairly fronted, conquered, put an end to; so that, with your remedial measure in your pocket, you could then go on triumphant, and be troubled no farther. "You tell us the evil," cry such persons, as if justly aggrieved, "and do not tell us how it is to be cured!"
How is it to be cured? Brothers, I am sorry-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am quoting Carlyle. I continue:
-I have got no Morrison's pill for curing the maladies of society. It were infinitely handier if we had a Morrison's pill, act of parliament, or remedial measure, which men could swallow, one good time, and then go on in their old courses, cleared from all miseries and mischiefs! Unluckily we have none such; unluckily the heavens themselves, in their rich pharmacopoeia, contain none such.
I do not know that I can better answer my hon. friend than to leave these thoughts with him. I believe it is as true to-day as it was a century ago that there is no magic formula by which we can suddenly emerge from the condition in which we find ourselves to-day. The problem itself is infinitely complex. To some degree it is referable to conditions created by the war; to some degree no doubt it is referable to our inability to recognize our social obligations-


Richard Bedford Bennett: And inventions.


Norman McLeod Rogers: And inventions, possibly, as well. I am not underestimating the difficulty of it at all, but what I do suggest is that we must approach it upon the assumption that it is a many-sided problem and may require of us many and various solutions. But above all it requires of us a determination to do whatever lies in our power to improve the conditions of the people throughout the country, and to do so in a way which will also preserve the motivation behind our entire industrial structure.

Employment Commission-Mr. Rogers


Mr. LANDERYOU:: Is it impossible to remove these hindrances which the minister speaks of?


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my hon. friend will permit me, we shall have an opportunity to debate that question another time, when I shall be more than willing to discuss it.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Do the statistics referred to give any indication as to what are termed respectively cyclical unemployment and technological unemployment?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am not sure that we can obtain that type of information, but I shall be glad to look into the possibility.
Now I come to the third point. Under our federal constitution there is a well established division of responsibility in relation both to the administration of relief and to the maintenance of social services. In order to avoid friction or duplication in the administration of relief, it is necessary to secure a more effective and continuous coordination of effort in relation to the entire problem. Experience has proved the need of some kind of nexus, or connecting link, between the various governmental agencies having a responsibility in relation to relief. I do not know that it is necessary here to elaborate very fully upon that consideration of public policy. Many of us within these last few years have given more study to the federal constitution than we had done in our lifetime previously. It has been forced upon our attention as a result of problems in relation to it which have arisen during the last few years; but it has seemed to me that in our federal constitution there is potentially a large field of cooperation which has never been explored sufficiently but which, if it were explored, would remove a considerable degree of friction and duplication which now are found in the working of that constitution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister will remember that the words are "exclusive jurisdiction."


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, but there are concurrent powers as well.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Only in two cases.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Only in two cases, it is true; at the same time in practice, in this relief situation, in order to meet the condition we have realized that we must secure a more effective coordination of effort; and I believe that in order to secure that correlation of effort it may be desirable to set up a medium through which the various governmental authorities under the federal system may be enabled to meet on common ground. This must be kept in mind-and I am sure my right hon.
friend will appreciate it-that the dominion government is a national government not in respect to the whole field of governmental activity but only in respect to that field which is assigned under the terms of the British North America Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And which is national in its character.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes; but there are other national problems, such as the large, allembracing problem of social welfare which cannot be met by the dominion alone. It can be met only by various authorities created under the federal constitution acting concurrently or cooperatively. And this very situation in which we find ourselves to-day has forced upon our attention the importance of exploring this way of cooperation in relation to the whole problem of unemployment and relief.
I would say further that the problem of unemployment relief is closely bound up with the maintenance of social services, and that large question is in an unsettled condition, due in part to the incidence of unemployment and relief. We find mothers' allowances brought into competition with relief scales in some provinces; we find old age pensions brought into competition with relief scales in other provinces. Surely, in view of the complexity of the problem, in view of the well acknowledged fact that we are working under extraordinary difficulties at this time, we are justified, nay we are compelled to seek some better way of dealing with this unemployment situation than upon a basis of competition between various governmental agencies-because there has been competition in the past-or upon the basis of friction or antagonism engendered as a result of different policies adopted in different parts of the country for dealing with the problem.
I am not going to go into the whole matter of variations in the administration of relief which exist in the different provinces. I have here information on that subject which can be made available in committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister realizes of course, when he speaks of competition, that in Quebec there are no old age pensions, and therefore the problem of relief during the last five years had to be considered in that light.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes; there were local conditions of that kind existing in various parts of the country, and that to me has always been a strong argument for avoiding the

1596	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. Rogers
complete assumption of responsibility for this problem here in Ottawa. Whatever we do we must preserve an opportunity for the adaptation of policies to peculiar conditions in different parts of the country. That I think can be secured more satisfactorily when an opportunity is given someone to review this situation as it has developed in the past few years and to put it into a clear national focus.
Now I come finally to another consideration of policy which I suggest as a justification of this national employment commission. The experience of the past five years has also proved that it is not within the power of governments to end unemployment by their own unaided efforts. There is a growing recognition that victory over the depression and unemployment cannot be won by a pitched battle but only by a sustained campaign along the entire front of our economic life, upon the basis of the maximum national effort, giving to the problem for a period of years that kind of effort which obtained and dominated during the period of the war. It does seem to me that it ought not to be impossible for a government to ask of the people, in the existing conditions, that same degree of cooperation that was secured in the war for destructive purposes. This after all is a great task of national rehabilitation. It is a task to which we are justified in calling not only other governmental agencies but all corporations or individuals who are affected by a social obligation or who might be expected to respond to an appeal for assistance in a time of national need. I suggest there is growing recognition that this kind of cooperation must be attained and is long overdue. It is my desire now, in support of that contention, to place upon the pages of Hansard evidence which will not be challenged.
First of all, I have the resolution of the dominion provincial conference of December, 1935:
3. That there be established a dominion commission on employment and relief with broad functions and powers which would include the following:-
(a)	In cooperation with the provinces and municipalities to carry out as early as possible a dominion-wide registration and classification of those on relief who are capable of self-supporting work.
(b)	To determine the general standards, regulations and conditions to be met by any province in order to qualify for participation in dominion funds.
(c)	To coordinate public works programs and employment policies on a long-range basis, and establish a general consistency of action.

(d)	To supervise the distribution of funds voted by the dominion parliament (and made available by the governor in council) for employment and relief purposes.
(e)	To promote the objects set forth in sections 4 and 5 hereof.
4.	That the cooperation of commerce and industry be requisitioned to assist in devising plans under which business enterprises shall make year-round provision for their essential quotas of employees and for the increase of employment. Many industries now recognize that it is unjust and anti-social for business management to produce casualties for public treasuries to take care of, regardless of the wrecking of individual and family life involved.
5.	That, under government leadership, a system shall be devised for the training of youth in habits and technique of work and industry, and for a thorough and well integrated apprenticeship system.
That resolution was introduced by one of the provincial delegations, and it received the unanimous support of the conference.
I have also before me a statement on behalf of the Canadian Welfare Council, an organization which, I believe, has been more closely in contact with the relief problem during the last few years than has any other semi-public agency. The following minute was passed at a meeting of the Canadian Welfare Council shortly after the introduction of the bill the second reading of which I have just moved:
Since 1931, the Canadian Welfare Council has consistently urged that the organization of employment and relief measures should be placed in the hands of an independent national commission of an advisory nature, which would collaborate with the provinces, municipalities and private agencies in developing a constructive plan of treatment and services to deal both with the relief of unemployment and the dependency arising from it.
Considerable satisfaction was therefore expressed at the introduction to the House of Commons of the resolution providing for the creation of a national commission to handle employment and unemployment relief.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the date of that?


Norman McLeod Rogers: March 23, 1936. I need hardly add that the letter was unsolicited.
May I come now to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. This letter, which is dated March 27, is signed by the secretary of the chamber. I quote from it as follows:
I was directed to advise you that the executive observe with the greatest of satisfaction the intent of the bill to bring about coordination and efficiency, as well as less waste in relief and reemployment administration. Likewise the proposals relating to the setting up of a national commission with ancillary advisory committees are also similarly viewed.
The executive feels it is unnecessary to assure you that business generally is confidently expecting that the government will select men

Employment Commission-Mr. Rogers
only of the highest calibre and qualifications for the representative personnel of these authoritative bodies.
May I add that the intimation that the "Back-to-the-land" movement will be furthered by the government is also in line with business thinking as represented in the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
May I also refer to the fact that labour organizations which have met the government during these past few months have without exception endorsed the proposal to set up a national employment commission? I quote from a submission of the Trades and Labour Congress, January 15, 1936:
We trust that the commission may be a material aid in advancing ways and means of reabsorbing the unemployed into useful, gainful occupations. We trust, also, that the commission may standardize relief and so supervise its administration that none in need may be overlooked.
Also from the Confederation des Travail-leurs Catholiques du Canada, Inc.:
The idea of the institution of a national employment and relief commission is excellent.
Also, at the mayors' conference which met recently in Ottawa, it was conveyed to the government that the proposal to set up a national employment commission at this time received the unanimous approval of that conference.
It seems to me that there can be no doubt, in view of these various resolutions, that the country as a whole, speaking through these organizations with a national membership and with full knowledge of the gravity of the situation, realizes the desirability of setting up this national employment commission in order thereby to induce a nation-wide cooperative effort to deal with the problem in a constructive way.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister read some resolutions from various bodies. I did not notice whether he did or did not read any from agricultural interests or from manufacturing interests, endorsing the commission.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I would say that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce certainly represents manufacturing interests. I doubt whether it can be said to represent agricultural interests. But I have no doubt that, if my hon. friend desires it, I shall be able to produce that information too, because the feeling evidenced in these communications is not confined to any interested groups; rather it has its origin in the conviction that some new way of dealing with this problem is desirable and that the way we propose is one that ought to be tried.
This government has no intention of seeking to escape its own responsibility in rela-
12739-102i
tion to this matter. I have no doubt that my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition will point out to us how important it is-and no doubt it is-that the personnel of this commission should be most carefully selected. Let me assure him that we shall seek to discharge that duty faithfully, having regard at all times to the importance of the questions which will be dealt with by the national employment commission in its advisory capacity and the importance of the questions as well which the national employment commission may have to deal with in a supervisory capacity.
I do not wish to trespass further upon the patience of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister was going to refer to seasonal employment.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, I was. If I may deal with that again-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the hon. minister would not regard the question as impertinent, using the word in its proper sense, if I asked him as to the extent to which the supervisory powers are exercisable. Has the commission any control over finance and matters of that kind?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think my right hon. friend will find that in the bill itself-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did; I looked at it carefully.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is put in this way, that by direction of the minister the national employment commission may exercise supervisory functions and such administrative functions as may be imposed upon it by the governor in council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wanted to know what that means. That surely does not mean order in council?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Oh, no; it means that we act at all times under the authority of the bill that is before the house, and shall proceed very carefully within the directions of that bill. But, as my right hon. friend is well aware, we are not dealing with a static problem. All the information which has been conveyed to the house this afternoon indicates something of the complexity of the problem, and how it may change from month to month and from year to year, and it may be desirable to preserve a power of investing the national employment commission with some supervisory or quasi administrative functions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is legislation bj order in council.
1598	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. Rogers


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not if parliament authorizes it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It may be desirable to
preserve this power, but we have no intention of burdening this national employment commission at the beginning of its career with any obligations of that kind, because we realize that the immediate problem is to secure advice and proper recommendations with respect to the specific terms of reference as set out in the bill itself.


John Charles Landeryou: Would the commission be able to set a minimum relief rate?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Perhaps we might deal
with that question more properly in committee, if my hon. friend would permit us to do so.


Ernest Edward Perley: I have listened
very carefully to the minister's speech this afternoon, and he has not given any reasons why he thinks an employment commission could gather these facts and do this work any better than this could be done by his own department under his own supervision, with an added staff if necessary.


Norman McLeod Rogers: There is little difficulty
in answering that question. If my right hon. friend is referring specifically to this statistical survey I would point out to him that we as a department accepted the responsibility of making out the necessary forms and determining the type of information we wished to secure. We then sought the cooperation of the provinces and municipalities, and obtained it. We did that in order to discover, first, the feasibility of obtaining that type of information; we were satisfied that it was desirable. Now we are in a position to place this information in the hands of the national employment commission immediately, and this work can be continued or revised under their direction.
If my right hon. friend had in view the larger questions that are to be referred to the national employment commission, let me say in all modesty that as Minister of Labour I am conscious at all times of the necessity of the kind of calm appraisal of the situation, the long range study of problems, which can be undertaken by this proposed national employment commission far more effectively than by any government department. I have not been in office long, but I have been here long enough to realize the danger inherent in the necessity of making quick decisions without satisfactory study, and I am quite' persuaded that if it does nothing other than apply a sober second thought and a long perspective to this unem-

ployment problem this national employment commission will more than justify itself in the years to come.
My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition asked me if I would say a word about seasonal employment, which I had intended to do some time ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Only if it was my hon.
friend's intention to do so.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It was my intention, and
I shall be glad to deal with it now. It is not the practice of the bureau of statistics to give figures on seasonal unemployment. I did make the statement that Canada was subject to seasonal unemployment in a very peculiar degree; in fact I think we are justified in saying that Canada has been more susceptible to seasonal unemployment than has other great industrial countries, including Great Britain, the United States and Germany. Some years ago Mr. Gilbert Jackson, formerly of Toronto university and now economic adviser to the Bank of England, made a study of figures supplied to him by the bureau of statistics. I am speaking from memory, since I do not seem able to discover my notes, but I think I am correct when I say that Mr. Jackson found that for the years 1920 to 1924 inclusive, out of every one thousand non-agricultural workers employed during the summer months, one hundred were unemployed during the autumn and winter months. Subsequently he made a further study covering the years 1926 to 1930 inclusive, and his study of that period confirmed the previous finding. That would suggest that roughly ten per cent of our nonagricultural industrial population is subject to seasonal unemployment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of the whole industrial population.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then may I ask a question? Would that not very seriously modify the figures the hon. gentleman gave in respect of February and January? Those were taken as the standard months, if my memory serves me aright, for the discussion of unemployment.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I used February because it was the latest month available.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But those are the months in which seasonal unemployment is most prevalent in Canada, and therefore it seemed to me that this should be taken into consideration. I was waiting for the further discussion with regard to seasonal unemployment, thinking the hon. gentleman would somewhat modify those figures.

Employment Commission-Mr. Massey


Norman McLeod Rogers: If I remember correctly I did make some reference to the necessity of allowance being made, but obviously all one can do is to say categorically that some allowance must be made for seasonal unemployment, since the figures themselves are not regularly available. But this problem of seasonal unemployment has another relation to the relief problem. Owing to the widespread dislocation of industry in the last few years; owing also to the low wages which have prevailed in some of those industries in which seasonal unemployment was more pronounced, there is some reason to believe that many of those who were formerly seasonally unemployed but whose wages were sufficient to carry them through the remainder of the year have either been forced upon the relief rolls or felt it to their interest to go on the relief rolls. That is at least an element in the present situation. I am going to try to obtain further information with regard to these variations in seasonal unemployment, particularly with regard to certain industries in this country, and it may be that we can discuss this question as well when we are in committee.
This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I have sought simply to indicate what I felt to be the broad considerations of public policy which supported the establishment at this time of a national employment commission to supplement the efforts of government in dealing with the whole problem of unemployment and relief. In one of his memorable speeches Edmund Burke described the state as a partnership of the dead, the living and the yet unborn. The knowledge of that partnership in the state compels us to recognize a dual responsibility which embraces to-morrow as well as to-day. Our first and immediate duty is to the living, but it would be an abject repudiation of responsible statesmanship to forget those who some day will stand in the places in which we stand to-day. What happens to us as individuals is of small consequence. What happens to this government is only of relative importance in the long perspective of history. What happens to the morale and future outlook of our people is of supreme importance in the ongoing life of the nation. In this paramount consideration of public policy we find the need and the justification for the measure which is now proposed as an aid and support to the national government in a federal state in dealing with the most serious problem which has ever confronted our country in a time of peace.


Mr. DENTON MASSEY (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, may I hasten to say to the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) that I think this house, yes, indeed, this country,
has been privileged this afternoon to listen to the exposition of a problem as clearly placed before those who heard and those who will read as in any exposition to which I have ever listened. I say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister, that I think he has shown this house this afternoon that he has, not only yesterday but for a considerable period of time, been paying close attention to that which is his particular problem in government. I am sure that what he has said to-day indicates clearly that the government's position is as he has described it. I am sure further that we of this house understand more clearly than we have at any time since this session commenced what the position of the government is in connection with this, the greatest problem that faces Canada at the present time.
I agree with much that the hon. minister has said. He certainly has stated as clearly as words could state what his policy is. I am sure we shall sense that it is his purpose to walk where perhaps others would have him run, and to creep where perhaps others would have him walk. In what I have to say may I remind the house that on Monday, March 9, as reported at page 919 of Hansard, I Said:
Let me assure the minister that any part that I can play, as a member of this house, in the accomplishment of his purpose in regard to this great question of youth reestablishment, I stand ready and willing to do.
I repeat that statement as sincerely as I said it the first time. I am not here to criticize for the sake of criticism only; I am not here to criticize for the sake of party only, and I am sure the minister will understand that any words I say in criticism are meant not to destroy but rather to assist in what small way I can to create. We have very little use these days for the purely destructive; as I have said in this house before, these are days for action, not words, and who am I or any other hon. member of this house to take the time of parliament by merely attempting for some petty personal purpose to destroy?
Reference has been made this afternoon in a very friendly way, an understanding way from a certain point of view, to the last six or seven years. That reference has not been partisan, and from the point of view of the minister it has been fair. My hon. friend will understand me when I say that I cannot entirely concur in his statement that the attempts of the last few years to correct the situation which he has so ably described were all failures. There was not absolute failure; it was not insinuated by the minister that there was. But let me hasten to say to him
1600	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. Massey
that if there were failure-and I do not admit it-it was not for lack of attempts on the part of the late government to meet an emergency situation the like of which this country had not faced prior to that time. And if mistakes were made they were mistakes of the head, not of the heart. I do not think any man could have forecast with any degree of accuracy or certainty, and thereupon based action, the awful depths of the depression that were ahead. After all, from 1933 the trade of the world continued to go down, shrinking until it reached but one-third of its pre-depression volume; and from 1933 to the present day, according to the minister's own figures, we have shown an employment record, even allowing for the eight per cent increase of population, of forty-one per cent recovery from our low. What has been done has had its definite and specific effect. The minister knows well that the job he has to do is far from done; there yet remains much that must be taken in hand immediately.
I have read the bill, an act respecting the establishment of a national employment commission, with a great deal of care. I have looked through each section of that bill and am impressed by it. I am more impressed by it now, after listening to the minister's exposition, than I was when I first read it. What I say about the bill will be in general, not in particular. I have heard this bill described as being "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing," which I believe is a quotation from Shakespeare's Macbeth. I disagree; it is not full of sound; it is not full of fury and it does signify something. It signifies, I think very clearly, that the government recognizes the necessity of approaching this problem not only slowly but thoroughly. One may fully understand the reason why this problem must be approached not only slowly but thoroughly. But there are those who do not understand why it should be so approached, and I think for the sake of the morale of this country, for the sake of those who are suffering today, remedial measures of a specific nature must be undertaken at once while this work of the national employment commission is going forward. After all there is little in this bill-and in this I am quite sure the minister will agree with me-that directs immediate action. This bill is building for to-morrow, not for to-day, and there is apparent a problem to-day which is in a far from satisfactory state from the point of view of the apparency of its immediate solution. Then, too, I think there is a fundamental weakness 
in this bill, namely, that this national employment commission is to deal specifically and particularly with those who are on relief. Do I read the bill correctly?


Norman McLeod Rogers: If I may correct my hon.
friend now I would say that there is a division of function. Some functions relate to the relief problem; others are designed to deal particularly with the question of reemployment, which after all is the constructive approach to relief, and in that regard I think one may say that those measures would have in view not merely the unemployed on relief but the unemployed who fortunately have not yet come upon relief.


Denton Massey: I had in mind more particularly those who were not on relief, but had so-called jobs, where such jobs were paying wages below the regular current rate of relief in the districts in which these men lived. The minister made reference to the point this afternoon. I believe one of the greatest problems with which we have to deal to-day is the realignment of those now so-called gainfully employed, and the determination of correct occupations for those men who as a result of necessity have wandered away from their trades into some other trades or some form of labour used only as a stopgap. Not being able to procure work in their own occupations they have accepted the wages they could get, wages which in many instances were far below those they were capable of earning. Those people, who constitute a large group, to some degree have lost the desire to go back to their trades, and have taken things as they come.
I was delighted to hear the minister state that he had definitely in mind dealing with those who have attempted, and from their point of view successfully, to take advantage of the depression as it affected their wage scale. I believe nothing more contemptible has been uncovered by the depression than the acts of those few-God forbid that they be many.-who have taken advantage of abnormal conditions.
Listening to the figures given this afternoon by the Minister of Labour has been an experience, not only from the point of view of that which was developed by the figures themselves, but from a realization of the necessity for carrying into action as early as possible that which must come out of an investigation such as is to be carried forward by the national employment commission, and which may result from the execution of its

Employment
Commission-Mr. Massey
recommendations. I was not a little alarmed the other day when I heard the statement from the treasury benches that to a great extent the government relied upon its trade policy to provide employment, as a result of the theory that increased trade provides increased employment. Trade alone is not enough. Merely to increase trade, as I have already stated, is not good enough. I voted against the trade agreement with the United States, not only because the opposition voted against it but because it does not seem to me that in the agreement there is that which will reflect to the advantage of the industrial worker, and I am proud and happy to represent in this chamber those who owe their livelihood to industrial activities.
Assuming that a national employment commission would be staffed by those fully and adequately equipped to perform their tasks, I suggest that such commission in its activity will recognize that much can be done through trade, yes, but that much more can be done by catching the attention of industry, by capturing its imagination, and by thoroughly, fully and completely impressing upon it the necessity for its playing its part which, after all, is the greatest part to be played in the whole problem. Governments alone cannot do the job. The minister has made that statement, and I echo it.
Turning to Hansard for March 9, I find the minister reported at page 918 as follows:
The present administration proposes to set up a national employment commission which is designed to secure that degree of cooperation, not only between governments, but also between governments on the one side and private industry on the other, in order that we may attain a maximum of united effort along the whole front of our economic life.
I may say on behalf of the government that, in connection with this special problem of youth, it will be possible, in setting up a national employment commission, to provide for a special committee which shall investigate those peculiar features of the unemployment problem which relate to youtln I hope that as a result of such an investigation it will be found possible for this government, working in cooperation with other governmental agencies in Canada, to arrange for improved educational facilities and a better correlation of vocational schools and employment services than now exists.
Bearing that in mind, I have read the bill with particular regard to the minister's observations. Commencing at line eleven on page 3, I read paragraph (g) of section 6:
(g) Investigate and report to the minister upon plans for the establishment of an apprenticeship system in industry.
Then at page 4, subsection (2) of section 9:
(2) The minister may appoint from among the members of the advisory committee a special committee to be designated _ as the "youth employment committee" which will report upon measures and means in respect to the employment of youth.
I am sure the minister will not misunderstand me when I say that in my view the great question of youth reestablishment has been tucked into the bill. I fully realize that the problem of the reestablishment of youth is a part of the whole question which has been under discussion this afternoon. The problem of unemployment carries within it the question of youth reestablishment, but it does seem to me that, without any desire to minimize other parts of the work, a vital part of the whole problem is that of youth reestablishment, and I cannot help feeling that it has been tucked inito the bill. May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Denton Massey: Mr. Speaker, when the
house took recess at six o'clock I was saying that it seemed to me that the whole problem of youth reestablishment had been tucked into a rather small portion of the bill we were debating this afternoon.
On March 9 this house unanimously passed a resolution, the burden of which was the setting up of a reestablishment commission. I quote from that resolution:
And be it further resolved, that, in the conduct of such investigation, consideration should be given to the feasibility of setting up and maintaining a national youth reestablishment commission.
I cannot help feeling that in that resolution there is embodied what might be regarded as the quick centre of our whole problem. From that quick centre and surrounding it there has grown up this whole problem of unemployment and all that that entails. When we deal, as we must perforce deal, with the question of youth reestablishment, we come to the quick centre of this whole great question.
It cannot help being disappointing to those of our youth who have had some definite hope of the government taking immediate action on their behalf to find that they have been relegated to a comparatively small part of a bill which serves to set up a national employment commission. If we turn to page 912 of Hansard of March 9 of this year
1602	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. Massey
we shall find a speech by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail). The hon. member quoted briefly from a letter written to her by a mother who found herself unable to make ends meet after her children had reached an age when she could no longer receive mothers' allowance. This mother reported that her four children were now earning S3, SI.50, SI and $1 repectively per week, a total of $8.50, upon which she was no longer able to carry on as she had been when receiving mothers' allowance. There is one big phase of the problem.
As far as the morale of youth is concerned, we find here another serious condition. Those who are close to this whole great problem realize the stringent effect that there is upon youth at a time, as has been mentioned already in this chamber, when idleness is so prevalent throughout all parts of the country. An article in the Toronto Telegram of Tuesday, March 24, stated that in the last seven years crime among youth had doubled. Then, in some ways most important of all is the peculiar process of thought which has seemed to rob youth of its desire to learn. It is true that registrations at schools and universities are high, but I speak from no small experience when I say that there are those attending school to-day simply because they have nothing else to do. They say, "What are we going to do when we get through?" That attitude is not to be found only among the young men and young women; the same attitude of despair is to be found among the parents who themselves have experienced all the vicissitudes that accompany prolonged unemployment.
During the course of the debate upon the resolution to which I referred a few moments ago, mention was made of the possibility of using correspondence courses, national scholarships, reforestation schemes, apprenticeships and other methods which might be regarded as productive means of reestablishing youth. Let me mention also, if I may, how highly desirable it seems to me to be that the young man and young woman should have some place or someone to go to for advice. I am not minimizing in any way the efficiency of those who are in charge of our educational institutions; I am not minimizing for a moment the efficiency of those responsible for the conduct of our religious institutions, rather do I regard their efficiency highly, but who is better equipped to give the young man or young woman practical advice than someone who has gone through an experience such as that through which the youth in question is passing? Those of us who have had associations with both industrial

work and the work among young people realize how frequently advice is sought and the premise upon which such advice is sought. Will a member of a subcommittee of the commission or its representative in a locality be adequate to take care of this major phase of the problem?
It seems to me that there is much that the Minister of Labour can do immediately. He knows that certain and definite recommendations are going to be made by this commission. He must know there is that which is essentially obvious and which will be brought down in the report of this commission, but it will be a matter of weeks before the commission swings into action. It will be a matter of months before such an extended investigation can possibly be completed and a report made. One cannot help being disappointed when he realizes that after the many months that have gone by since October 14 and after the many weeks that we have sat here in parliament, only to-day are we considering a bill to set up an employment commission. I know the Minister of Labour will not feel I am criticizing this commission for what it may ultimately accomplish, but that I feel that the situation at the moment demands immediate action. Prior to October 14 we saw on the bill-boards throughout the length and breadth of this country-I am not speaking politically; I am speaking nationally-these words, "Vote Liberal and get action." People of this country voted Liberal. They got a Liberal government, but have they got action?


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.


Denton Massey: Those who sit in the Liberal benches say "yes," but I wonder whether the man on the street will make the same reply. I wonder whether the man on the street who was on relief on October 14 and is still on relief will say that he voted Liberal and got action. I wonder whether the man who is on part time will say that he has got action. I wonder whether the young man or young woman who has nothing to do will say that he or she has got action. The government says that this takes time, but it is six months since the government was elected and we are now in the eighth week of the first session of a new parliament before this bill is brought down. I am not saying this merely as criticism-I prefaced my remarks with that statement-I am saying this because I feel there is much that can be done now. I am sure the minister feels that the trans-Canada highway can be completed, and I am sure he has heard what has been said in this chamber

Employment Commission-Mr. Leader
with regard to the possibilities of employment through reforestation.
I repeat what I said before recess: The burden of this problem rests primarily with industry, and industry must be made conscious of that responsibility. I claim that there is little in this bill to make industry conscious of its responsibility. I have great confidence in the ability of the Minister of Labour. I listened patiently and with great interest this afternoon as he spoke when he disclosed a rare and intimate knowledge of the problem, both social and economic. I feel that he, having displayed that knowledge, can do much. Surely the Minister of Labour of the federal government is in a better position to act than is a commission which will take at least six months to bring in its report. Why not act now? Must we wait for this commission? The problem, I admit, is no longer an emergency-that is, the whole problem-for it has persisted since 1929, when it began. We listened this afternoon to an exposition of that phase of it showing that the situation has continued. It seems to me, speaking from some little knowledge of this matter, that whereas the immediate situation presents an emergency, the problem as a whole does not. We are told that normal unemployment in this country in the winter is 200,000. There is no longer any such thing as normal unemployment, and 200,000 cannot be regarded any longer as the normally unemployed. The man who is among these 200.000-and the same is true of the woman *-does not regard himself as being among the normally unemployed; the situation has passed that stage. We have educated the Canadian people to realize that as a government we recognize an unemployment situation. and therefore normal unemployment can no longer exist.
I think the crux of the -whole situation is simply this:	The people of Canada have
placed in this house the largest majority of members that ever supported a government in this dominion. We have heard from the benches to your right, Mr. Speaker, that the people have given this government a clear mandate. They have. They have confidence in this government, or better, they have said so. But will that confidence be retained unless action is taken? As a Canadian closely identified with those who earn their livelihood from industrial activities, and not without some knowledge of those who are dependent for their livelihood upon primary products, I earnestly urge upon the Minister of Labour that the time for action is now, and that he as Minister of Labour is better equipped to take action immediately than is
any commission which may swing into action some months from now.
The spirit of the bill, yes; I have applauded that. But as far as the immediate present is concerned, when those who are unemployed and on relief throughout the length and breadth of this country are looking to Ottawa, to parliament hill and to the office of the Minister of Labour, I say that action must begin in that quarter if public confidence is to be retained. Again let me congratulate the minister upon his knowledge of the whole subject and urge upon him if I may, as I take my seat, the necessity for himself as Minister of Labour setting in motion at once that which it is so vividly clear must be done.


Mr. HARRY LEADER (Portage la Prairie):: I wish to offer my congratulations to the minister upon the presentation he made this afternoon; in my opinion he dealt in a masterly manner with a very difficult subject. In fact, the unemployment problem still remains the greatest question with which Canada has to deal; there is no doubt as to that.
I agree with the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Massey) and with others who have spoken with regard to the plight of youth in Canada; that has been one of the most tragic features of the whole unemployment problem. Not many members, however, have had a word to say about the plight of youth in our agricultural districts, not because they are not all concerned with the welfare of the youth on our farms but for the reason, I think, that we farmers do not take much pride in our ability to express ourselves. I know something of the plight of youth in connection with agriculture, and as I cannot draw on my imagination-I am not saying this in disparagement of any hon. member-the remarks I have to make to-night will have to be from my actual experience with the people concerned. I have lived all my life with the youth and others on farms and I am in a position to know something about their actual condition.
I am sorry that perhaps the first words I have to utter to-night must be in criticism of the action recently taken by the government in increasing the allowance to the unemployed in the relief camps, not because I think they are getting too much but because in my opinion this is not going to work in the interests of Canada as a wffiole. I live on a farm which was bequeathed to me by my father and which is now occupied by my son in my absence. I hope the day will come when my grandsons will occupy that farm, and we are grimly hanging on to our heritage as thousands of other farmers in Canada are

Employment Commission-Mr. Leader
doing. It is a tough job and many have fallen by the wayside. We have had poor crops, and we have had bountiful crops produced below cost of production; but withal we have had to pay high prices for our machinery; we have had to pay high interest rates pyramided from year to year, and on that account our taxation has been quite extreme and has almost forced us to leave the land.
Referring again to the money paid single unemployed in our camps, I do not think it was a good move on the part of the government, and I wish to give the house the actual experience of the men who are living close by and who know something about this great problem. I have received a protest from the rural council of Portage la Prairie against the increase in wages paid the men in the relief camps, and let me read a clipping from the Brandon Sun. It is a Conservative paper, but that does not hurt it in the least in this instance:
Many farm jobs available but no takers yet.
Single unemployed show no inclination to leave Shilo camp for farms.
Plenty of jobs are in sight for those who want them on farms, but so far the response has been anything but enthusiastic. Seventeen farm jobs are listed at the government employment bureau here, paying from $8 to $10 a month during seeding and increasing as the season advances. In the majority of cases the farmers want the men for the entire season and will sign contracts for that period.
Promises of $15 a month to the men in Shilo camp will probably cause a real shortage of farm labour this spring. The single men have shown no inclination to leave the camp, and with higher pay than they are being offered for farm work will probably stay at Shilo until such time as the new camp program is completed.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Will my hon. friend permit me to say a word on that point? Apart from the single homeless men in the relief camps, as he is perhaps aware, in Winnipeg, in Regina, in Edmonton and in Vancouver there are several thousands of single, homeless men who should be available for farm work if it is offered. That is to say, it is perhaps not quite fair to suggest that the farmers of western Canada are wholly dependent upon men in relief camps for agricultural assistance at this time.


Harry Leader: It is perfectly true that there are lots of men still unemployed in our cities. But the fact that we have 20,000 in relief camps has a bearing upon the scarcity of farm labour; there is no doubt about that, and I do not think that, as long as they can get S15 a month and their tobacco, their clothes and their food, they will worry very much whether they go out on the land or not.

I mentioned in a previous debate that it costs $39 per month to keep each of these men in a relief camp. When you add the extra ten dollars which the government is granting, you have a cost of practically $50 a month to keep these men. I have stated before that these men could be placed out among the farmers at ten dollars to the man and ten dollars to the farmer, making $20 a month, which would more than cut the cost in half. I have practical experience in connection with conditions in western Canada, and I am inclined to think conditions all over the dominion are much the same. In any event I will read this letter, which I received from the province of Quebec:
Dear Mr. Leader,-
I have just read in the Hansard of 17th February, 1936, your very interesting speech on the solution of the unemployment problem.
Sir, I sincerely compliment you, here is a solution that is practical and full of promises on all sides.
$10 for the worker and $10 for the farmer to help defray the cost of workmen's board. Here is an ideal solution which will be interesting to everyone.
With these conditions, I am sure I can place at least 1,000 men in my community.
Perhaps I have said enough, and more than I intended, on this point. And now I should like to refer briefly to the reestablishment of agriculture, the rehabilitation of agriculture, as it is sometimes termed. I am glad that this bill provides a way whereby we can invite people to get back to the land which they have had to leave. We have had various land schemes in this country. I am not going to mention any of them to-night. They have operated with varying success; some are making good. In my opinion the greatest drawback with regard to these land schemes is that there is nothing permanent about the proposition. Those who participate are not placed in a position which will enable them to get title to the land, thereby giving them a sense of security and an incentive to build up a home, rear their families and remain independent, perhaps to the extent of not making them desirous of old age pensions when they reach the age of seventy. What we need in Canada are happy homes where people are contented and willing to use their best efforts to make a living. During the election I had the privilege of speaking over the radio. I dealt with what I called the back to the land movement. I believe that we must make farm life more attractive if we are going to get people to stay on the land. Allow me to read an extract from this speech, which was delivered at that time:
We all know, and no one better than those who are engaged in farm work, that farm life is not so attractive as city life. Farm homes

Employment Commission-Mr. Leader
generally lack the modern convenience found so universally in the city. Although Canada has an abundance of electrical energy to meet the requirements of all its citizens, our governments have not yet been able to place this power within the reach of the farmer's pocketbook. This is one reason why our young farmers, both boys and girls, prefer a doubtful existence in the city to the more permanent though humdrum life on the farm. These young people should be retained on the land otherwise they will displace workers in the city. So it seems to me that our primary task should be to make rural habitation more attractive and less burdensome. This could be done in a large measure if our governing bodies would undertake to supply farmers with electrical energy and not limit the benefits of this modern labour-saving device to those residing in our towns and cities. Why should not farm women have the same opportunities as their sisters in the city and simply by the pressing of an electric button be relieved of much of the drudgery of housekeeping. I maintain that the invonceniences that we find so often in our farm homes have resulted in many rural families moving off the land and into the cities where they hope to enjoy life more abundantly.
During the election campaign the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) mentioned, though I think quite briefly, in one of his radio addresses the possibility of developing our electric power so that it would be able to take care of the needs of the rural districts. I thought this was a splendid feature of his address, and I hope that the time will come when the government of Manitoba, in common with the governments of the other provinces, will undertake this great work for our rural people.
I want briefly to allude to two conditions that exist in western Canada. We have in this country, and more particularly in the prairie provinces, thousands of ex-farmers and farm labourers in our towns and cities at the present time unemployed. Most of these men with their families are on relief. Many of these farmers, through no fault of their own were forced by circumstances to leave their farm homes. Others, perhaps, have failed on account of extravagant tastes that the farming business will not sustain, but whatever was the cause of their removal from the land most of these people would welcome the opportunity once again to take up their occupations as independent farmers. This I know from personal contact and observation.
Then we have in Canada and more particularly in the western provinces a large number of resident farmers who are cultivating too much land and who would be willing to part with some of their holdings even at the present low price of good farm lands. There are many farmers with a section of land or more that contain two or three sets of good buildings which are at present unoccupied. Speaking from experience again, I want to say that if you come out to my place I can take you to at least six farm homes, within a radius of two miles from where I live, that are vacant. Farmers own them; the lands are cultivated; they are working them, but they would be glad to sell those lands even at their present value. There, I think, is where the government could undertake to purchase such farm properties and get many of our farmers back on the land. Would it not be good business to reestablish farmers on the land containing these farm buildings, buying the land from the owner who by the sale might be relieved of a mortgage that at the present time covers the whole of his farmstead. This method of adjustment should meet with the approval of the mortgage companies who sometimes fail to grant the mortgagor any equity in his land. Any plan that would rehabilitate agriculture is in the nation's interest and should be cultivated by those who have the mandate to govern. And so we have thousands of these farmers looking for land and thousands of farms on which to place them. All we lack is a definite plan to take care of the situation, and it seems to me that this employment commission now being inaugurated by the government will be in a position to take care of the situation I have described. I notice that in eastern Canada people are thinking along the lines I have just indicated. I have a clipping from one of the Ottawa newspapers, I think it is the Ottawa Citizen, as follows:
Encourage men of experience to go back to the land
Welfare board in favour of farms radiating
from modern village for large settlement movements
This is an expression from eastern Canada:
Every encouragement should be given unemployed with previous experience in farming to return to the land with their families, the public welfare board decided yesterday when the whole problem of land settlement was discussed. It was thought, however, that the farming experience should not be too long past.
The community plan was favoured if the movement was a large one. The farm lands should radiate from a central village with modern conveniences and recreational facilities.
Such a movement, it was said, would be far too costly for any municipality to foster. Where individual families applied to go back on the land, however, it was felt that every encouragement should be given, if on examination of previous experience and work record, there was a good prospect of success.
At this point I want to emphasize that I would not encourage anyone to go on the land who was without practical experience and the will to make good. I want to read a letter I received from one of my constituents
1606	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. Leader
of Portage la Prairie. This man has moved from what is often referred to as the dried-out area; he is one of the best farmers we ever had in Manitoba, one of the old pioneers who, after several years without crops, found it necessary to pull out and move to the fertile plains of Portage la Prairie. He says:
I was in Winnipeg yesterday to see Mr. Martison at the federal farm loan office to see if I could get a loan to buy a farm. .. .but they told me there w-as nothing in the act allowing them to loan money to buy a farm with, and there was nothing they could do for me. So thought it best to write you a letter stating my case that might be of help to you in your work at Ottawa.
As things are I just cannot carry on much longer without a farm on which to keep my stock. I have been a resident of Manitoba for the past forty-four years. Forty years of that time was spent near Hartney-
I should like hon. members to listen to the tragedy that is depicted in this letter:
-that has been so hard hit by the drought the past seven years.
At one time when along with my brothers *we were the wheat kings of Manitoba having produced and sold 37.000 bushels of wheat in one year and in 6ve years we grew and sold
125,000	bushels of wheat. I w-as also interested in the raising of pure bred Clydesdale horses at one time owning the first prize team of pure breds at the Brandon winter fair. With the advent of tractors the price dropped out of horses and I turned my attention toward dairy cattle.
In 1930 owing to drought I was unable to pay taxes and interest, and 1931 being no better and notifying the company of my condition two months ahead, I received a reply to provide the money in one week or foreclosure proceedings would be started, and although I was owing less than one-quarter of what the place cost me I had to let it go, saving only my farm equipment and my herd of fourteen head of pure bred Jerseys. Renting a farm for three years at Portage when the farm was sold and now with forty head of pure bred cattle I cannot rent a farm that is close enought to market and having no money to buy a farm with I cannot carry on much longer.
I ask the hon. members to listen to this:
I must either get some assistance to get on a farm again or else dispose of one of the best pure bred herd in the west. I do not want a gift; all I want is to get on a farm at its value and given a chance to pay for it.
These are the people for whom we should see that land is provided, whom we should assist in making a fresh start in life. I want to say that this gentleman has four grown sons. Every one of them is staying at home helping to look after these cows in order to provide a home and a living for the family. These are the class of men who should be retained on the land.
Now I come back to the youth movement I mentioned a few moments ago. I say that

the first men we should try to take care of are the farmers' sons. There are no men in a better position to carry on the work of agriculture than are the boys who have grown up on the farms. We have thousands of farmers' sons in western Canada who have left the old farmsteads, not because there was not land available; probably their fathers had plenty of land, but they did not have the financial resources with which to establish the boys in homes of their own, so they drifted off into the cities. I say that our very first concern should be to maintain these farmers' sons on the land, because they will make the best farmers and the best citizens it would be possible to get. Thousands of these men have left the farms and gone to the cities, where they have displaced industrial workers. The very first man to secure a job in the cities is the farm lad. He is a man who will make good anywhere if he is given half a chance, but when he displaces a worker in the city he creates that much more unemployment. They do not want to go to the cities, I am satisfied of that; they would rather stay at home with their fathers, on farms of their own just across the road. They would rather marry their neighbours' daughters, settle down and establish homes on the land.
Then there is another class I should like to see looked after; I refer to the returned men. It has been said in this house that many of our returned men did not make good on the land because they were placed on land on which no one could make a living, and I believe that is true. According to the law at the present time if a returned man does not make good and owes the soldier settlement board money he is precluded from taking up any other land under the board by reason of being in debt. I say that this should be carefully investigated, and if a returned man is found who was not given a fair chance to make good he should be granted the privilege of starting over again on a better farm.
I should also like to look after the many farmers who left the land and went to the cities. It does not matter why they left, whether they were evicted or whether they were extravagant; at the present time many of these men are desirous of getting back home again. They want to get on the farm and have a chance to make a living. That is another class I would look after.
Then I know from personal experience that we have many so-called hired men in this country who have lived on farms for years and years, working for our very best farmers. These men are quite capable of taking hold of farms of their own and making good. Thousands of these men are in towns and cities,

Employment Commission-Mr. Spence
some of them on relief, and if given a chance most of them would make good as farmers.
This scheme which I have outlined could be undertaken by this employment commission. It would have to be a joint undertaking on the part of the dominion government and the provincial governments, who of course would work through the municipalities. This is m line with the Prime Minister's declaration prior to the election, when he said, "This is too big a job for any one man. I ask for the cooperation of everyone in Canada to help better the conditions of this land." I say that this is right in line with that declaration, and I believe it is the proper procedure. We would not need any expensive machinery to take care of the plan such as I have outlined. We have the farm loan board with their appraisers, who could do this work for the same salary they are getting at the present time. I believe that it is the duty of the dominion government to lend this money at the cheapest possible rates of interest, the current rate being very low. They could lend it to the provinces, which would develop a plan working through the municipalities. This land could be listed with the municipalities and those looking for land could make application to those bodies. So I say, that there is no need for elaborate machinery for we already have machinery enough; all we want and ask for is the will to carry on the work.
Now, this money will have to be paid back; at least we think it should be paid back. Contrast the scheme of buying land at present values and getting these men back on the land with the schemes that have been in operation the last five years, of erecting great federal buildings at a cost of millions of dollars, every dollar of which was borrowed and on which we must pay interest in perpetuity. Contrast that with getting men on the land, getting title to the land and selling it to them at present values and giving them a chance to rehabilitate themselves. I say that it is not an expenditure which will never be realized on; the chances are that every dollar invested will be returned. There is where I say that we have to get down to hard pan. You have to get your feet on the ground- and consider what is in the best interests of this country.
Perhaps I am taking too much time. I will close with a few words in regard to my own district. The Portage district has been re

ferred to as the "fertile Portage plains"; it is one of the best, if not the best agricultural district in western Canada. Any hon. members who have visited that district will bear me out in that statement. But at present we are right up against it. In the midst of that
wonderful district is situated the city of Portage la Prairie with a population of 6,600, entirely dependent upon the prosperity of the surrounding district, and no one realizes this better than do the residents of that city. Let me give an illustration. In 1934 we had a wonderful crop on the Portage plains. We grow a lot of barley there, and the price was perhaps the best we ever received, seventy-five to eighty-five cents a bushel. The citizens of Portage la Prairie never had a better year. They got some of their old debts of five or six years standing, or even debts that were outlawed, paid off; it could be seen in the newspapers all over Canada that they had renewed prosperity. But last year it was a different story. Owing to the rust the crops were burnt in the fields and to-day Portage la Prairie is as flat as any city in Canada, notwithstanding that it is situated in one of our most fertile districts. In February we had the largest number of people on relief we ever had since the depression set in, 1,024 people, or one in six of the population, and the relief charges in February were 87,361.52.
These conditions must be remedied. This afternoon the Minister of Labour told us that the primary industries are the foundation upon which the secondary industries must be built. Our primary industry is agriculture and that is the foundation of the prosperity of Canada. Your superstructure will never last unless the foundation is solid. So what we must do at the earliest possible moment is to rehabilitate agriculture.


Mr. DAVID SPENCE (Parkdale):: I
listened with a great deal of interest this afternoon to what was said by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). I heard a lot of statistics and a lot of figures of one kind and another, but I must confess I pay very little attention to statistics. I know how statistics are gathered in our business, and I assume it is the same in nearly every walk of life. I did intend to make a speech, but since the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) made such an eloquent address I feel diffident about making even a few observations. I enjoyed listening to the last speaker (Mr. Leader), and I intend to take only a few minutes, because I have been brought up in a different college from most of my colleagues here, in the college of hard knocks, where I suffered considerably sometimes, together with many of my colleagues, because of the interference and discouragement that the business world and the investing public meet with in trying to build up business or industry.
I am not unmindful of the seriousness of the unemployment situation, and I would not like to say anything that would do any
1608	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. Spence
harm at the present time. But I maintain that the time has come for action. We cannot lose any more time in dreaming about how to attack this situation. I d'o not see how an employment commission, which will probably spend & year investigating, will solve the problem. No doubt the commission would be getting information from the provinces and the municipalities in regard to numbers of unemployed and so forth; that would be the only way they would get it, and I think the minister himself would be even better able than a commission of that kind to gather such information. He could get some superman, who could be assisted by someone in the labour department or the Department of Immigration where there are plenty of men with the necessary experience to help him, and in this way success could be achieved more rapidly than Iby appointing a commission. I have not and never had any faith in commissions. I have opposed them ever since I came to this house in 1921. I contend that the normal machinery of government should be adequate to handle the situation. Some real superman no doubt could be got if the minister does not feel disposed to handle the matter himself, but I doubt very much whether the commission would bring things about very quickly.
One observation I want to make, which is the general opinion of the business world, is that if governments would stop interfering with tariffs, tinkering continually with them and with business, confidence would be restored in this country in much quicker time. There are thousands of people to-day who have a great deal of money to invest; we all know that bank interest is low, as well as the interest on government bonds in which many people placed their savings for many years past, because they were getting nice interest. These people to-day are willing to put their money into any kind of investment, and will take a gamble if they are assured of stability. But the trouble is that there is no stability to-day on account of government interference. To-day everybody who has money to invest is under suspended sentence. They are afraid to put money into anything. The point I want to make is that if the government will keep from continually interfering with the business world this country will be restored to normalcy much faster than by some dreamy idea suggested in this house by hon. members on all sides.
We must not kill the initiative in the individual. The chap with initiative is the man who, after all, builds up the country. Few men have initiative, but those who have

should be encouraged rather than discouraged. Starting another commission means starting another big spending department at a time when economy should be considered, a commission which will waste on investigations money which probably could be used for better purposes. This is not a time for wasting money. Although I am not criticizing the civil service commission of to-day I must say that hon. members will recall it began as one man and a stenographer, developing into two men and two or three stenographers, and four men and still more stenographers, until at present it fills two floors of the Hunter building and the expenses in connection with running the commission are enormous. If a commission is appointed in the present instance it will grow and grow and grow until there will be no end to it, and the expense in connection with carrying on its operations will be very heavy.
Then, we have a radio commission, another body which has grown extensively, and I say that any commission set up will develop in the same way. Hon. members elected to this House of Commons, especially those on the government side, should accept the responsibility of running the country. Hiding behind commissions and shirking your responsibility is no game to play. When the Liberal government took office in 1921 it began to appoint commissions and committees, and from that time on, commissions have been running affairs. I, as a member elected by the people of my constituency, am willing to come here and accept my share of responsibility, even if I make mistakes. It is said that a man who does not make some mistakes does nothing, and I agree with the statement. I would rather have the government make mistakes in running the country than appoint commissions to run everything, because by such appointments the government shirks its responsibility. If the commissions appointed make recommendations which prove valuable the government takes the credit, and if the commissions are unsuccessful they are criticized, not the government. That is why they are appointed.
In the event of a commission being appointed in the present instance, who would be appointed? No doubt the government would appoint three or four good Liberal supporters; possibly they would include two or three professors from different high class colleges, men who are so full of education that they know nothing about business ethics. By such appointments we would get no further, in the end. My advice would be to let the minister do the work or, if he does

Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett
not care to do it himself, let him get some superman who could do it. I believe one man, assisted by the best help in the Departments of Labour and Immigration and Colonization, would do a better job than a commission would. I hope the idea of appointing a national commission will be dropped, so that we may have immediate action. Conditions are getting so serious, as the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) has said, that something must be done immediately. There is no need to wait another year; immediate action is needed.
Mr. A. MaeG. YOUNG (Saskatoon):	Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the minister upon the very able, and excellent presentation he made to the house this afternoon. Everyone recognizes that unemployment is one of the most serious problems in Canada to-day. I could speak for a long time to-night, but it is not my intention to say anything further. Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD



EQUALIZATION OF PAYMENTS WITH RESPECT TO 1930 WHEAT CROP

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 27, consideration of the motion of Hon. Mr. Gardiner for the second reading of Bill No. 22, to provide for the payment of certain sums of money to primary producers of wheat with respect to wheat of the 1930 crop delivered to provincial pool organizations.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I greatly regret that I have only now received papers which I desired at least to read before proceeding with my observations, but I shall endeavour to proceed as well as I can, under the circumstances, recognizing of course that the government has a majority to force the matter on in the way in which it has. I had thought this afternoon, of course, that they were going to conclude the debate. I asked for orders in council, because of a recital contained in the bill. I was informed this morning, when I telephoned, that there was no order in council but that there was an exchange of letters. I said that I would like to see them, but I am indebted to the chief whip of the Liberal party for within the last fifteen minutes giving me what I am told are the documents. But one of them is lacking; one of the documents referred to, of the few I did receive, is lacking; I refer to a telegram sent to Mr. Brouillette, who is president of the producers corporation.
I am very glad that the first minister is in his place, because I desire to make a few observations, which I hope will not be misunderstood, with respect to the second reading of the bill. We are told by the authorities that the second reading of a bill is the occasion on which the House of Commons debates the principle of the measure under consideration. The principle of the measure submitted to the consideration of the house is whether or not the Dominion of Canada shall take out of its consolidated revenue fund several millions of dollars for disbursement to members of pool organizations in western Canada. That is the principle. This could have been done by a short entry in the supplementary estimates, just as payments are being made to the harbour commissioners at Three Rivers, Halifax and Quebec. But the government desired to deal with it as a separate bill, and having dealt with it as a separate bill the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who has the measure in charge, spent some considerable time in reviewing the whole wheat situation of Canada from 1929-30 to to-day. While I think such a discussion is outside the principle involved in the second reading of the bill in question, the chair did not suggest that he should discontinue his observations, and I did not make any objection because I did not desire to be constantly raising questions of order.
I am in a real difficulty because twice in this house during the last few years I have at some length dealt with the whole problem as it presented itself to the Canadian people in 1930 and succeeding years. Last year I went to a great deal of trouble to get together vefy complete information with respect to the whole wheat situation as it affected Canada. Large numbers of figures were used; necessarily in transcribing them errors were made, and figures which had reference to one matter were put down as dealing with another. That is the position in unrevised Hansard from which the Minister of Agriculture read the other day. He stated, of course, that he was reading from unrevised Hansard. Had he taken the trouble to read from revised Hansard I think he would have had no trouble, or at least no difficulty in ascertaining that the figures to which I referred were figures which were absolutely correct. But one cannot always be certain that when using figures with great rapidity they will be correctly taken down, and in the hurry of not delaying the issue of Hansard sometimes they are misplaced.
I do not propose to deal at length with the whole wheat situation; I made up my
Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett

mind that I would not do so. But I am going to endeavour to deal with one or two matters, without taking up too much time. First of all I must point out that, as I have said, these matters were dealt with last year. I believe the revised Hansard of last year will contain sufficient for the purposes of my brief argument. The great care taken last year in dealing with this question was reflected by the mass of statistics placed upon Hansard. I think a perusal of these by any hon. gentleman who desires to be informed of the whole situation will satisfy him that although there may be the gravest differences between the then government and the present government as to how the problem should have been dealt with, there is no doubt as to what was done.
Wheat Production and Value
Years-
1920..
1921..
1922..
1923..
1924..
1925..
1926..
1927..
1928..
1929..
1930..
1931..
1932..
1933..
1934..
Production
(bushels)
226.508.000
300.858.000
399.785.000
474.199.000
262.097.000
395.475.000
407.136.000
479.665.000
566.726.000
304.520.000
420.672.000
321.325.000
443.061.000
281.892.000
275.849.000
The value of that crop, as indicated by the figures accumulated in the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, is as follows, beginning with 1920:
May I point out that when the late government went out of office it left behind a carryover on July 31 of something over 127,000,000 bushels of wheat. That had accumulated by reason of the fact that the carry-over in the preceding year had been 126,000,000 bushels. If the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) will look at the speech from the throne and find his own references as to the wheat being still in the country, he will understand exactly what I mean. That was the largest carryover that we have ever had in this country. Those who are interested will find the whole matter dealt with in Hansard of 1935 at page 3563 and following pages. During the course of the debate that occurred at that time the carry-over was given in detail. For the purpose of shortening what I desire to place upon Hansard at this time, perhaps I could not do better than read from Hansard *of last year. On page 3563 of Hansard of June 12, 1935, I said:
I repeat that there devolves upon this country a responsibility as the greatest wheat exporting nation in the world not only to discharge its duty to its own citizens but so to measure its international responsibilities with other nations of the world which are wheat producers that we may be regarded as giving them assistance in their endeavours- to do what? To raise the price of commodities and thus bring about some measure of rehabilitation and recovery in the world. This is w'hat 1 submit to this house. I should like to give the house the number of acres which have been sown to wheat in Canada since 1920.
Then follows a table giving the number of acres sown from 1920 to 1935. I continue:
I next desire to place on Hansard the record of the production, in bushels, of wheat in this country, which includes not only the west but also the east, since 1920:

Years-	Value
1920		
1921		
1922		
1923			 316,994,700
1924		
1925			 487,736,200
1926			 442,221,000
1927		
1928		
1929			 319,715.000
1930			 204,693,000
1931			 123.550,000
1932			 154.760,000
1933		
1934		
I then gave the exports of wheat and wheat flour for the crop years 1919-20 to 1934-35. Then come the carry-overs for the different years from 1920, which were as follows:
Years-
1920..
1921..
1922..
1923..
1924..
1925..
1926..
1927..
1928..
1929..
1930..
1931..
1932..
1933..
1934..
Bushels
9,847,591
14,026,125
21,020,756
12,233,319
44,076,620
28,481,919
38,481,936
52,676.433
91,230.851
126,988.619
127,160,154
140.877,275
137,733,061
219,428,398
203,944,533
It will be seen that there has been a steady increase in the carry-over of wheat in this country from 1928-29 to date. That accumulated until at the end of July last year it was upwards of 200,000,000 bushels. Circumstances under which that carry-over accumulated and the increases occurred were stated very clearly last year and in very great detail. The causes that led to the increased accumulation may be said to be twofold:

Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett
First, the increase in the acreage in this country, and, second, the production of grain in large quantities by countries that had heretofore been largely importing or purely consuming countries.
The reason for the second factor is the fact that after the war the nations of the world that had to buy wheat made up their minds, first, that they would not be held to ransom because of their necessities and, second, that they dare not and could not face the possibilities of starvation incident to the destruction of wheat cargoes on the high seas. Therefore, we have in all European countries an increase in the acreage sown to wheat. I shall not pause to give them to-night because I gave them last year in very great detail, but this increase in acreage is reflected in the fact that France, Spain and Portugal are exporting wheat to the markets of the world. I recall the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) saying that he was greatly surprised that countries like Portugal and Spain should be exporters of wheat. I pointed out last year that Germany and France had at one time been great purchasers of wheat, but in one year they had produced more wheat than we had sold to them during recent years. I shall not again repeat the reasons except to say that I trust the house realizes that nations fearing war with its disturbed conditions were determined that they should not be dependent upon overseas supplies for the purpose of preventing their people from dying of starvation. Morocco, Algeria and northern Africa have made their contributions and every little corner of France and Germany has been cultivated. The Pontine marshes have been drained and Italy to-day is producing wheat in quantities never known before. These are facts that can be known to anyone who desires to investigate the figures available at the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, and the reports by the bureau of agriculture at Rome.
Then there was another factor that came into the picture, and that was Russia. In one year since 1930 Russia produced the enormous quantity of one billion bushels of wheat, a thousand million bushels. The production during some years in the intervening period has been lessened, and Russia at times has not been a factor in the world's market. But in that year Russia exported substantial quantities of wheat, and it is well known that in 1930 exports of wheat by Russia did much to demoralize the price of wheat in the buying markets of the world.
The other day reference was made to the production and consumption of wheat, and I 12739-103
pointed out the figures that will be found at page 3571 of revised Hansard, but which in the unrevised edition of Hansard are open to an entirely erroneous construction. I quote:
Mr. Bennett: The hon. member will see as I proceed. The average production of Europe (ex Russia) for the period 1923-24 to 1927-28 was 1,240,000,000 bushels. The average importations by importing countries for the same period were 601,000.000 bushels. The average consumption by European countries was 1.841.000,000 bushels. It will be observed that you have an average consumption during that period of 1,841.000.000 bushels. It has been stated that there has been a diminution in consumption but I give these figures to show that such is not the case. For the period 1929-30 to 1933-34-these are the crop years ending July 31-the average production of Europe (ex Russia) was 1,496,000,000 bushels. The average imports by importing countries for the same period had fallen from 601,000,000 bushels to 469,000,000 bushels while the average consumption had risen to 1,965,000,000 from
1.841.000.	000 bushels. I come now to the last crop year, 1933-34. The European production for that year was 1,749.000.000 bushels while for this year the imports had fallen to
374.000.	000 bushels. I ask the house to note that the average imports for 1923-24 to 1927-28 were 601.000.000 bushels and these had fallen to 469.000,000 bushels for the period 1929-30 to 1933-34. there being a further decrease to
374.000.	000 bushels for the last crop year. In this last year the total consumption had risen to the largest figure in history, 2,123,000,000 bushels.
I stated then, as I state now, that there was an erroneous opinion abroad and in many sections of our country as well, that the people were consuming less wheat. The figures issued from Rome, and the figures issued as well by the wheat committee to which I shall presently refer, indicate that that was not the case and that consumption rose to the highest figure we have record of in history, namely,
2.123.000.	000 bushels by the countries to which I referred last year. Therefore it is not a question of underconsumption of wheat that produced the situation; it was the fact that there was a surplus of wheat relatively in the countries that had theretofore and heretofore been purely importing countries. In other words, they were supplying their own wants and having available substantial quantities to supply the wants of other parts of the world. I mention that because it was quite apparent from the observations made by the hon. gentleman that he desired to leave what I at least conceive to be an impression that was not in accordance with these facts. It may have been that it was because he was reading from unrevised Hansard, as he said he was, rather than from the figures contained in revised Hansard, which were in fact the figures I used in the house on the day on

Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett

which I brought this matter to the attention of the chamber. Thus we have, Mr. Speaker -and we might as well face it frankly-an overproduction which cannot be sold to the countries which in years gone by availed themselves of the opportunity to purchase the surplus of our production; in other words, while consumption has increased production has increased in consuming countries, so that they are able to take care of their own requirements to an extent that has never been the case before. Under these circumstances the abnormal carry-over of 1929, with the increased carry-over of 1930, created a situation that demanded action on the part of those charged with responsibility in connection with the government of the country.
Primarily the matter was one to be dealt with by the provinces inasmuch as their relation to the pools, to which reference was made on Friday last, was one of guarantors. In 1930 Mr. McFarland, about whom much has been said, went to England with the government delegation in connection with the meeting of the imperial conference. He went for the purpose of seeing what might be done to improve the situation with respect to our sales of wheat. He went to Liverpool and found cargoes of Russian wheat being offered for sale at a price that was less than would pay our growers to produce the article, to say nothing of transport to the sea and from the sea to Liverpool. That being so, the question arose as to what could be done to expand export of our wheat. From the information which we received it would appear that most of the nations of the world which had theretofore been consuming countries were now content to bonus the production of food to supply their own requirements, as I indicated a few moments ago; and even England at that time was contemplating entering upon a plan, which it has since adopted, of providing for bonuses for the production of wheat on a substantial scale.
The minister referred the other day to the fact that that year when Mr. McFarland came home he became the manager of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited. I should like to point out to the house the fact-it has been repeated so often that in my judgment it does not require restatement-that Mr. McFarland did not make known to me that he was becoming general manager of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, until h,e bad accepted! office. And I did not know he had done so until I returned to Canada; he had preceded: me.

He was employed by the directors of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, in November, 1930. The banks were anxious that the situation should be dealt with and, as I was subsequently informed1, the action of the banks, especially of the late Mr. Mc-Phail, resulted in Mr. McFarland's appointment and acceptance of office. He accepted office without reference to the government, without asking the government whether he should do so or not. Then they became aware of the fact that he had done so. Up to that point Mr. McFarland was the servant of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, which institution he served, as was pointed out, without reward.
When the next year came the situation was, as the minister has said, more difficult. In 1931 you had to deal not only with the accumulated surplus of the past but with the crop of that year, and naturally there was great anxiety on the part not only of those responsible for the marketing of the wheat, namely, the producers themselves, but of the managers of the various organizations, whether pool elevator companies or private enterprises. The premiers of the prairie provinces came to Ottawa and submitted their case for the creation of a wheat board and the fixing of a price for that season's crop. The government took the matter under careful consideration, and on July 10, 1931, the following letter was written by the then Prime Minister to each of the premiers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The letter addressed to Premier Brownlee read as follows:
My Dear Premier Brownlee,-
The cabinet has carefully considered the proposals made by the three western provinces to the effect that a wheat board should be established by the federal government for the purpose of handling the crop of 1931.
The government is of the opinion that under existing conditions the legal and other difficulties are such that no good purpose would be served by an endeavour being made by the government of Canada to enter into the business of marketing the grain crop of the year.
The governments of the three central provinces control a very large number of elevators, and those facilities will be available for the handling of this year's crop.
We suggest that representatives of the three provinces should meet together and undertake the formation of an ordinary trading corporation and that the elevotor facilities, over which the provincial governments have control, direct and indirect, should be leased to the corporation so formed for this season at least.	_
We further suggest that it is desirable, in view of the fact that the marketing of the wheat now owned by the pools in the three western provinces is under the direction of Mr. MARCH 30, 1936
Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett
John I. McFarland, that he should be the general manager of the new corporation. If this arrangement is satisfactory, the federal government will undertake to make the necessary financial arrangements to ensure the proper functioning of the corporation.
Yours faithfully,
(signed) R. B. Bennett.
It will be observed that in July, 1931, the marketing of the wheat then owned by the pools being under the direction of Mr. McFarland, it was suggested that if a corporation was formed he should be the new general manager. After much consideration that was regarded as being inadvisable, and shortly afterwards an arrangement was made by which the pools undertook to function as ordinary commercial enterprises, receiving grain and selling it if possible under the provisions of the guarantee which was given to them by the government and which was read in the house on Friday last.
The minister referred to the fact that there was a cut off. There was no cut off except in the sense in which it was clear that the business that was being carried on from that time, that is for the season of 1931, was being carried on on a different basis from what it had been before. For I shall presently refer to what took place in the committee that investigated these matters last year in the House of Commons, in order to make that point so certain that there can be no doubt as to the facts.
The crop of 1931 was harvested and marketed, and there was at that time in the hands of the cooperative producers something over 76,000.000 bushels of wheat, which was wheat that had been acquired by the pools, operating in the manner that has been described, as ordinary commercial enterprises, and with voluntary pooling if thought desirable-and many of them did so think-for the purpose of the cooperative effort still being maintained and continued. The net result of this was that stocks accumulated. Why? Because there was not an adequate market for our wheat. Now, there, differences of opinion will arise. Some will say that if we had endeavoured to force this wheat upon the market it would have been absorbed by the consuming countries. The evidence upon that point satisfies me, at least, that such would not have been the case. There is room for differences of opinion. But at any rate that is the fact; that there did accumulate in this country increasing quantities of wheat by reason of the surplus of 127,000,000 bushels as of July 31, 1930, being increased by the deficiencies in sales of the succeeding years' crops because, we say, not of lack of con-12739- 1034
sumptive power on the part of the countries that had hitherto purchased but because they did not desire, for the reason I have already given, to purchase wheat when they were supplying themselves with their own requirements.
It is quite true-and there need be no question about it-that during this time Mr. McFarland, while in the service of the crown, having been employed by Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, was empowered by the crown in the right of the dominion to stabilize so far as possible the wheat market. The reasons given for that have been ample and complete. There was no one to buy hedges. When the farmer hauled his wheat into the market place, whether it was at the elevator or at the siding for shipment over a platform, some one had to provide hedges, and unless the elevator companies, who are the primary purchasers, were able to secure hedges there could be no sale. For it is unnecessary, at least for me, to point out to the house that the amounts involved are so large that the capital of the elevator companies would not permit them with their own money to pay the purchase price for the wheat, but they must rely upon loans made from the banks, secured under the provisions of section 88 of the Bank Act, and the banks require that those who thus buy wheat and borrow money from them shall secure the banks against loss by a hedge. There was no one left but the government to take the hedges. And I desire here to point out that the government did not set up a new organization to deal with the hedging of wheat, but secured the consent of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, to deal with the matter of hedging supported by the guarantee of the government of Canada. There are no differences of opinion as to that. I do not know of any one, however bitter may be his partisanship, who has suggested any method by which the crops could be marketed unless some one was prepared to take the hedges. And I have neither seen nor heard any one suggest, in this house or out of it, that there was any one on the Winnipeg grain exchange to take the hedges. Some hon. members heard the evidence given last year and the excuses that were made as to why there was no one to take the hedges. But let us forget excuses; let us look at the facts. There was no one but the government of Canada, operating as I said through a guarantee given to the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, managed by Mr. McFarland, to take the hedges. Has any one sug-
Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett

it, said that they did not see anything that could have been done under the circumstances other than what was done, because otherwise it meant complete and absolute ruin, chaos on a scale never before heard of. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Crerar), who is familiar with the operations that took place on the market in those days, must realize that if someone had not supported that market there would have been absolute and complete ruin, and the only "someone" to support that market was Mr. McFarland. We may argue as long as we have breath in our bodies; there will always be differences, acute differences of opinion, but the fact remains that unless someone had taken the speculative wheat thrown on the market in those days in July, an intolerable position in this country would have resulted. When it is said that he bought back the wheat which he sold, that is not a wholly erroneous statement. When it is said that he bought it back for less than he paid for it, that is the fact, but what was he to do if he was endeavouring to stabilize the position? That is Mr. McFarland's statement, and I leave it at that.
As regards the efforts to hold the market so that a bottom was maintained to prices, the statement that Mr. McFarland had increased the purchasing power of the farmers to the extent of $150,000,000 is merely an expression in concrete terms of the net result of stabilizing the price in the country at that time. It is said that it brought about sales resistance. Well, there are those of us who remember the editorials of the Winnipeg Free Press, when our bins were bursting with wheat and Argentine wheat was selling at a very low price, counselling us to hold our wheat because it must be required. That was counsel that was given by men who at least pretended to have wide knowledge and ripe experience in dealing with problems of this kind. Mr. McFarland believed that ultimately our Wheat would find for itself a place in the markets of the world. When that would be he could not say, but acting on the belief to which I have referred he took the action I have indicated.
What followed I am not going to traverse at all; it was dealt with last year by the committee; it will be dealt with again by a committee that has 'been set up to deal with the question of prices at Which wheat was sold and bought. I only remind the house of the fact that Colonel Ralston in this house placed upon Hansard a very complete review of the situation as he saw it, of what had been done in connection with the prices and the average

cost of the wheat and what it would be necessary for it to sell at in order that there might not be a loss. I will not take time to refer to that beyond saying that it was apparent that the wheat pools bought wheat in 1930 and made initial payments, as the minister has stated, of fifty cents a bushel in some cases, fifty-five cents a bushel in some cases and seventy cents in some cases. When prices rose they were constantly pressing that there should be recognition of the fact that their wheat was being held off the market.
In part of his speech the minister referred to the initial payment as the " set price " of seventy cents a bushel. Later on he made it clear that what was meant by " set price " was the initial payment made by the pools for wheat delivered to them. Starting out at seventy cents it fell to as low as fifty cents and even less than that in order that the margin of safety might be maintained. I will not traverse the reading of the reports of the Saskatchewan pools or others; I content myself with following up what I have already said as to what took place when last year it was desired that a wheat board should be set up to deal with the situation. I stated in this house that it was quite apparent that there was a general agreement that something had to be done. Even the most violently prejudiced witness from the grain exchange admitted that something had to be done, but the burden of their song was: Give us another chance; we feel quite certain that with another chance we shall be able to take care of hedges; they will not be left entirely to the government agency to deal with. However, as a result of the deliberations of the committee, the Canadian Wheat Board Act was finally passed by this house unanimously. The minister claimed in the speeches he made in 1930, to which I shall refer if I have time, that really it was a Liberal measure; that in its entirety it represented the views of the Liberal party. Well, what transpired with respect to it is very simple. A bill was introduced1 in the house providing for a compulsory pool, which would have had the effect of closing the grain exchange and putting the disposal of the crop in the hands of the board. Evidence was given, as I explained, at considerable length in the House of Commons committee by various witnesses who said that they thought they should 'have another chance. A witness from Vancouver said that they had built up through all these years a magnificent organization that should not be lightly scrapped; a witness from Winnipeg made a similar observation. In the end we compromised. We provided for a board, and provided that ordinary channels

Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett
that had been established for the marketing of grain should still be utilized for that purpose, but that a fixed price should be paid by the board, and if the farmers desired to sell to the private purchasers rather than to the board they could do so without difficulty. On that basis the act was passed unanimously.
I explained in the house at some length how we arrived at our conclusions. I need not trespass upon the time of the house to review that to-night ; if it becomes necessary to do so, it can be done later. But what happened was that the bill was reported back to the house, and, as I say, practically unanimously adopted, the only difference of opinion between the Liberal minority and the government majority finally being as to whether the act should continue in force until repealed or whether it should effect its own repeal by effluxion of time, and upon that point we took the view that it should remain in force until such time as it was repealed. Hence it stands in its present condition. There was also in the act a provision Whereby under order in council coarse grains could be brought within its operation, but that was not done. There was also provision for investigation of the grain exchange and for a clearing house; that was modified to some extent by the senate to provide that this should be done only with the consent of the governor in council. The measure, as finally amended, became the law of the country and was assented to in due course, and'-this is an amazing thing-for some strange reason the Liberal press of the west said that the act would never become operative, and advised the farmers to that effect, just as in 1932 when the imperial agreements were signed they advised the farmers that there was nothing in it with respect to hogs, and for a considerable time that market was lost.
Now, the position assumed is that because action was not taken promptly enough they sold some of their grain at a lesser price than the fixed price of 87i cents. It is an odd thing that always when opposition was thus urged against acts becoming effective, if it worked out so that the farmer got any benefit it was all the result of the prevision and prescience of the political party in question, but if on the other hand the farmers saw fit not to take advice, and to sell their wheat to the private purchasers, then of course, if they lost money because they sold for less than the fixed price, the blame must attach to the administration of the day.
The business of carrying forward the organization of the wheat board was done with as much expedition as possible, having regard to the fact that forms had to be
prepared and legal requirements met. My memory is that the house prorogued on July 5, and it was not until five weeks later, I believe, that the price was fixed.


James Garfield Gardiner: September 6.


Richard Bedford Bennett: September, was it? I thought it was August. I have not the date before me. and I never charged my memory with it. However I believe the minister is correct when he states that it was September. It was not until September, then, that the price was fixed. In the meantime Mr. Smith had come from London, because he had a very intimate knowledge of circumstances and conditions there, and had agreed to become a member of the board. Professor Grant of Winnipeg had also agreed to become a member of the board, and so, too, had Mr. McFarland. The fixing of the price, with the approval of the governor in council, was not an easy matter. There were those who would have fixed the price at one dollar. A great many of them believed wheat was bound to go to a dollar, at an early date. Then, there were those who would have fixed it at ninety cents, and others who believed that seventy-five cents was a reasonable price. Finally the government gave its approval to fixing the price at 87^ cents. That was the price at which the board was authorized to acquire the season's crop.
During the progress of debate, having regard to what transpired in the committee, some questions were asked regarding coarse grains. At page 4261 of Hansard, a question in committee by Colonel Ralston was answered by me as follows:
Mr. 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.
As a matter of fact there was no revision of that, and the bill finally passed the house and the senate, and was assented to without making provision for the board dealing in coarse grains.
There is in the act a provision by which under certain circumstances the act may be made applicable to coarse grains. That was never put into force, and in any event it has nothing to do with this matter, because it deals with coarse grains acquired in 1930 or thereabouts.
Let us look at the position from that moment forward. From that time on the board was purchasing wheat. It was also true that the pools were pressing to have a settlement in connection with what they

Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett
conceived to be their right not only to be reimbursed for coarse grains that had been sold, but also to have an adjustment for the wheat that had been held as stabilizing wheat upon a basis on which they said they might have sold it had they been operating, in the ordinary course of events, as sellers of wheat. They urged that strongly when the price of wheat rose; they did not urge it when the price of wheat was down.
The price of wheat went up and up, and in October, 1935, it had reached ninety-two and ninety-three cents at Fort William. In that regard it may be well to point out that the Free Press, to which the hon. member referred the other day, very properly appreciated the situation. Quoting from Mr. McLeod, and reading a few words from the Free Press, the minister pointed out that they realized the real reason pressure was being brought to bear in the situation was because there had been an increase in the price. At page 1549 of Hansard for the present session the hon. member reading from the Free Press of October 9, quoted as follows:
Upon the strength of the rising wheat prices the government stabilization agency (which is still doing business) would authorize the pool to issue cheques to pool members in adjustment of payments made on delivery of the crop in 1930-31.
That is the allegation made by the writer in the Free Press, and it is the correct statement of it. The pool took the position that they were entitled to settlement on the basis of this wheat being turned over to them because it could be sold at a profit. They did not desire to get ninety-three cents; they only regarded an adjustment on a sixty cent basis and, as he minister pointed out the other day, that would lave sufficient money to pay the carrying charges.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not at that time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Substantially, yes; thirty-three cents.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not in 1935; I pointed it out for 1933.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In 1935 it would also pay the carrying charges, because those carrying charges had been reduced below the ordinary charges.


James Garfield Gardiner: The right hon. gentleman is thinking about $1.05 a bushel.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not at the charges that were being paid. The charges being paid were ono-thirtieth of a cent a bushel, and last year it was reduced to one forty-fifth.


Charles Avery Dunning: Just last year, that is all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And, I think, before that. However the hon. member says that is not so, and he has looked into it more than I have.


Charles Avery Dunning: I was not disputing the fact. But I assure my right hon. friend that carrying charges, inclusive of the period in which they were reduced, would have amounted to approximately $1.05.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; that figure is higher than the one concerning which I was informed. At any rate, they took that position.
Now, parliament had dealt with that matter. When parliament passed the Wheat Board Act discussion took place as to whether or not the wheat which had thus been utilized for stabilizing purposes should have been taken over by the wheat board. Finally, by the action not of the government, but of the committee and by the unanimous approval of the house, paragraph (f) of section 7 was accepted, and reads as follows:
Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, to acquire-
That is, the board has power to acquire- -from Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, upon terms to be approved by the governor in council, all wheat or contracts to purchase or take delivery of wheat in respect of which the government of Canada has given a guarantee.
That limited the power of the government, in that respect, to wheat, and the order in council was passed and was limited to wheat, and nothing but wheat. It was stated in the house that the power of the board to deal in the future was to be limited also to wheat, and not apply to coarse grain.
I have endeavoured to remember everything I could with respect to the matter, because I make it a rule that where documents have finally to be signed I do not charge my memory with the details, but let the documents speak for themselves as finally settled. If I had done otherwise I certainly would not have been able to survive the five years we held office. I never charged my mind with details when there were documents to be signed which, as finally agreed upon, would speak for themselves,
Now, what happened was this. I recall very definitely-the speech of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) brought some of it to my mind-that when I was in Montreal on either the eighth or ninth of October-[DOT] I could be sure by looking up the dates, but I have no memory as to just which it was- Mr. Paul Bredt, one of the directors of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, came and saw me there, and urged that this matter be disposed of. I gave him

Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett
to understand that we would pass an order in council to deal with the situation, and I asked one of my secretaries to come to Ottawa with him, as he did, and take up the matter with the two departments concerned, namely, the Department of Justice and the Department of Finance. There was no memorandum prepared by the minister. I felt clear that there was not. That reference in Mr. Rhodes' letter was to a memorandum from the Prime Minister's office when my secretary and Mr. Bredt had concluded their discussions in the Department of Justice. The order in council was thus completed. It then was taken and dealt with by the then Minister of Finance, the Hon. E. N. Rhodes. In the meantime I had gone to Toronto. That order in council provided for wheat and nothing else; under the terms of the statute to which I have just referred it could not refer to anything but wheat.
During the many interviews that the board of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, had with me they urged that inasmuch as their enterprise had been used for the purpose of stabilizing, they should receive something in their expense account for the utilization of their name and their facilities in carrying on these operations. I recall vividly at least two or three of them being in my room in the East block in the summer when this bill was before the house. I told them that this would have to stand until we found out whether they came out on the right side of the ledger, at which time it could be properly considered. I did not think it unfair that an organization that was already established, obviating the necessity of making any costly payments for the purposes of establishment, that was utilized as this one was for stabilization purposes, might receive something under certain contingencies.
I had no knowledge, nor had anyone round about Ottawa any knowledge as to the correctness or otherwise of the figures that were put forth. The letters were dictated by telephone, and the acceptance and offer made. The figures which Mr. Bredt had with him were filled in for the purpose of making the offer and acceptance. When the matter came to me at Toronto-I have no memory of this beyond what I am presently to say-I asked what was the warrant for these figures, and I was informed what the warrant was. There was no auditor's certificate; there was nothing to support them beyond the fact that they were stated to be the amounts. Whereupon I added the words that have been discussed so much in this house, and which provided that a certificate from the auditors
must be produced to verify the amounts to be paid. The provision to that effect in the order in council was not made by me; it was made in my absence and I did not see the order in council until after it was completed. The order in council provided in terms that there should be verification by auditors of the amounts before the sums stated should be paid.
In November last, after the election, I was out of the country for a substantial time when I found out what I am about to refer to. In the preamble of this bill it is stated definitely and positively that this wheat was taken over on the second day of December, 1935. Let us have no misunderstanding. Here are the words:
Whereas a transfer of wheat and contracts to purchase or take delivery of wheat in respect of which the government of Canada had given a guarantee was made by Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited to the Canadian Wheat Board as of December 2, 1935, subject to final settlement of the terms of such transfer;
On Friday last I asked whether an order in council had been passed, and I was told that it had and it would be produced. I had not received it on Saturday, and this morning I telephoned to the secretary of the minister to request that it be sent to me. The minister was good enough to telephone himself and say that there was no order in council, but that there were letters. I said that I would like to have copies of the letters, but I did not receive them until a few moments before rising to speak. I am going to show to the house beyond all peradven-ture that this bill in its present form has no possible validity because it is based upon an absolute misstatement as to what are the facts. That is a serious statement to make. I have read that particular part of the preamble, and I am now going to read the correspondence which took place when I was far from here and of which I knew nothing until this afternoon. One of the communications is not here, and to this I shall presently refer. On November 12, 1935, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) wrote to Mr. McFarland of the Canadian Wheat Board, as follows:
Dear Mr. McFarland:
The committee of the cabinet appointed to deal with the wheat situation, regards it as desirable that the acquisition from the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, upon terms to be approved by the governor in council of "all wheat or contracts to purchase or take delivery of wheat in respect of which the government of Canada has given a guarantee" be consummated immediately.
Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett

The order in council P.C. 3199 provides that the sum to be paid shall be verified by auditors' certificate. I enclose herewith copy of the order in council dated October 10, 1935.
The committee desires that the transfer take place at once in order to consolidate the whole situation, the amount to be paid to the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited to be subject to the report of the auditors, which will be made at an early date.
Will you kindly proceed immediately with the matter.
Yours truly.
Then on November 18, 1935, is a letter from Mr. J. I. McFarland, Chief Commissioner of The Canadian Wheat Board at Winnipeg, to Hon. W. D. Euler, Minister of Trade and Commerce. It reads:
Dear Mr. Euler:
I am in receipt of your of November 12tli, together with copies of P.C. 3199 and other documents in connection therewith, all of which refers to the taking over by the wheat board of all wheat or contracts to purchase wheat now in the name of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited.
When I received your letter on Saturday, Mr. Brouillette, president of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, happened to be in the city and I took the matter up with him at once. He read over your letter and asked that I send copies of some to him at Regina as it would be necessary for him to call together his directors before he could give an answer on such an important matter.
In the meantime, please refer to the first paragraph of your letter which reads as follows:
The committee of the cabinet appointed to deal with the wheat situation, regards it as desirable that the acquisition from the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, upon terms to be approved by the governor in council of "All wheat or contracts to purchase or take delivery of wheat in respect of which the ^government of Canada has given a guarantee ' be consummated immediately.
You will observe the quotation marks begin at the word "all'' and end with the word "guarantee," whereas it seems to me that probably your stenographer should have placed these quotation marks beginning with the word "upon." However, looking at it as it stands, it at once appeared to Mr. Brouillette as if the governor in council must again approve, notwithstanding the contents of P.C. 3199. It is not likely that he will have his directors together for some days, and it would expedite matters if you would advise me by wire whether that paragraph should read as follows:
The committee of the cabinet appointed to deal with the wheat situation, regards it as desirable that the acquisition from the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, "upon terms to be approved by the governor in council of all wheat or contracts to purchase or take delivery of wheat in respect of which the government of Canada has given a guarantee" be consummated immediately.
I explained to Mr. Brouillette that what I believed your committee really desired was that this wheat or contracts to purchase wheat should be turned over to the board at the earliest possible date, by the government trans-
[Mr. Bennett.1
ferring its guarantee from the Canadian cooperative to the Canadian Wheat Board, and that furthermore it was your intention that the settlement of upwards of eight million dollars would be consummated when you had received from the auditors the certificates which Mr. Clark has requested from Price, Waterhouse and Company.
I may say that this is just what the wheat board would like to have arranged without delay and I can ee no reason why it would in any way prejudice the position of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, by handling the matter as you have suggested. However, no doubt they will be guided by their own lawyer, and just as soon as I have advice from them I will advise you. So that if they are agreeable we may then request the Minister of Finance to transfer the government's guarantee from Canadian wheat producers' account to the wheat board account at the same time as the officials of Canadian cooperative make a transfer of the wheat and wheat contracts.
Yours truly,
J. I. McFarland,
Chief Commissioner.
Immediately upon receipt of that letter, apparently, namely November 21, 1935, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) sent this telegram to Mr. McFarland:
Replying your letter November 18. As the amount properly payable to producers must necessarily be based upon report of auditors following their investigation now under way it follows that no assurance can be given that an amending order in council will not be necessary. Urge early action on my letter of November 12.
Then on the 22nd day of November, that is, the next day, Mr. McFarland addressed the following letter to the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
Dear Mr. Euler:
I received your message yesterday reading as follows: "Replying your letter November 18. As the amount properly payable to producers must necessarily be based upon report of auditors following their investigation now under way, it follows that no assurance can be given that an amending order in council will not be necessary. Urge early action on my letter of November 12."
I transmitted this message to the president of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, at Regina, by wire, and I have his acknowledgment in which he states that he will arrange for a meeting of their full board at the earliest possible date, and will submit the matter under discussion to them after which he will again communicate with me.
Under the circumstances there is nothing further this board can do until the producers company advise us the result of their deliberations. I can quite understand the opinion voiced in your message that until the auditors report lias been submitted there can be no assurance that an amending order in council will not be necessary. My experience in regard to the procedure necessary in matters of this

Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett
kind is limited but 1 would imagine if the auditors' certificate differs in any way from the amount of money mentioned in the order in council, it would be necessary to make an amendment thereto.
Yours truly,
J. I. McFarland,
Chief Commissioner.
Then there is a telegram from the Minister of Trade and Commerce to Mr. Brouillette, president of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, Regina, which purports to refer to another wire which he sent on the morning of December 4, which is not on the file and which I think I have a right to see because it is an integral part of this transaction.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. gentleman will find, what I found, that the wire is out of order on the file. He will find it a little later on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It says:
No reply to my wire this morning having been received. 1 wish to advise further that we are determined in the public interest to demand the turning over of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers wheat to the wheat board forthwith. We would suggest that the best course of action you can pursue is to act on my letter of November 12th to Mr. McFarland in which I say that "the amount to be paid to the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers. Limited, to be subject to the report of the auditors." Failing such action we shall be forced to invoke the powers conferred by order in council 974 of April 12, 1935. For your information we quote the relevant provisions-
"The governor in council may at any time fix and determine a date at which wheat producers shall proceed to sell and dispose of wheat and other grains in its possession and control,-and shall proceed to sell and dispose of all contracts for the future delivery to wheat producers of wheat and other grains." "Whenever wheat producers are required to proceed to sell and dispose of wheat and other grains and contracts, such sale and disposal shall be subject to any instructions that may be given from time to time by the Minister of Finance to wheat producers, as to quantities to be sold or disposed of and periods within which sale or disposal shall accordingly be effected."
In the final analysis it is always possible for the government to notify the banks that the guarantees will cease. While we have recited these alternatives we consider they should be unnecessary in the circumstances as it is obviously not reasonable that technicalities should be placed in the way of the execution of a policy determined upon by the government acting in the public interest.
W. D. Euler,
Minister of Trade and Commerce. (Copy sent to John I. McFarland, Manager Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, 4/12/35.)
Now the significance of that telegram is apparent to anyone. The Minister of Trade
and Commerce, being the minister named in the wheat board act, and not the Minister of Agriculture, tells the Canadian wheat producers that if they do not turn that wheat over one of two things may happen: "First, we will sell the wheat anyway, under the powers conferred on us by order in council; and second, we will cancel your guarantee with the banks". To that there seemed to be a fairly prompt response. On December 2, which was two days before that, Mr. McFarland had wired:
With further reference to your letter to me dated 12th November I have received from the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited the following letter "Upon being advised by you of the contents of Mr. Euler's letter of 12th November, 1935, I called a meeting of the board of directors of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited for the second day of December, 1935, at Winnipeg. At this meeting it was resolved to deliver to your board forthwith in terms of the contents of the order in council No. P.C. 3199, dated October 10, 1935, all wheat and contracts to purchase or take delivery of wheat held by the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited. Auditors certificates verifying the amount to be paid by your board to Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited as required by the order in council above referred to were mailed to the Hon. E. N. Rhode the then Minister of Finance on October 15. 1935. Instructions have been issued to our officials to carry out delivery accordingly. Signed, L. C. Brouillette, president. Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited."
J. I. McFarland Chairman
Canadian Wheat Board
That is Mr. McFarland's telegram of December 2, which was two days before the message sent by the minister to Mr. Brouillette. Mr. Brouillette did not send this letter direct to Ottawa but sent it apparently to Mr. McFarland; but realizing its importance he telegraphed it through to bhe minister. For some reason the minister did not receive it, I judge, before he sent his telegram of December 4.


William Daum Euler: The two of them crossed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then we find the secretary of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, sending a telegram to Mr. Euler, Minister of Trade and Commerce:
Winnipeg, Manitoba, December 5, 1935.
Reference wire Mr. Brouillette assume this was filed prior to receipt my wire advising that transfer stocks, etc. under way. Canadian cooperative board anxious cooperate in completing transfer forthwith. Mr. Brouillette left Chicago this morning returning Regina. Please advise if in your opinion anything further we can do facilitate transfer.
F. W. Ransom Secretary
Canadian Cooperative Wheat
Producers, Limited
Wheat Board

Mr. Bennett

To that telegram on the same day, December 5, Mr. Euler, Minister of Trade and Commerce, sent a reply addressed to Mr. Ransom, reading:
Replying your wire of to-day. Pleased to note your desire to cooperate in completing transfer forthwith. Government of course desires to do full justice to producers. Can only suggest further that you agree to make transfer at once on basis of my letter November 12 to Mr. McFarland which does not prejudice your rights under order in council 3199. Kindly wire compliance.
W. D. Euler,
Minister of Trade and Commerce.
The next document is one which I think is of very considerable importance. It is stated to be an assignment and it reads:
In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained in a certain agreement confirmed by order in council 3199, dated October 10, 1935, whereby the Canadian wheat board agreed to purchase and the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, agreed to sell its wheat stocks and contracts for the delivery of wheat:
We, the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, hereby assign absolutely to the Canadian wheat board all our right, title and interest in and to all wheat contracts to purchase or sell for future delivery carried upon our account with the Winnipeg Grain and Produce Exchange Clearing Association, together with all sums of money held by that association to our credit in the form of margins in connection therewith.
Dated at Winnipeg this 2nd day of December, 1935.
Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers,
Limited.
Per: F. W. Ransom,
Secretary.
And by telegraph on December 6, Mr. F. W. Ransom, secretary of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, wired the Minister of Trade and Commerce as follows: Reference wire yesterday stop We were advised complete agreement with your letter November twelve would alter our rights under order in council three one nine nine and as it seemed to us to be essential to maintain our position under that order in council at any rate until we had full information of nature and extent of any proposed changes in that position we sent our letter of December second and proceeded with delivery stop that advice had been confirmed stop We are calling executive meeting for Winnipeg Monday December ninth when we will endeavour find some formula to meet your suggestion of November twelve without altering rights under order in council stop Meantime to facilitate marketing operations we suggest that wheat board take delivery of any wheat or contracts which we hold and which the board find necessary or useful in its marketing operations without prejudice to the rights of ourselves the board or the government.
That was signed by F. W. Ransom, Secretary. He had already, on December 4, sent 
the following telegram to the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
Pursuant to instructions given Monday stocks are in process of delivery to board in terms of letter dated December second addressed to wheat board stop Your wire being forwarded to Mr. Brouillette who is out of city.
And on the fifth the minister wired Mr. Ransom:
Replying your wire of yesterday saying that stocks are in process of delivery to board on terms of letter dated December second addressed to wheat board would refer you to my night letter of yesterday which was filed before your wire as above was received.
Then follows on December 14 a most important communication:
Winnipeg, Man., Dec. 14, 1935. Hon. W. D. Euler,
Minister Trade and Commerce,
Ottawa, Ont.
Have today delivered to wheat board all stocks of wheat and contracts for delivery of wheat in our possession.
Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Ltd.
Copy sent to Mr. Murray, Mr. Gardiner, Mr. Crerar and Mr. Dunning.
And on December 17 the following telegram was sent by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, Winnipeg:
1 thank you for your wire of December fourteen stating that on that day you delivered to wheat board all stocks of wheat and contracts for delivery of wheat in your possession.
Copy sent to Mr. Murray, Mr. Gardiner, Mr. Crerar, and Mr. Dunning.
That is the correspondence that was furnished to me shortly before I rose in my place to deal with this matter. Now, sir, in the light of that correspondence-and I am sorry the first minister is not in his place -I ask this house how this preamble can possibly be justified. I have looked through the precedents with some care, and I find that there is no precedent for anything such as this. I ask men who value our institutions beyond considerations of mere party advantage to reflect upon this matter. Suppose, when an important matter that involved much acrimony was before this house some years ago, we had endeavoured to introduce a preamble such as this, what would have been thought of it? These things can always be done with a majority. But think of what this house has been led to believe, and then look at that correspondence. I leave the matter at that. Never in my little experience, nor in my reading, which has been rather extensive, have I known of the house being asked to take action upon the assumption that something was a fact and then, when

Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett
the bill was in its second reading stage, after the minister had presented it, correspondence was secured from him-with some reluctance, I am bound to say-which places the situation in an entirely different light.
Far be it from me to suggest that any one has deliberately deceived the house. But I ask the members-and after all none of them is so blinded by partisanship as to be wholly unfair at all times-if ever in their reading, their experience or their observation there was anything like this. It is now clear that this transaction was a completed one, completed on the 14th day of December; what is more, ratified by the government itself on the 17th, and further, that the instructions given by the Minister of Finance in connection with the audit were given for the very purpose of enabling him to secure the information asked for by the terms of the order in council of October last?
The Minister of Finance was good enough to furnish me this morning with a copy of the letter to which I have referred, that is, his letter dated the 5th day of November, 1935. It is important to remember that that is more than a month prior to the turning over of the wheat. The letter reads as follows:
1 have received from the chairman of the Canadian wheat board your report on "Equalization payments" in connection with the 1930 wheat pool. This report was submitted to us as your certificate required under the concluding paragraph of order in council P.C. 3199, dated October 10, 1935.
That document has not been produced.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, that one was produced. That is the one about which we have had all the controversy. Order in council P.C. 3199 is the document to which the right hon. gentleman added the words.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what I am talking about. Could anything be quite as offensive as that, Mr. Speaker? I am endeavouring to realize that I owe a duty to the future. As the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) this afternoon said, we in parliament are trustees; we have a view of the past, the present and the future, and I made up my mind that I would endeavour to present this case without heat. This house registers the answer that was given to my question.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think that is correct. The order in council mentioned is No. 3199.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What I referred to was the statement by the minister that "I have received. . .your report on equalization payments in connection with the 1930 wheat pool," which report I have not seen.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps my right hon. friend has himself forgotten or was never aware of the fact that my predecessor in office received what apparently purported to be an auditor's report such as that called for, or to fill the demand of order in council P.C. 3199. My predecessor did not act upon that report. I examined it and found, as I state in that letter, that it apparently did not at all conform to the requirements of the order in council. I shall be very glad if it is relevant to bring it down, but inasmuch as it was a document not acted upon at all, either by my predecessor or myself, it did not occur to my mind as being necessary in this matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I think that is a fair statement, because Mr. Brouillette, after the election, namely on October 15, sent a document to Mr. Rhodes, and the Minister of Finance now says that is the document to which he refers, and which has not been produced, as I can readily understand, because he did not regard it qs satisfactory.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am quite sure that my right hon. friend would not, if he saw it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not questioning my hon. friend's statement. The letter continues:
I am attaching a copy of this order in council. You will note that the order authorized the Canadian wheat board to take over wheat and contracts to purchase or take delivery of wheat from the Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, and to pay the sum of $8,262,415.37 "being the sum total of balances due to the primary producers, and expenses and other charges in connection with the holding and handling of the wheat," subject to this amount being "verified by auditors' certificates."
It is obvious that your report on "Equalization payments" does not in any sense meet the requirements of this order in council. It does not purport to show the sum total of balances due to primary producers and it includes payments to be made for coarse grain, whereas the order in council refers only to the sale to the board of wheat and contracts to purchase or take delivery of wheat.
There can be no stronger statement than that, from the government itself.


Charles Avery Dunning: Quite.


Richard Bedford Bennett: However, we understand, from discussion with your representative, Mr. K. Drennan, that your report was prepared before the order in council was passed and was obviously not intended by you to carry out the terms of the order in council, a copy of which you had not at that time seen.
As it is not possible for us to approve the implementing of the order in council without much more information than is now' available either in the departmental files or in the auditors' reports which have been submitted,
Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett

I desire you on behalf of the Department of Finance to make to us a complete report on the operations of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, in connection with the 1930 pool, with a view to giving us the facts necessary to determine "the amount due to primary producers" as required under the terms of the order in council.
Your report should include, in particular, the following:
(1)	General review in report form of the operations of the 1930 pool from its commencement until October 31, 1935.
(2)	Operating statements of the grain and contracts held for the 1930 pool, following through what happened to the grain originally taken over.
(3)	Operating statements of the stabilizing operations carried on by Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers under dominion government guarantee, explaining what relation, if any, these operations had to the 1930 pool account.
(4)	Detailed reports on the charges for carrying the grain and contracts, with explanatory comments as to each item, as to the allocation of costs between the 1930 pool account and the stabilization account and the justification of the procedure followed.
In brief, this department desires to have from you a full report with necessary supporting data relative to the situation arising from the operations of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, with special reference to what further payment, if any, is due to the primary producer as a result of those operations.
As you know, the board has also submitted to us reports from the auditors of the three provincial pools regarding certain expenses and charges of the provincial pools in connection with the 1930 crop. I wish you to consider and report upon what justification there may be for the payment of all or any of these items by the board, or whether, on the contrary, such expenses should not be deducted from any payment that might otherwise be due to primary producers.
I would appreciate it if you would immediately undertake this investigation and submit your report at the earliest possible date.
I am quite sure that the pool authorities and the board authorities will afford you every facility on presentation of this letter.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) C. A. Dunning. Price, Waterhouse & Co.,
1105 Union Trust Building,
Winnipeg, Manitoba.
It does seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that this is the sort of letter I would expect the Minister of Finance to write under the circumstances if he proposed to carry into effect, as the letter says, the provisions of the order in council. It therefore follows, and I assure the minister no smile can get away from this fact-


Charles Avery Dunning: I was smiling at the
hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), who was smiling at me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is the last man in
the world to laugh at, I warn my hon. friend.


Charles Avery Dunning: The letter is a good
letter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Excellent.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was smiling approval of
the letter.


Charles Avery Dunning: I would write the same
letter to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I say, in my judgment it is the sort of letter I would expect a minister to write who was desirous of having before him the proper certificate to warrant the action being taken under the order in council. Then I find in the Financial Post of recent date, from its own correspondent, an article as follows:
Wheat pools secure more from Ottawa Treasury will pay out about $7,000,000 to farmers Reach settlement
The past week has seen a determined and partially successful effort by the wheat pools to improve at the expense of the treasury the terms of the settlement between the government and the central selling agency. This settlement will retire the pools from the wheat picture in which they were deeply involved during the McFarland regime. Mr. McFarland acted for the government from 1930 (December) until last December, and for all of the time, except the last four months, he was the general manager of the central selling agency.
Quite apart from the usual misunderstanding of facts in that article I direct attention to the statements therein contained. Then the article continues:
The Bennett-McFarland settlement with the pools, announced last October, called for payment of $8,263,000.
Not a word about the auditors' certificates.
The new settlement now before parliament will cost close to 7 millions, against $4,900,000, the cost of the original settlement proposed by the ICing government.
Where is that?


Charles Avery Dunning: I never heard of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, my hon. friend will have to deal with the gentleman who uses somewhat unkind language towards those who question the accuracy of anything contained in this great organ of public opinion.
The pools have persuaded the government to part with an additional 2 millions, but are still better than a million dollars down on the October figure. The settlement, it is learned, comprises these features:
Prices paid to pool wheat growers on the 1930 crop will be stabilized at 60 cents per bushel (the interim payments were 70, 60, 55 and 50 cents) and this will be calculated on a basis which will net these farmers $5,900,000.
Durum wheat growers in Manitoba will get a premium on their 1930 crop which they lost because the Manitoba pool became insolvent-[DOT]

Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett
cost $400,000. The profit made by the central selling agency on the rye and flax pools will be returned. The losses on oats and barley will be met by the government. Except for the profits, all payments will be made through the wheat board and not through the pools- a defeat for the pools-and the operating costs of the 1930 pools will not be paid by the government.
The Minister of Finance says that he is in no sense responsible for that, and I gather the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) says that the same applies to him. Am I right as to that?


Charles Avery Dunning: I said that I had never heard of that figure.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was the figure to
which I had reference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Were there arrangements for a settlement other than on the basis now before the house? That is the only question I am putting to the hon. gentleman.


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of fact there is really no arrangement yet, except what is contained in this bill. If the right hon. gentleman will read the section he will find that the arrangement has yet to be made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No wonder my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George laughs now. Then there is no bargain at all.


James Garfield Gardiner: The bargain is right here.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We are making one now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there must be an acceptance of the bargain by the owners of the wheat, because the statute so provides, according to section 7 as well as the preamble.
Now, let us proceed a step further. It is rather difficult to have to go over all this again, but I should like to refer to just one other matter. Once more I direct attention to the preamble. According to the authorities, in modern practice a preamble is unnecessary except in connection with a declaration of policy. You wall find one such preamble, for instance, in the bill having to do with the employment commission. These declarations of policy are set forth in this way, but when preambles get into the field of controversy, except in connection with private bills, they do not find their place in parliamentary enactments. This preamble bristles with inaccuracies, and unfortunately in the last few paragraphs statements have been made that could not be proven, for the reasons I have given. The rest of the preamble is, I think I can say without question
and without in any sense being offensive, purely party politics of the worst type. I think that will be admitted.
If the matter ended there what I have said might be sufficient, but it goes a bit further than that. I find that on the 30th day of December last the Regina Leader-Post gives a report of a meeting at Hirsch which was addressed by the Minister of Agriculture, and part of the report is in quotations. The report states:
There was no "grudge" against Mr. McFarland in the change at all, he added.
Mr. Gardiner also announced that the question of adjusting payments to farmers on the 1930-31 crop would be settled as quickly as it was possible. In that year initial pool payments were lowered so that some farmers got only 50 cents, others 55 cents, some 60 cents and some more. The plan was to give everyone at least 60 cents. On July 31, 1931, Mr. McFarland put 76,000,000 bushels into a separate account, and placed a value of 60J cents on it. This was the wheat on which an adjustment was to be made, but apparently there had been no agreement on it between Mr. McFarland and the pools till eight days before the general election.
The amount to be paid was $8,262,000 to make the average payment for the 76,000,000 bushels 60 cents a bushel. By order in council this was subject to certification by auditors. Auditors had been put to work, and as soon as they verified the matter the money would be paid.
In event the auditors did not approve the payment, said Mr. Gardiner, "we will sit down with the wheat pool to get a proper agreement under which a proper amount can be paid, the payment should work out to about ten cents a bushel, but, said Mr. Gardiner, it should have been more. The wheat had been accumulating storage charges, and now represented, for 70,000,000 bushels, a cost to the people of

It is blurred, I think it is $1.05.
Now there is the situation as it stands, with the bill before the house for second reading. With the limited number at our disposal we can only protest against a preamble such as that, which will be a blot upon the legislative action of this parliament for all time, which will constitute a precedent that I should hope will not be introduced in this house. Suppose when we were dealing with the legislation in connection with the Beauharnois transaction we had made the recitals which might have been made and which we could -with a majority have carried through parliament, what would you have thought of that, Mr. Speaker? What would the members of this house have thought? I just put that question because other matters of not dissimilar character may sometimes arise, and when they do we shall have created a precedent. While I do not desire to dwell unduly upon what my hon.
Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett

friend the Minister of Labour has described in a brilliant essay on the amendment of the constitution as the dead hand, nevertheless no man stands in his place in parliament who must not think of the past and the present and the future; and I am concerned not only with the present, but with the future, if that preamble in the form in which it appears in that bill is to be a part of that enactment. I am not at all concerned with any personal feeling in the matter, but I am confident what the judgment of posterity will be upon it. About that I am certain.
There is one other matter with which I have to deal, and then I shall have concluded. The part that I could not understand of the hon. gentleman's speech was his continued asking why the profits arising from coarse grains had not been returned to the producers years ago. He said: The then government kept this money. That necessitates my making a statement of something which I think is clear from the orders in council, clear from the communications sent by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to Mr. McFarland. The government at no time have owned wheat; the bank account was carried on in the name of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited. The very documents read by the minister indicate that the guarantees that were given were given to the banks on account of that organization. If anyone desires to ask the directors and managers why they did not make such payments, they are perfectly within their rights in doing so, because the directors and managers, not the government, had control over those amounts. But the government would of course be consulted about any action that was taken, in the very nature of things, but the government did not initiate, nor could it, because the government had given a guarantee and of course obviously before any action was taken the government would have to be asked to agree.
Then we go a step further.	This suggestion of the then government having control of these matters, which suggestion, as I say, ran through the hon. gentleman's speech, is entirely at variance with the facts, which are as I have indicated. One thing more remains to be said in respect of that. These gentlemen were urging that coarse grains should be considered. I do not know whether the minister meant Mr. Bredt; it may well be so, because he knew much more than I did. This was at Regina, and various other places, but obviously I felt myself bound by the provisions of the law, and I repeat to the house and to the country that anyone desiring for purely

political reasons to take the action suggested, would he have added the provision that there would have to be an auditor's certificate for the amount? That in itself indicates clearly, I think, what was in the mind of the government at that time. Not only that, but I do think-I do not know for sure, but I think that it may possibly be- that on the question of expenses something can be said for the claim constantly pressed that, after all, this organization was used for a period of years for the purpose of carrying on stabilizing operations. Mr. McFarland had served without pay as the manager of that enterprise, and the pressure, the pleading, the insistent suggestion that in the form of expenses they should get some reasonable allowance in that regard did not at any time seem to me unfair, provided of course that the operations had not resulted in a loss. That leads me to the last point.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not like to interrupt, but my right hon. friend appreciates that the expenses referred to are the expenses of the provincial pools. The expenses of the body that my right hon. friend is speaking of were always part of the guarantee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; I was going to continue. As a matter of fact, in reading the record this morning I am satisfied that what the minister said referred to provincial pools, with respect to which of course we would have no direct means of knowledge except so far as it could be ascertained by inquiry and investigation and certificates of auditors. Now, we go one step further and find this, that upon all these questions the government acted upon the assumption that if proper auditors' certificates were provided payment would be made. The minister told the electors in the west in December that that was so. What rather bothers me is this: I read that copies of telegrams were being sent to him and to Mr. Dunning and to Mr. Crerar. Now, that report in the Leader-Post of a meeting is dated December 30, and it will be recalled that all these matters were disposed of prior to that date. Therefore on December 30, the minister must have known what is disclosed in this corespondence, at least in part, because the final telegrams sent by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, Winnipeg, were sent to Mr. Murray, Mr. Gardiner, Mr. Crerar and Mr. Dunning. That makes it a little more difficult for me to understand this preamble. I leave the matter at that.
There is one other point that I think must be dealt with, not because it arises out of

Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett
this, nor is it pertinent to this discussion, except that the hon. gentleman has brought it in. He has referred at some length tj some observations made by myself with respect to limitation of acreage and similar problems involved in a decrease in production. He spoke very feelingly of this on Friday. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is correct that a wheat conference was held in London in 1933. It is true that at that conference there were represented practically all the nations interested in the wheat problem, and it is true that they arrived at certain conclusions. Saskatchewan was represented by its late attorney general, Mr. MacPherson, and on April 7, 1934, an act was passed by the legislature of Saskatchewan, entitled an act to confer certain powers relating to the control and marketing of wheat. That was a permissive act passed for the purpose of keeping faith with what had been done at London, and with respect to which the Manchester Guardian and other papers spoke very highly. Particularly did the Manchester Guardian, after reviewing the facts, refer to the situation in a manner which, I believe, in a few words summarizes the whole difficulty in connection with wheat:
But one surveys without hope the alternative -a continuing glut, added to each year by highly protected countries exporting a relatively small surplus, irrespective of cost and holding to ransom those better fitted to export but dependent upon exporting at a profit. If the wheat conference has saved the world from that madness, it has not laboured in vain.
That agreement was laid on the table and was signed by a large number of countries all, including Russia, interested in the wheat problem. Argentine gave an additional adherence, and the result was that Argentine forced sales upon the market, as explained before the committee last year, on terms which made the sale of our wheat difficult.
But, sir, in this house on Friday last the Minister of Agriculture spoke somewhat slightingly of what had been done; and, worse, he said that he wanted to know whether it was proposed or suggested that there should be any limitation with respect to acreage. It is well known that if a manufacturer finds there is no market for his product he ceases to produce in the volume in which he had produced. It is clear in all the reports we have received from day to day and from month to month with respect to work done in the United States and Canada that there is a lessening of the quantity which is being produced because the market is not there. But, sir, imagine my surprise after listening to the minister's speech when I turned up the journals of the legislature of Saskatchewan for Thursday, April 5, 1934, and read this:
According to order, the Hon. Mr. MacPherson moved,
That Bill No. 35, an act to confer certain powers relating to the control and marketing of wheat, be now read the third time.
The question being put, it was agreed to on the following division:
Yeas
Messieurs.
Hutcheon	Hanbidge
Stipe	Lilly
Buckle	McLeod
MacPherson	Eades
Anderson	Miller
McConnell	Clinch
Bryant	Finlayson
Stewart	Paulson
Smith (Swift Current) Spence	
Bennett	Davis
Fraser	Gardiner
W arren	Uhrich
Given	Patterson (Pipestone)
Gryde	McGregor
Grassick	Hogan
Merkley	Gordon
Munroe	Grant
Whittaker	Agar
Arthur	Parker (Touchwood)
Benson	Loptson
Horner	Taylor (Kinistino)
Patterson (Milestone) Parker (Pelly)	
McLean	Dunn
Taylor (Wadena)	Ayre
Greaves	Morken-50.
	Nays
Messieurs.	
Huck	Marion
Therres Cockburn	Loptson-5.
Mr. GARDINER	: Would the right hon.
gentleman give the date?


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, well-


James Garfield Gardiner: But apparently the right hon. gentleman has not read the contents of the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I read the title of it, and
I said that it was a permissive act.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I tell him, then, that the heading of the press report of the discussion of the legislation by the attorney general is: "Acreage not to be cut by legislation, says Attorney General".


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question was not as to the cutting of the acreage for that year.

C.N.R.-Roundhouse Facilities

The question was as to whether or not power should be conferred to permit it to be done, because the power l-ies with the province, except under certain circumstances, and the same condition that the Supreme Court of the United States had to deal with in connection with the AAA, and with certain variations applying here, and the holding of the act as being unconstitutional in the United States, because it interfered with the power of the state to deal with this matter, would be the same as would happen here were it not that an emergency might be declared under a decision of our courts, and jurisdiction might thus be conferred. I say that merely in passing, because it is a matter of considerable importance.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a good thing to pass it rapidly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then, it being eleven
o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, March 31, 1936