1936-03-31

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Perhaps the Minister of
Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) would acquaint the house with the terms and provisions of the supplementary agreement made between France and Canada in connection with trading. If it cannot be done now perhaps the hon. gentleman will take this as a notice and make a statement to-morrow.


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I shall be glad to make that statement to-morrow.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. A. MUTCH (Winnipeg South):: Before the orders of the day are called I should like to address a question to the Minister of Railways. Is it true that acceptance of the proposed amalgamation of roundhouse facilities in the city of Ottawa will lead to the virtual closing of the Canadian National railway roundhouse and the unemployment of seventy or more men?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Railways):: I should perhaps make the position of the

government clear with reference to this matter. It is entirely between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways, and this government has no more control over the Canadian National Railways than it has over the Canadian Pacific. That is made quite clear in the 1933 Canadian Na-tional-Canadian Pacific Railway Act. We have received no communication whatever on this subject prior to the public announcement, but inasmuch as the matter is of public interest I dropped a line to the chairman of the board of trustees of the Canadian National and asking him whether he would care to give me the facts. The facts are these. The Canadian Pacific Railway has at Ottawa a modern roundhouse built recently and very well equipped with heavy machinery. The Canadian National has a roundhouse that is somewhat out of date; it is not at all modern. The two railways have made an arrangement whereby the light equipment, that is, the engines that run from Montreal and turn round and go back, the yard engines and so on, are to be repaired in the Canadian National roundhouse, but the heavy engines which make the through run, the engines of larger size requiring heavier repairs, are to be handled in the modern Canadian Pacific railway shop. Certain men will be transferred from one shop to the other and I understand that twenty-three men less will be required in the total operations. These men are being taken care of in their order of seniority and absorbed back into other railway services. The management are meeting a committee of the men in the ordinary way to work out the human element involved. I want to make it clear that the Minister of Railways is not in a position either to consent or to refuse consent. No consent whatever is required, and the matter was not referred to the government in any shape or form.



NEW BRUNSWICK COAL INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Mines if he has been advised of the great falling off of employment in the coal mines in the Minto coal district of New Brunswick. I should also like to know if it is the intention of the government to extend the same proportionate assistance to the New Brunswick coal industry in the matter of subventions and bonuses as is granted to the coal industry in Nova Scotia.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines):: So far as the first question is concerned, I believe there has been some falling off in the number of men employed in coal mines in certain areas. That is due to the fact that there has been a very considerable decrease

Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett
in the consumption of coal in the last few years as compared, say, with five or six years ago. So far as the second question is concerned, it is not intended that the subvention principle shall operate this year any differently from last year.



PROFESSIONAL DOG RACING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. WILTON (Hamilton West):: On March 25 I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) whether he had received any requests or communications from United States interests asking for a change in the criminal code to legalize dog racing in Canada. His answer at that time was that he would look into the matter and give me a reply later. This he did, and in his answer yesterday he said:
I find that there has not been of recent date any such communication wTith regard to dog racing.
He emphasizes the words "recent date." What I am particularly anxious to know is this: Has he, not merely of recent date but at any date, received any such communication? -because there are many business interests that may be interested in this matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Herbert Earl Wilton: I should like a reply to
that question, whether the minister has at any time received a request or such request from United States interests.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The Minister of Justice
is not in his seat at the moment. I assume that my hon. friend will be satisfied if the reply dates back to the time when the present government took office. Or does he wish to go back to the time when we were in office before?


Herbert Earl Wilton: I should be quite satisfied with the period that the present government has been in office.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall have pleasure in directing the minister's attention to the request of my hon. friend, and hope to be able to give him an answer to-morrow.



TRADE WITH SOVIET UNION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I should like to be informed by either the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) or the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler), in view of the government's policy for extension of trade, whether any steps have been taken by this government to negotiate a trade
agreement with the Soviet Union, and whether any proposals have been received from the Soviet Union to negotiate a trade agreement, with this government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say that the matter has been and still is under consideration.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 30, consideration of the motion of Hon. Mr. Gardiner for the second reading of Bill No. 22, to provide for the payments 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 have just had handed to me a copy of the telegram sent by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) to Mr. Brouillette on December 4, 1935, to which last night I made reference inasmuch as the file which I received just before beginning to speak apparently indicated that such a telegram was in existence, although an explanation was made which indicated that possibly one was not sent. It reads as follows:
Louis C. Brouillette,
President, Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited,
Regina, Sask.
The government herewith makes formal request that the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers. Limited, transfer forthwith to the Canadian Wheat Board "all wheat or contracts to purchase or take delivery of wheat in respect of which the government of Canada has given a guarantee"-
These words are between quotation marks.
-on the terms of my letter November twelve, nineteen thirty-five to you. Stop. A similar request has been sent to Mr. McFarland.
That was signed, as I said, by Mr. Euler, Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Yesterday when I was dealing with a correction of the minister from unrevised Hansard I dealt with only one phase of the quotation from the unrevised Hansard. I think that for the purpose of the record it is desirable that the said quotation from unrevised Hansard should also be read as it appears in revised Hansard, page 3571, on June, 12, 1935. It is not the practice to read from unrevised Hansard when the revised Hansard has been issued, particularly w'hen dealing with figures:
I come now to a point which I think is perhaps somewhat interesting as it indicates the average increase of acreage in other
Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett

'countries.... The average acreage in Canada *for the five years 1909-13 was 9,940,000 acres; in 1927-31 it had risen to 24,590,000 acres and in 1933 it had risen to 25,990,000 acres. The acreage for 1933 showed an increase of 161-5 per cent over the average acreage for the five years 1909-13. In Australia the average acreage for 1909-13 was 7,600,000 acres; for 1927-31 it was 15,000,000 acres, while for 1933 it had fallen to 14,970.000 acres. The 1933 figure was an increase of 96-9 over the 1909-13 figure. In the Argentine the average sown acreage for 1909-13 was 16,050,000 acres; in 1927-31 it was 20,500,000 acres; then followed a decrease in 1933 to 19,660,000 acres. In the United States for the period 1909-13 the acreage was 47,100,000 acres; in 1927-31 it had risen to 60.400.000 acres while in 1933 it had fallen to 47,520,000 acres. This latter figure showed an increase of only nine-tenths of one per cent over the 1909-13 figure. If you take these figures you will see that on the basis of the Argentine increase, which was only 22 per cent, we should have increased our acreage to less than 13 million acres instead of to almost 26 million acres.	For reasons which are
obvious these are the increases which 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 Argentine 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.
I read that statement in order that there may be no misapprehension as to what was the real statement made on that occasion.
When the house rose last evening at eleven o'clock I was dealing with the legislation passed by the legislature of Saskatchewan in connection with the control and marketing of wheat. It is chapter 61 of the provincial sta-stutes for the year 1934. Similar legislation was enacted by the province of Manitoba under the premiership of Mr. Bracken and by the province of Alberta under the premiership of Mr. Brownlee. The legislation varies slightly, but in general principle it is the same. It recites the agreement arrived at in London in 1933 and then provides for the control of production and of marketing of wheat. I am sorry that, in order to make the story complete in>
view of what was said last evening by the minister, I shall have to read the first paragraph of the preamble:
Whereas the governments of Germany, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Greece, Hungary, Irish _ Free State, Italy, Poland, Roumania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia, the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics and Yugoslavia, having been invited by the Secretary-General of the Monetary and Economic Conference on behalf of the governments of Argentine, Australia, Canada and the United States of
IMr. Bennett.]
America, to take part in a conference to consider the measures which might be taken in concert to adjust the export of wheat to effective world demand with the object of eliminating the abnormal surpluses and to increase and stabilize the price of wheat at a reasonable level which would be remunerative to the farmers and fair to the consumers of breadstuffs, did actually meet in conference for the aforesaid purposes in the months of July and August, 1933, at the city of London, England; and
Whereas an agreement was entered into by and on behalf of the said governments pursuant to the said conference on or about the twenty-sixth day of August, 1933, containing seven articles, a true copy whereof is appended hereto as schedule A....
The rest of it is not important beyond the fact that provision is made to set up a board. Section 2 of the act provides:
(1)	As and when it is considered necessary to do so for the purposes mentioned in the preamble the lieutenant governor in council may establish a board to be styled "the emergency w-heat control board" (in this act referred to as the board) to be composed of three or more members to be appointed by the lieutenant governor in council one of whom shall be appointed as chairman and shall be entitled to hold the position of chairman as long as he continues a member of the board.
(2)	The lieutenant governor in council may determine what remuneration shall be paid to the members of the board, how vacancies thereon are to be filled, and any other matters necessary for the effective constitution and operation of the board.
(3)	The powers hereinafter conferred on the board shall automatically determine on the thirty-first day of July, 1935, except for the purpose of winding up the affairs and business of the board.
The powers of the board, according to section 3, are:
(a)	to control, by licence or otherwise, the total quantity or volume of wheat which each owner or occupant of land or any person claiming through or under such owner or occupant, may sell or dispose of in Saskatchewan during the crop season of 19341935, namely betw-een the first day of August, 1934, and the thirty-first day of July, 1935;
(b) to require that any wheat sold in Saskatchewan shall be sold or delivered in accordance with such regulations or conditions as the board may from time to time make;
(c)	generally to do such other acts or things as may be necessary to effectuate the intention of the agreement in schedule A hereto.
The rest of it need not be read, but I should point out that it was a statute to provide for the licensing of sales and the control of the production of wheat until July 31, 1935, in accordance with the terms of the agreement entered into in London in 1933.
The other afternoon the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said that these proposals contemplated a reduction in the acreage sown to wheat. Undoubtedly that is true, but

Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett
owing to crop conditions it was not necessary to put into operation the provisions of the act, so that the act never became effective in any one of the three provinces. The conditions which would have called for its being made operative did not arise, owing, as I have said, to crop failure; I think that word would be adequate for the purpose. Nevertheless the three western provinces were sufficiently seized of the importance of the situation to regard it as desirable that they should place that legislation upon the statute books, as they did, though for the reason I have stated it was not necessary to call it into being to effectuate the purpose intended.


Mr. GARDINER:: May I ask a question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


James Garfield Gardiner: In what year was the
act passed by this parliament implementing that agreement?


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as I know there
was no act passed at all, because it was not necessary to do so. The house was in session when these acts to which I have referred were passed by the provinces, and my memory is that parliament did not pass any act. We laid the agreement on the table and there was some discussion with respect to it, but inasmuch as control rested with the provinces rather than with the dominion in connection with production nothing further was done, because the occasion for it did not arise.


James Garfield Gardiner: In what year was the
agreement laid on the table?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The agreement was signed in 1933 and laid on the table when parliament was in session in 1931. In the meantime all the western provinces were communicated with and passed legislation in practically the same terms, I having brought this matter to the attention of each of the several governments. As a matter of fact an agent went from here to each of the several governments to discuss the legislation, which as I say was in practically the same terms, though there were some slight variations in one province as compared with the legislation enacted in Saskatchewan.
There is only one other point to which I should like to direct the attention of this house. For some reason which at the moment I cannot understand this legislation contemplates the money being taken out of the consolidated revenue of Canada in order to pay these charges. Under the order in council the money was not to be taken out of the consolidated revenue; it was to be obtained from the banks under our guarantee, so that, since the guarantee was for ultimate loss, we would have our liability determined in the
light of the final action that might be taken in connection with the series of transactions. That, however, has been departed from here; this measure directly takes from the treasury a sum of money for the purposes indicated. I do not know just why that action has been taken or why it is being done in that way, or if it were to be done in that way why it was not done as we are doing in connection with harbour boards and as we did last year with respect to garnet wheat, it being agreed by all parties, so far as I know-at least there was no evidence of any objection-that this was a sound way in which to do it, namely to appropriate a given sum of money for the purpose of making good any loss which might be sustained by reason of the action that was taken by the board of grain commissioners in standardizing garnet wheat as a separate grade. That would be the method that would have suggested itself to one, because it sets out in the estimates the reasons why it was done and the purposes for which the money was to be paid. Here the same course might have been pursued. It has not been pursued; neither does this appear as an item in either the supplementary or the main estimates. Rather it is a separate bill, for reasons that, after perusing all the documents that have been laid before us, I think one cannot but regard as being more or less political.
I do not intend to take up further time, Mr. Speaker. I regret that I had to read for nearly an hour and a half from the documents that have been tabled; it is not easy work. All that I had to say personally with respect to the matter could have been compressed, as it was, into perhaps half an hour or a few minutes longer. I did, however, have to read from revised Hansard in order to establish what was said by me in 1935, and the circumstances under which sales were made on the Winnipeg market in 1933. In that instance I read from the evidence given by Mr. Mclvor, now a member of the wheat board, to indicate just what conditions were, and I did it for the purpose of trying to bring home to the house that, at least in the mind of one who in the opinion of the government was qualified to be made a member of the wheat board, if action had not been taken a catastrophe would have followed such as to make it well nigh impossible to indicate what it would have meant in terms of losses to the farmers of this country.
That is all I have to say, sir, except that this action has not been taken under the order in council passed in October, 1935, which is clearly demonstrated by the documents that have been produced. This action is taken in consequence of the government, by reason of the guarantees given, compelling the pool to
Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett

hand over the wheat to the new board. That I think is abundantly clear from the letters and documents which I read last evening. It therefore is also abundantly clear that possession of the wheat passed to the wheat board by reason of action taken wholly independent of and entirely beyond the scope of the order in council of October 10, 1935. Of that I think there can be not the slightest doubt in view of the last telegram from the Minister of Trade and Commerce to Mr. Brouillette, the president of the organization that owned the wheat. It follows from that, Mr. Speaker, that the determination of the amount to be paid was a matter of settlement between the government and the wheat producers. That is evidenced by the statement made publicly by the responsible Minister of Agriculture and by the documents that have been produced. It therefore follows that the preamble as set forth has no relation to the payments being made, none whatever. I was hopeful that, having regard to the effect upon the future as well as to the precedents of the past, the government would at least provide that there should not appear in this measure anything beyond a statement, if a preamble is desirable, that the wheat had been delivered to the board and taken over on terms implying or involving a settlement as to the amount to be paid by the government to the wheat producers organization, and that it had been agreed that this sum was to be accepted and paid, as the bill says, in settlement of any claims that they might have in the matter. I make that suggestion because I do not think it is fair to parliament itself, much less to those who are members of it, that after powers have been exercised in the way I have indicated to take over the wheat from the producers and hand it over to the wheat board, it should be made to appear that it was done by some other method and for some other purpose and under certain other authorities. For it is clear that the provision of section 7 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act has no relation to this matter now at all, that it was not under the provisions of that section that this wheat has been taken possession of by the board. It is clear beyond peradventure that the government, exercising its power under the guarantee given to the banks and its additional power to discontinue the guarantee if it saw fit, did take from the board this wheat, on the terms that they would settle the account on the basis of the information received from the auditors, and on that basis they have made a settlement on the terms and conditions contained in the bill. All this long discussion therefore would have been unnecessary had the matter been either included in the supplementary estimates or infMr. Bennett.]
troduced in a measure that contained only such preamble or recitals as were necessary to make it appear that the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, had been compelled by the government to deliver the wheat to the board, and having delivered it to the board the terms and conditions under which it had been delivered were to be settled as they have been. With respect to the return of moneys, that could have been dealt with in a very few minutes without legislation at all. involving profits that arose from sales that have been made. With respect to other matters, with respect to recouping the losses, that of course could have been covered by an estimate if it was so desired. But if it is desirable to introduce a bill, then only such recitals as may become necessary for that purpose should be included in the legislation in question.
I am, sir, very regretful indeed that I have been compelled to read so many documents and thus take up so long the time of the house, but it was perfectly clear that I could not read one document unless I read the answer, and as there was a series of documents they had to be read as a whole. The result has been that while my own contribution to the debate could have been made in a very short space of time, I have been compelled to trespass upon the patience of the house to a very considerable extent in order to present this matter, free as possible from party animus or considerations, for the purpose of having the record clear from the time the matter first became a subject of consideration and discussion up to the present moment.
Mr. M. ,1. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar): We have had a very long discussion concerning the second reading of this bill, and I do not intend to speak at any great length. But there are some things which, as I participated in the debates earlier in the session, I should like to say at the present time.
During the past few days I have heard the question asked: What is the justification for this particular bill and these payments at the present time? It is of course the business of the minister and of the government to produce that justification, and to a large degree I think they have done so. However, I should like to point out that this measure is amply justified if we look back into the history of wheat marketing in Canada for the last twenty years or so. The cumulative experience of the western growers during that period, particularly during the war and postwar years, led them to believe that some form of marketing, other than the speculative sys-stem which had been in operation for a number of years, must come into existence or they could not get a fair return for the product

Wheat Board-Mr. Coldwell
of their toil. Hence to secure a form of orderly marketing they sought the establishment of a wheat board. We remember, as I mentioned before, how the legislation passed this chamber in 1922 but never became operative. As a result we find the producers organizing their cooperative associations or pools.	I do not propose to traverse that
ground; I did so on another occasion, but may I say that this problem which is present with us to-day and will, I have no doubt, be with us for a very considerable time in the future, arose in a particularly acute form in 1928. In that year the world had a record yield of wheat. Excluding Russia and China, the world produced 3,945,000,000 bushels of wheat, or 464,000,000 bushels more than the average production for the immediate preceding five years. Of course this vastly increased production of grain by the farmers was only symptomatic of the general condition throughout the world. The world was passing through a tremendous boom; it was fairly generally believed that the problem of distribution had been solved and that the more we produced the wealthier society would be. So the wheat producers were simply in line with the feverish production of that time.
Then came 1929 and the debacle. Hansard for 1929 and 1930 makes very interesting reading; for it is quite obvious that the government of the day failed to realize the implications of what had occurred. They told us that in a little while wheat would begin to move and all would be well again. I was looking at the budget speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), made on May 1, 1930. In that speech, after pointing out that there had been a very serious diminution in exports of wheat from Canada to Europe and Great Britain, he went on to say, "in consequence there are still large quantities of grain available for marketing; it is reasonable to anticipate a gradual readjustment of our trade balances with the United Kingdom and Europe." I do not blame the Minister of Finance for not having accurately gauged the condition that was upon us, because our banks, our financial corporations, and big business at that time were all anticipating that the condition would right itself. But it did not right itself; consequently we have the very serious situation among the western producers which this bill is designed in some degree to relieve. Blame has been placed upon the producers' organizations, but may I say that these organizations were in close contact all the time with people who should have been able to advise them regarding economic and financial conditions with wdiich we were surrounded, and if we are to attach blame to the men who at that time were charged with responsibility for marketing our wheat and other grains, then that responsibility must be shared by those who were advising them When the crash came in 1929 it seems to me two courses were open to the western producers. They were seriously indebted to the banks and could have adopted one of two policies. First, they could have permitted the agreement with the lending banks to become operative, throw all their stocks of wheat and grain upon the markets, and endeavoured to satisfy the banks. Or, secondly, in some manner they could have mortgaged their subsidiary elevator companies, assets and so on, and thus assumed payment of all liabilities in order to prevent the panic which would have developed on stupendous proportions. As a matter of fact they chose the second course, and incurred losses at that particular time amounting to about $22,000,000. These were guaranteed by the provincial governments, who took what was in effect a mortgage upon the producers' elevator systems. Since that time they have made steady progress in meeting that particular obligation. The point I should like to emphasize, because I believe it has a very direct bearing upon the justification for this measure and any further generosity in connection with this proposal, is that the step taken at that time prevented a crash which would have involved every financial and grain marketing institution in Canada. It would have shaken the economic structure of Canada to its very foundation. It is ironic that the producers should have built up an organization designed to combat the financial system and the grain interests, and that in effect the farmers' organizations should have been used, perhaps unconsciously, to stabilize the economic structure at that time. My plea to the government and the minister is that because of this they deserve generous recognition for what they did. Private business could not, or would not, have done .it; and had the situation been faced by a business concern of the size of the producers' organizations I venture to say that the economic structure of the nation would have been shaken more severely than it was.
To-day organized western producers are before the House of Commons asking not a compassionate allowance but what they regard as a measure of justice. It has been admitted in the debate, and in the report of the auditors, that the wheat of the 1930 crop was used successfully-or unsuccessfully; that may be a debatable point-from 1930 to 1935 for stabilization purposes. The point I make is that this wheat was actually used in the interests of the economic fabric of Canada as a whole.

Wheat Board-Mr. Coldwell


Mr. THORSON:: Was that done at the
request of the pools, or was it forced upon them?


Mr. COLDWELL:: I believe in reality it
was forced upon them. It is true of course that the producers' organizations realized something of this sort had to be done, but the conditions with which they were surrounded actually forced the situation upon their attention and the attention of the governments.
The position may be somewhat different in regard to coarse grains. The report states, and was so quoted by the minister, that there is no direct evidence that coarse grains were used for stabilization. I submit however that there is a great deal of indirect evidence which would seem to bear out the contention that coarse grains were used for stabilization and other contingencies. Moreover there is plenty of evidence that these coarse grains were held and used to relieve conditions which arose in the drought areas of western Canada.
The minister quoted Mr. McFarland to the effect that when he took office in 1930 there was sales resistance abroad. May I point out that in the budget speech to which I have referred the Minister of Finance did not attribute to sales resistance the slowness of the movement of wheat in the early part of that year. It might be inferred from something he said that there was some factor operating which he did not name, but in fairness to Mr. McFarland and to the western producers it should also be said that after five years of experience in handling the situation Mr. McFarland in his various public utterances during the last year made it abundantly clear that the policy of feeding the grain to the market under an orderly plan was the policy which he advocated at the close of that period of experience. Moreover he persuaded the government of the day, or the producers through him and with him persuaded the government, to form a wheat board, and to adopt a policy that had been urged by the farmers many years before. It was by and with the consent of the House of Commons that both the wheat board and a minimum set price were established. Had that policy been adopted five years earlier and had the government stepped in in 1930, as I believe it should have done, and stabilized the wheat and grain position in Canada, the amount of money involved in the aggregate would have been much greater. Had that action been taken then, instead of discussing a settlement on he basis of an initial price of 60 cents, as we 
are doing to-day, it is probable that throughout that period the set price might have been considerably higher. Why? If we examine the average prices prior to 1930 we find that the average open market price for No. 1 northern at Fort William in 1928-29 was $1.24 per bushel; in 1929-30 it was exactly the same, and in 1930-31, the year we are discussing, the average price basis Fort William was 64 cents per bushel. May I remark that that is higher than the amount now accepted by the producers and included in this bill. In all probability in that year a wheat board would have set the price of wheat in the month of July, and the average market price for wheat in the month of July, 1930, was 95-1 cents per bushel. I think therefore that when the pools originally decided on an initial price of 70 cents, which was soon after reduced to 60 cents, they were not too optimistic, in the light of what was actually going on. Had the price been set a month later, the average price for August was 92-5 cents, and for September 72-5 cents, basis No. 1 Fort William, the open market quotations.
As to coarse grains, in which some of us in this chamber are particularly interested now, there is a strong presumption, and I use that term advisedly, that these grains were used for the common good of the people of Canada for a considerable portion of the period under discussion. The interpretation placed on order in council P.C. 3199 I know does not recognize that fact. I do not believe that the interpretation is an altogether generous one. As I said the other afternoon it seems to me that even the letter of the bond is not being adhered to in this particular settlement. The sum of $8,262,415.37 was included in this order in council. Where did that figure come from, and why was it included? That is something of which we have not yet up to the moment received, in my opinion, an adequate explanation. Moreover, as I said the other evening, I would draw attention to the significant words, placed more or less in parenthesis in the order in council, "being the sum total of balances due to the primary producers."-not to the wheat producers only, but to the primary producers. I believe that the minister himself is of the opinion that this interpretation might be placed on these words, because on page 1675 of Hansard he is reported as saying in part in the house last Friday evening that it was understood by the man he was mentioning at the moment that coarse grains were to be paid for. Moreover, that was substantiated very largely by the quotation* he gave us from the statement

Wheat Board-Mr. Coldwell
of a responsible official, namely the publicity agent of the western pools, Mr. W. A. McLeod, and published extensively throughout Canada, and particularly in the pool's own paper, the Western Producer, published at Saskatoon.
I am urging the government, Mr. Speaker, still to consider this matter in a more generous light. The minister said the other day that it was probable the flax growers would get considerably less than $1.25 per bushel, the first initial price. It is believed or was believed throughout western Canada that the intention of the order in council was to settle these payments on the basis of the first initial price, and the first initial price for flax was $1.25 per bushel. But the actual settlement, we are told, will be considerably lower, and that is a very serious matter for many producers who have been waiting ever since 1930 to get a settlement which they thought would ultimately be just, if not generous. I am definitely asking the government to accept the minister's opinion of what was intended as expressed in those words of the order in council that I have just quoted, and to settle not only on a basis of justice but with some measure of generosity. It seems to me that when the western producers take up this order in council in future years there will be some justification for their believing that as far as this house is concerned at this time it did not place upon that document the interpretation that it was originally intended to bear. Some might even go so far as to believe that it was a contract, the sanctity of which this house is breaking at the present time, and that the services, the tremendous services to Canada on the part of the western producers in 1929, when undoubtedly another policy than that adopted might have wrecked the whole fabric of this nation had it been adopted, as it could have been adopted, has not been recognized in the particular measure before us.
May I say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that the problem of wheat, of grains, and of the farmer has not been settled when we pass this bill. All that we shall have done is simply to deal with something that occurred six years ago. To my mind we should get this measure through, and when we have got it through we should immediately as a parliament begin to consider the implications of what might happen in the future. I have before me on my desk the report of the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, Mr. Wallace, published in December of last year, and at page 69 I find this significant statement:
The United States stands ready to cooperate with other nations in bringing about an adjustment of world production to demand.
I would rather put it the other way, and say bring about an adjustment of world consumption to production, but he puts it the other way, and goes on:
It is believed that an effective international wheat agreement will be hastened if this country continues to produce a sufficient amount of wheat so as to remain an active participant in world trade. In furtherance of this policy, plans for 1936 have been modified so as to permit the production of an exportable surplus of wheat in addition to increasing domestic reserves.
Wherever we look throughout the world to-day we find barriers erected, tariff barriers, quotas, and so forth, interfering with the normal flow of trade. We see the nations of the world becoming more self-contained. We see the United States reversing its policy. We see Russia producing more grain in the last few years than she has ever before produced in her history, with a production two years ago of 1,200,000,000 bushels, and last year a quantity in excess of that amount. She is building up these huge reserves against famine or war in the future. She is satisfying an [DOT]ultimate need for those reserves and at the same time building up an exportable surplus for the markets of the world, and consequently I believe that one of the main businesses of the parliament of Canada at this particular time is to devise not only a settlement of the 1930 claim but a policy for the future.
Let us not forget this, that 55,000.000 acres of the 73,000,000 acres of cultivated land in Canada lie between the great lakes and the Rocky mountains, and the farmers there are entirely dependent upon the production of a few basic commodities such as wheat and coarse grains. The problem that faces Canada in relation to this particular matter is a problem that is stupendous in its proportions, and unless we lay the foundations well so that we may build upon them a policy, Canada faces a very difficult time in the years to come.


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, realizing as I do that for the past five years 77,000 farmers have been waiting for a settlement of these payments on the 1930 pool, I do not intend to take up very much time and will be content to endorse the remarks of the speaker who has just taken his seat (Mr. Coldwell), adding a few facts from the point of view of those who produced and turned their wheat into the 1930 pool.
Let us go back for a moment to the year 1919, when the first wheat board was organized. We find that it was organized for the purpose of holding the price of wheat down. This was at the end of the war years, and the farmers have been working constantly since that time to have another wheat board
Wheat Board-Mr. Fair

formed. They were unsuccessful in that effort, and in 1923 decided to do the next best thing; the farmers of Alberta organized their own wheat pool. In 1924 the farmers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba followed suit and worked along very successfully until 1928 and 1929, when difficulties that could not have been averted by those who organized and supported these pools forced them to do things which they had no intention whatever of doing. When we look at the wheat prices of 1929, which reached a high of $1.73 and a low of 86 cents, I do not think it is any wonder that conditions turned out as they did at that time. If we had gone about remedying the conditions that brought about the crash at that time, instead of wasting time since then in trying to deal with high and low tariffs, fixing prices of wheat and so forth, we should have been much further ahead to-day.
Looking over wheat prices at Fort William from 1924-25 to 1928-29 we find the following. In 1924-25 the price was SI .69; in 1925-26, $1.51; in 1926-27, S1.46, in 1927-28, $1.46, and. in 1928-29, $1.24. That gave an average of $1.47$ per bushel, basis No. 1 northern Fort William. Starting again with 1930-31 we find a price of 64 cents; 1931-32, a price of 59 cents; 1932-33, 54 cents; 1933-34, 68 cents; 1934-35, 81 cents, or an average of 65$ cents. If we look for a moment at the cost of producing wheat as given in bulletin No. 159, which has been put out by the dominion Department of Agriculture, we find that the cost of wheat grown on summer fallow is 78 cents, and wheat grown on land of the second crop, the second after summer fallowing, is $1.12. So that we can take the average cost of growing wheat as 95 cents a bushel.
In 1930 we had a large crop of wheat, and that year in some parts of the western provinces there was a good deal of rain in the fall. This prevailed during the harvesting season and again during the threshing season. While straw and grain are wet there is no profit in threshing, and that year there was also a snowstorm, so that we did not get our threshing started until late in October and in November, with the result that instead of getting a straight grade for our wheat most of us got a tough grade. I happen to be located just west of the fourth meridian in Alberta, and for the information of this house I will give the street prices, basis No. 1 northern, on the 50 cents initial payment. Most of us came in on that 50 cent payment that year. These are the figures for the tough grades: No. 1 northern, 44 cents; No. 2 northern, 41

cents; No. 3 northern, 36 cents: No. 4 northern, 32 cents; No. 5, 28 cents, and No. 6, 21 cents; feed, 15 cents. The straight grade prices were: No. 1, 50 cents; No. 2, 47 cents; No. 3, 42 cents; No. 4, 38 cents; No. 5, 34 cents; No. 6, 27 cents, and feed, 20 cents. Deduct from this 10 cents a bushel for threshing and you will find that you have on the tough grades:	No. 1,
34 cents; No. 2, 31 cents; No. 3, 26 cents; No. 4, 22 cents; No. 5, 18 cents; No. 6, 11 cents, and the fancy sum of 5 cents for feed-this in the face of a cost of production of 95 cents a bushel. And this price includes an extra 20 cents for freight and handling charges, that is deducted by the elevator agent.
You may think that we are getting a handout in what we are asking to-day. According to the order in council the settlement is based on sixty cents a bushel, although the average price for that year was sixty-four cents a bushel at Fort William. I may say that that wheat was delivered in the fall and winter of 1930, and you must realize that we have paid interest at the rate of seven and eight per cent and sometimes more than that on debts that should have been paid with the proceeds of the wheat. We have paid over $2,000,000 in interest, but there is nothing whatever said about that here, and apparently the farmers are content to do without that interest, although I do not believe that that is right, when we find that the banks, the elevator companies and the commission men received somewhere around $50,000,000 in interest, handling and commissions on that wheat being carried over.
The farmers have pressed right along for settlement on the 1930 wheat crop but have been unsuccessful. We do not know the reason, but we do know that we had a considerable quantity of wdieat taken over, not with our consent but with the consent of the government, and stacked away in a pile. In the front of this pile was placed the wheat that was purchased by the government for stabilization purposes, and the farmer's wheat was left at all times at the back of the pile. If the stabilization management had got rid of the farmer's wheat first of all it could have been sold time after time at profit, and those of us who contributed wheat could have been paid off and we could have paid our debts and avoided the embarrassment which some of the farmers of the west have experienced since in being put off their places for taxes and so on.
We find that this deal was made on October 8 and the order in council was passed on the

Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner
10th, From extracts from that order in council the farmers of the west were given to understand that they would have their cheques right away, and on the strength of this many of them went to their storekeepers, promised to pay their bills and got an extension of credit. After a short time of course that extension was cut off; the cheques were not forthcoming. The result is that many of us in the west are having a hard time to get groceries and supplies. But the farmers are not the only ones who are affected, because when they cannot pay their bills the storekeepers cannot pay theirs, so that the embarrassment extends all along the line, from farmer to retailer and wholesaler and eventually to manufacturer.
Some mention was made a few days ago about the provincial governments having to stand good for the pools. I think some people have the idea that they lost a lot of money on this account. I want here and now to contradict that idea. The pools are making their payments and paying a large amount of interest to boot, and still continue in good standing.
According to the figures in my possession, the quantity of wheat supplied by the pool farmers of the west was never less than one-third of stabilization quantities, and it sometimes formed one-half. Late in 1935 we still find 76,000,000 bushels left. I do not know why this should be. It certainly is not for the farmers' benefit. Those who wish to make use of figures have included storage and interest charges on this grain to build up a case which will not stand, I think, any close scrutiny,
Looking at some of the handicaps that we are up against, I wish to quote the cost of a few pieces of machinery and the number of bushels of grain that it takes to buy them on the basis of grain prices in various years. In 1919 the price of a gang plough was S151; wheat at that time was $2.17, so that you could buy that gang plough with seventy bushels of wheat. In 1925 the price of that same implement was $158, and it cost us 104 bushels of wheat, because the price was then $1.51. In 1930 the gang plough which we bought with seventy bushels of wheat in 1925 cost us 208 bushels. In 1919 a seed drill cost us the price of 107 bushels of wheat; in 1925 it cost 168 and in 1930, 394 bushels, or almost four times as much grain as was required in 1919. So you can figure out why we are here, looking for a little justice. An eight-foot binder, which in 1919 represented 120 bushels of wheat and in 1925 took 190
bushels, in 1930-the year for which we are given the handout-it cost us 442 bushels. For a five-foot mower, which in 1919 we could buy for forty-two bushels of wheat and in 1925 for sixty-seven bushels, in 1931 we had to put up 157 bushels. I remember that in the fall of 1931 I went into one of the lumber yards in Paradise Valley, my home town; the weather was beginning to get cold and I wanted to purchase thirteen storm windows. Perhaps you will think I am lying, but I had to sell 142 bushels of No. 1 wheat to buy those thirteen storm windows. If any hon. member wishes to check up on these facts I can give them to him without any trouble.
I do not wish to take up any more time, as much time has already been occupied in the discussion, and the farmers, business men, teachers, preachers, doctors, lawyers and all our western people are looking east for this settlement. But I ask in conclusion that, in view of the amount that has been cut off by the government, there be substituted interest to those of us who have contributed that wheat, and that the amount be brought back to that of the original order in council.


James Garfield Gardiner: (Minister of
Agriculture):	There is not much to be said
in concluding the debate. One question raised by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) with regard to the preamble should, I think, be dealt with, as well as one or two other matters of not so great importance as that having to do with the preamble.
I wish to refer to some remarks made last evening by the leader of the opposition, and renewed to-day, with regard to the discussions which took place in the legislature of Saskatchewan in 1934. I have with me the speeches which were delivered on that occasion by myself and by the attorney general of Saskatchewan. The debates in connection with this matter covered the period from March 7 down to April 6, almost one complete month. The beginning of the debate was an address delivered on a motion to adjourn the house to discuss a matter of special importance to the people of Saskatchewan. That permission was given, and the attorney general, who with the then prime minister of Canada and others had been in the old land, dealt with this question, outlined what had been done at the conference, and gave us the assurance which I read to the house last night, that any bill which he had it in mind to introduce after the discussion was completed did not contemplate a
Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner

reduction in acreage. The heading in the pres3 report is:
Acreage not to be cut by legislation, says Attorney General. Government rather to strive to meet the situation on the basis of limited production. Hon. M. A. MacPherson tells members of the legislature.
Those headings are a fair interpretation of what is contained in the speech that was delievered on that occasion. As leader of the opposition at the time I had the privilege of replying to the attorney general, and the reference to the remarks made by the attorney general which are mentioned in the heading is in these words:
Quota system should not apply to southwest Saskatchewan as it might be applied elsewhere in Canada, declares Liberal leader, stressing lack of crops in past four or five years. Asserting that the farmers in what was termed the drought areas of Saskatchewan who had not harvested and marketed a crop in four or five years should be allowed to market whatever crop they grew this season; J. G. Gardiner, speaking on his resolution on wider and freer markets as the only permanent solution of the wheat marketing problem, attacked the London wheat agreement.
It will be noted from that heading that I was making a speech, reported in the press in about four or five columns, which was an attack upon the London wheat agreement, just as I was making an attack the other evening upon the same agreement. This discussion took place from a month to two weeks before the third reading of the bill. The legislation having to do with the control of wheat was in the house the greater part of that time. There was very little discussion on the bill itself because of the fact that the discussion took place on the resolution and the view's of members of the house were fairly well known as a result of that discussion. On the third reading some members of the house spoke in opposition to the bill and, as is sometimes the case in legislatures and in houses of commons, there was some one there who thought that perhaps some political capital could be made out of putting the members of both sides of the house more or less "on the spot," and a vote was called for on the third reading. When that vote was called I stated my owm position in relation to the bill.	It was
reported in the Western Producer in these words:
J. G. Gardiner, leader of the opposition, stated his position before the vote was taken. He would support the bill because the wheat agreement upon which it was based had already been signed . ..

Not because I agreed with the agreement, but because it had been signed already in Europe.
... signed without consulting the people. Under the circumstances, the implementing bill would have to go through.
It was a bill to implement legislation that at that time we were led1 to believe was going to be passed by the House of Commons at Ottawa, and we were only asked to pass it as implementing the legislation passed here, which in turn was to implement the agreement previously reached in London. As we have been told, in the answers to the questions I asked the right hon. leader of the opposition, the bill implementing that agreement was never passed by the House of Commons; nothing was ever done to implement the agreement.
There is one other important fact in connection with these proceedings, and it is this: Even the bill passed by the legislature of the province of Saskatchewan was not to come into effect until the first day of July, 1934; on April 6, 1934, everyone in the province of Saskatchewan knew there was going to be an election before July 1, 1934, and that we who were sitting in opposition on the sixth day of April of that year were more than likely to be the government of the province after July 1, 1934. The vote was taken; the matter was made an issue in the campaign. My view was, and in the light of what happened to-day in this house that view has been strengthened, that it was very well known at the time that this legislation was not likely ever to be implemented.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman should not make a statement of that kind. There was nothing the federal parliament could do at the time; as the Supreme Court of the United States has since said the provinces had supreme control over the matter.


James Garfield Gardiner: But even after the provinces had taken action the dominion house did not do anything in the matter. The legislation of 1922, for example, providing for a wheat board, was passed in this house on condition that the three western provinces should pass implementing legislation. In this case, had this legislation been passed by the House of Commons, implementing bills would have been required in the provinces, but it was thought wise to have the implementing bills passed first and any legislation necessary down here was to be passed afterwards. No action was taken in this house, but during the election campaign it was made an issue from one end to the other of the province of Saskatchewan, which produces more of the wheat of Canada

Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner
than any other province. What was the result? Not one of the men who sat on the government side of the house and brought down that bill was returned to the legislature of Saskatchewan. So I think that question was pretty well decided then, and it does not require further discussion in this house. My views were known to all the people of the province. The people went to the polls, and they did not return a single supporter of the government that brought that bill into the * house, nor did they return a single supporter of the attorney general who went to London with the then prime minister of Canada to sign the agreement. Fifty of the fifty-five members elected to the new house supported the party that had sat in opposition and, in their speeches in the legislature, had pointed out the weaknesses of these agreements.
There is one other matter that I did not think was of sufficient importance to be brought into this debate, but it was brought in last evening, that is, the question whether anyone had ever suggested a method for the doing away with the hedging of the wheat crop. The inference was made; as a matter of fact it was not only an inference but a definite statement, which will be found in the remarks of the right hon. leader of the opposition appearing in Hansard for yesterday at page 1613, as follows:
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 anyone, however bitter may be his partisanship, who has suggested any method by which the crops could be marketed unless someone was prepared to take the hedges.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think I pointed out very clearly in my remarks last week dealing with this question that the wheat pool movement in western Canada was started for the purpose of doing away with the necessity of hedging the crops of western Canada. I do not understand anyone saying that no one has suggested any other method of dealing with the question. Let me read again what I read the other evening from the seventh annual report of the Saskatchewan Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited for 1931. They say:
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.
Then, after dealing with the getting together of different persons, this statement is made:
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. 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.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that those who advocated the setting up of a wheat board in 1931, to market the whole crop of western Canada, were advocating a system which would have avoided the provision of hedges about which the right hon. leader of the opposition was speaking last night. So that at least two suggestions were made to the government of Canada, by very representative people in this country, with regard to methods which they at least thought would do away with the necessity of hedging the crop of 1931. But the Prime Minister and the government of that day, as has been indicated by the letter read to the house last evening by the leader of the opposition, decided very definitely against both those methods and set up a method of their own which involved the hedging of the crop and the government of Canada guaranteeing the amount necessary in order to carry on that operation. That matter, I think, is very fully dealt with by giving these facts.
Then there is one other matter that has been dealt with at some length during the debate, in connection with which I think perhaps hon. members should have the information contained in the auditor's report, before we go into committee on the bill. I should like to ask the indulgence of the house to have this report placed upon Hansard rather than that I should have to read it all to the house at the present time. I do not think it is necessary that it should be read but I do think hon. members should have this information when discussing this matter in committee. I should like to place on the record certain statements, or a certain schedule, contained in the auditor's report which was brought down in January. That schedule appears at the end of what is called Stabilizing, and is exhibit B-III. I would ask permission of the house to have this schedule appear in Hansard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the schedule can only be treated as part of the whole it should not be separated. If it is a document that will be self-explanatory, well
1G40
Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner

and good. If it does refer to the rest of the report it is quite obvious that the entire document should be published in order that it may be thoroughly understood.


James Garfield Gardiner: This document is entitled Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, Crop of 1930 and Crop of 1930 Special, and "Special Suspense" (Stabilizing Operation). The statement shows the stocks of grain that were taken over in 1930. The stocks are shown in the crop of 1930 account; then it shows the option position right through the year. Then there is a column which shows the two combined, and the next columns show the stabilizing operations, stocks of grain, option position, and the two together. The next column shows the combined market position with regard to both those matters, the stabilizing and the other account. The next column shows the price at the end of every month during that period. This account shows the position on
the last day of each month from July, 1930, until the end of the period, that is October 31, 1935. In other words it is a summary of all that we have been talking about in connection with the whole matter. I would like to have that placed upon Hansard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will have to be without any waiving of the right to have other portions of it placed upon Hansard; for if the minister is permitted to select a particular part of the document and ask that it go on Hansard without the rest being available it would be very bad practice. It can be done only with the unanimous consent, and as far as my consent is given it is on the assumption that if any other portions have to be read with it to make the part placed upon Hansard intelligible that also will have to be included.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think that could be
done in committee, if any other information is necessary.
Stabilizing Exhibit B III.



CANADIAN CO-OPERATIVE WHEAT PRODUCERS, LIMITED CROP OF 1930 AND CROP OF 1930 SPECIAL AND &quot;SPECIAL SUSPENSE&quot; (STABILIZING OPERATION)

[Stage Direction]
Statement Showing Market Position at each Month End (000's omitted) from August 31, 1930 to
October 31, 1935
Crop of 1930 and Crop of 1930 Special
Stabilizing Operations
Stocks
of
grain
Option
position
Together
Stocks
of
grain
Option
position
T ogether
Combined
market
position
Month end cash close basis No. 1 Northern
August	
September. October.... November. December.
12G
22,146
37,454
37,135
44,062
1,429
3,513
200
4,368
1,303
18,633
38,396
36,935
48,430
1,303
18,633
38,396
36,935
48,430
86 i 72f 711 591 511
January.. February March....
A pril...
May	
June	
July	
August...
43,210
42,416
38,334
26,672
25,603
2S.852
27,609
9,861
10,241
13,i83
19,011
31,433
38,727
43,304
47,555
66,787
53,451
56,199
57,345
58,105
64,330
72,156
75,164
76,648
3,178	3,178
3,246	3,246
53,451
56,199
57,345
58,105
64,330
72,156
78,342
79,894
54|
561
60*
58|
53
1931
September.
October__
November
December.
3,317
2,213
1,470
72,979
74,216
74,976
75,389
76,296
76,429
76,446
76,359
6,980	6,980	83,2769,530	9,530	85,9597,425	7,425	83,8717,425	7,425	83,784
< Ug 621 60
[Stage Direction]
Wheat Board

Mr. Gardiner
Stabilizing Exhibit B III.

[Stage Direction]
Statement Showing Market Position at each Month End (000's omitted) from August 31, 1930 to
October 31, 1935-Concluded.
Stocks
of
grain
and Crop of 1930 Special	Stabilizing Operations	Com- bined market position	Month end cash close basis No. 1 NorthernOption osition	T ogether	Stocks of grain	Option position	Together	75,651	76,362	7,425	7,425	83,787	6070,057	76,382	7,425	7,425	83.S07	6of76,057	76,382	8,160	8,160	84,542	60*76,353	76,382	7,995	7,995	84,377	60|76,353	78,382	8,360	8,360	84,742	0278,353	76,382	12,694	12,694	89,076	53176,353	76,370	23,002	23,602	99,978	57|76,353	76,376	2,851	2,851	79,227	54176,376	76,376	5,391	5,391	70,985	49i76,376	76,376	58,207	58,207	134,583	46176,376	76,376	71,634	71,634	148,010	44176,376	76,376	75,717	75,717	152,093	41f76,376	76,370	76,904	76,904	153,280	44f76,376	70,376	77,174	77,174	153,550	40*76,376	70,376	72,665	72,065	149,041	4976,376	76,376	72,020	72,020	148,396	59476,376	76,376	71,170	71,170	147,546	64176,376	76,376	69,342	69,342	145,718	72}76,375	76,375	73,297	73,297	149,672	76|76,375	76,375	75,916	75,916	152,291	68176,375	76,375	103,573	103,573	179,948	61J70,375	76,375	129,725	129,725	206,100	61176,375	76,375	133,010	133,010	209,385	60176,375	76,375	133,409	133,409	209,7S4	61*76,375	76,375	133,190	133,190	209,565	66176,375	70,375	130,679	130,679	207,0.54	65175,375	76,375	121,519	121,519	197,894	66174,375	76,375	107,843	107,843	184,218	05157,005	76,117	95,647	95,647	171,764	81|71,736	76,117	97,919	97,919	174,036	76163,707	70,117	100,120	100,120	176,237	8672,648	76,117	105,408	105,408	181,525	80176,117	76,117	129,382	129,382	205,499	81!76,117	76,117	158,806	158,806	234,923	7676,117	76,117	158,343	158,343	234,460	78*73,796	76,117	158,483	158,483	234,000	79175,828	76,115	158,451	158,451	234,566	7975,828	76,115	158,328	158,328	234,443	80175,828	76,115	158,082	158,082	234,197	83!46,432	76,115	150,662	150,602	226,777	88124,474	76,116	152,446	152,446	228,562	81123,275	70,115	145,685	145,685	221,800	8119,928	76,115	137,573	137,573	213,688	85f3,501	75,690	26,437	107,656	134,093	209,783	8118,072	75,004	21,598	110,503	132,101	207,165	90119,515	74,805	15,745	114,782	130,527	205,332	801
January. February. March....
April....
May	
June	
July	
August___
1932
September___
October	
November____
December....
January. February. March.... April....
May	
June	
July	
August___
1933
September...
October	
November... December...
January. February. March....
April...
May	
June	
July....
August___
1934
September___
October	
November.... December....
January. February. March....
April....
May	
June	
July	
August___
1935
September... October	
325
29
29
23
1,000
2,000
19,112
4,381
12,410
3,469
2,321
287 2S7 287 29,683 51,642 52,840 06,187 72,189
66,992
55,290
Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner
[Stage Direction]
Having placed that in such a position so that it will be available to hon. members during the discussion, I should like to turn my attention to the bill itself and the remarks which have been made with regard to the preamble.
Before reading the preamble and indicating to the house what it contains I should like to call attention to the letters that were read in this house by the leader of the opposition last evening, letters which were submitted to him in place of the order in council which he asked for the previous evening.
Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not quite right.
The hon. gentleman said there was an order in council and he would produce it. There being no order in council I got the documents a few minutes before I began. Let us be accurate.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not want to go
back and read the whole discussion that took place, but I submit that what really did occur was this: after I sat down on Friday evening the leader of the opposition rose in his place and made some very hurried remarks, among others a statement which very definitely inferred that there must be an order in council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman said so.


James Garfield Gardiner: I say quite candidly
that prior to the new year I attended very few council meetings, for obvious reasons. There were some people who thought it important that my constituency in Saskatchewan should be contested; I was up there fighting an election for a considerable part of the time. I was not altogether clear at the moment- last evening whether there was an order in council or not. The right hon. gentleman was so emphatic in his argument that he almost convinced me that there must be one. I am fairly well convinced now that there was not, but at the time I thought there might be and I told him the order in council would be brought down. Yesterday morning, I think it was, he telephoned me and in the meantime I had found that there was no order in council, and I so informed him. In order to clear up the little episode at the beginning of his speech last night in which he complained about delay in bringing documents down, I called his attention to the fact that he insisted that there must have been one in January and I said I would have a look through January and find out if there was and if there was an order I would send it to him. But there was none. He wanted another letter that had been sent to the premiers of the western provinces, and I

secured that and sent it to him at the beginning of the proceedings yesterday. But my memory is that it was the order in council that he was most concerned about. I had the letters and could have sent them at the beginning of the sitting yesterday, but I did not think he had particularly asked for them.
I want to read the first letter, because the first covers the whole point; there is no necessity to read the others:
November 12, 1935.
Mr. John I. McFarland,
Chairman, Canadian Wheat Board,
Winnipeg, Manitoba.
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.
The order in council P.C. 3199 provides that the sum to be paid shall be verified byauditors' 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.
That was on November 12. All the other letters have to do with whether or not the wheat board as then constituted with Mr. McFarland as its chairman was going to carry out the instructions given by the government in that letter. Even the wire which was read to-day, which was not on the file sent over last evening, is just insisting upon the terms of this letter being carried out; there is nothing more in it. It had no such special importance as the leader of the opposition attempted to have the house believe it had. It simply referred to this letter and said that the terms of this letter were to be carried out.
There was a certain amount of discussion back and forth in regard to the matter which I say does not need to be read, because on December 2, which is the date referred to in the part of the preamble to which the leader of the opposition seems to take so much exception, the assignment of that wheat on the terms contained in that letter was made. It was made in the wire that was sent to Mr. Euler.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Delivery was not made until the seventeenth.

Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, the undertaking to deliver. Of course hon. members understand that you cannot deliver 76,000,000 bushels or 200,000,000 bushels of wheat in twenty-four hours, but the undertaking to deliver was made on December 2. The first undertaking was in these words:
Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited
Contracts for delivery of wheat In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained in a certain agreement confirmed by order in council No. 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.
It will be remembered that a number of the wires that were read to the house last evening were passing one another on the way between heTe and Winnipeg. As a result of that some misunderstanding was created, but everything in connection with the whole deal went back to December 2, 1935, when everything was cleared up by the letters and telegrams which passed between the government and the president of the wheat board, and between the president of the wheat board and the pools in western Canada. That is contained in another document dated December 2. which has already been placed on the record, and it will not be necessary for me at this time to read it again.
All I need say to the house is that the arrangement entered into between the wheat pool, the wheat board and the government was entered into at that time upon the basis of order in council P.C. 3199, passed on October 10, 1935. But it was subject to the condition placed at the end of it, namely, that there was to be an audit. The audit was made, and after it was made it was found that even some of the payments which people expected were going to be made under that order in council could not be made in that way. If they were going to be made at all, some other way had to be found of making them.
I must say that since the debate began I have learned a great deal about the way in which the order in council was made up. I imagine it was presumed by the leader of the opposition that much of the information which 12739-105
came out during the debate was in my possession, as minister, at the time the debate began. Had it not been for the speech made by the leader of the opposition on the first day the resolution was in committee, in all probability much of the discussion which has taken place in connection with this matter would not have occurred at all. He has been complaining a great deal about the length of the discussion. The other night he stated that all I had said in two hours and a half could have been put into fifteen minutes, but I notice that it took him two hours and a half to reply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Two hours and a half in reading documents we should have had at the start.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then, there is another matter having to do with it. Last evening some suggestion was made with regard to a memorandum, and some doubt expressed as to whether there was a memorandum which carried with it the endorsation of the then Prime Minister. Well, I do not wish to make any insinuation with regard to the matter, or to have it interpreted that I have made any, so perhaps I had better produce the file. The file is here, and if there is any doubt in the mind of the leader of the opposition that the matter of coarse grains was discussed I do not need to refer him to any individuals; all I have to do is to refer him to the memorandum.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Which memorandum is it?


James Garfield Gardiner: The memorandum in this instance is one submitted by Price Waterhouse and Company to the wheat pools, and in turn submitted here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the document which I asked about last night, and which the Minister of Finance said it was unnecessary to produce.


James Garfield Gardiner: But my right hon. friend has made it necessary to produce it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It must at once, when the minister has finished with it, be laid upon the table.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Once more, it is a new document which I have never seen, and which the Minister of Finance said last night it was unnecessary to produce.


James Garfield Gardiner: I must say to my right hon. friend that I had not gone over it myself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Finance
said that it was not necessary.



Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner


James Garfield Gardiner: The Minister of Finance had apparently reviewed it during that same period of which I spoke a few minutes ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All right.


James Garfield Gardiner: I find it here on file, on a file which was available at that time and apparently was made use of by the then Prime Minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the then Prime Minister was not here at that time. That document was sent to the then Minister of Finance, so the minister said last night.


James Garfield Gardiner: Your story of last night was absolutely correct, as to where you were seen, and all about it. It is all on the file.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All right; we know who
the man was, then. It is hearsay evidence now.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; it is right here on the file.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It cannot be on the file, because I did not make any file.


James Garfield Gardiner: We will see whether the record is correct or not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All right.


James Garfield Gardiner: This document is dated October 5, 1935, and is addressed to the president and directors of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited. Winnipeg, Manitoba. It is as follows:
Dear Sirs:
As requested we have made an examination of the special statements prepared under the direction of the treasurer of the company relative to the equalization of payments to the provincial pools on deliveries by them on account of the erop of 1930 pool for both wheat and coarse grain divisions.
The initial prices for such deliveries were changed on several occasions before all the deliveries were made and we give below these
Wheat	
(Add net overpayments on deliveries at 70 cent basis)
Oats..
Barley Flax..
Rye
Total-all grains
prices in respect to the basic grade for each grain handled and also the final price as determined by the sales department.
		Final
	Initial	spread
	prices	prices
Wheat 1 northern. .	70 cents 60 cents 55 cents 50 cents	60 centsOats 2 C.W	30 cents 25 cents	30 centsBarley 3 C.W. . . .	25 cents 20 cents	25 centsFlax 1 C.W	$1 25 1 00 75 cents	$1 25Rye 2 C.W	35 cents 30 cents 25 cents	35 cents
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is not in his seat, but may I say that he asked me some time ago about the initial price of flax. He will note from this document that the first initial price was $1.25, the second was $1 and the third seventy-five cents. The final spread was $1.25.
In determining the revised prices the sales department, as has been the practice in the past, based their calculations on the sales proceeds of the grain delivered to the company by the provincial pools. All the subsequent transactions in respect to option trading, grain deliveries through the clearing house, resales thereof and the stocks of grain and open option contracts as at August 31, 1935, are viewed as extraneous to the determination of the revised pool prices. In addition to the prices in respect to each basic grade the sales department also calculated the revised spreads, based on sales of all other grades of each grain, which revised spreads varied from those fixed at the time of deliveries.
We give below a summary of the amounts paid out by the company on all deliveries from the provincial pools based on the initial prices referred to above and also the amounts of the same deliveries on the basis of the revised prices. The difference betwen the figurs represents the amounts by grains necessary to equalize the payments on the basis of the revised prices previously shown.
Difference $6,326,935 99 182,333 37

Initial prices $66,122,951 78
1,107,466 77 1.519.789 14 1,357,573 68 668,782 85

Revised prices $72,449,887 77
1,377,949 38 1,610,624 17 1,781,363 78 774,333 55

In the case of wheat deliveries at seventy cents and which therefore involved payments by the company in excess of the revised rate of sixty cents it is not, we understand, the intention to recover from the growers these net overpayments of $182,333.37 shown above.

In connection with the company's statements we have verified with the records the pools' deliveries both as to quantities and aggregate amounts. Owing to the immense volume of transactions and the innumerable calculations involved any detailed checking by

Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner
us of the unit prices determined by the sales department of the various grains and grades was impracticable, but from our inquiry and such test checks of the arithmetical accuracy as were made, we report that the company's sales department has followed its customary practice and has exercised all possible care and thoroughness in making their calculations in such manner as to ensure, in our opinion, the establishment of correct equalization figures.
As has been already remarked the revised prices are based on sales proceeds and are therefore the prices before making any appropriation to cover country carrying charges, storage, interest, brokerage and administration and general expenses.
That is signed by-I am not able to make out the signature, but it is that of Price, Waterhouse and Company.
In view of one of the remarks made last evening I wish to call the attention of the house to this fact, that in this particular document, which was produced on October 5, three days before the preparation of the order in council which was finally passed, there is no provision for payment of expenses.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Where did the document come from, and in whose possession was it in Ottawa?


James Garfield Gardiner: This is the file that was used in building up that order in council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In Ottawa?


James Garfield Gardiner: Most of the file was
dealt with in the Department of Finance; it was passed on by the Department of Finance to the Department of Justice; and this is the Department of Justice file.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I wanted
to know. It is the Department of Justice file and the document is dated, the hon. gentleman says, October 5. Where was it sent to by Price Waterhouse and Company? To the finance department?


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course, I have not
the information as to who brought it to Ottawa and where it went from one place to another in Ottawa. It is dated October 5 and is on this file as part of the documents that were used in building up that order in council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To whom is it addressed?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is addressed to the
president and directors of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, Winnipeg. Manitoba, is signed by Price Waterhouse and Company, and is dated at Winnipeg. It says:
As requested we have made an examination of the special statements prepared under the 12739-1051
direction of the treasurer of the company relative to the equalization of payments to the provincial pools on deliveries by them on account of the crop of 1930 pool for both wheat and coarse grains divisions.
I point out, Mr. Speaker, that in this document, which was the one sent down to verify the figures which were being presented here before the order in council was drawn up, there is no reference to expenses so far as I can find out. The reference is to wheat and to coarse grains.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon.' gentleman
just read in my hearing that it did not include anything for carrying charges in country elevators or for expenses.


James Garfield Gardiner: Those are not the expenses I am speaking of at all. In P.C. 3199 some provision is made for the payment of something like 8800,000 of expenses for operating the 1930-31 pool, but in this original document having to do with this whole question there is no reference to these expenses. The total amount dealt with in this document is $7,399,927.80. I want to put the document on the record.
Now I go to other documents, and these have been already presented to the house with the exception of two. We have the report to council upon which the order in council was based, and it is fairly easy to determine, simply by reviewing the documents themselves, the manner in which the order in council was made up and the thoughts that were running through people's minds when it was being made up. I will wind that up by saying that the document was finally drawn up and signed in the manner that has already been indicated to the house.
Some reference was made last evening to a document which I did not know at that time was available. I have before me a copy of that document, and I take it off the file because it is impossible to read it without taking it off, for a very important part of it is under the clip on the file. That important part is also written in in pen and ink, across the top of the memorandum. It reads like this:
Instructions received from P.M. through
R.K.F. on 8th October.
Anyone having to do with this document will know what those initials "P.M." stand for.
They will know much better than I do what the initials "R.K.F." stand for. Then there are the initials. "F.P.E." I think, at the bottom, indicating I assume, who wrote this which appears at the top of the memo It reads like this:
The Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers. Limited, agree to sell to the Canadian wheat

Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner
board, all wheat owned by them and all their contracts for the purchase of wheat, and to transfer and deliver the same to the Canadian wheat board immediately upon the acceptance of this offer, and upon the terms hereinafter set out.
(a)	The Canadian wheat board accepts as of the 31st day of August, 1935, all liabilities of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, in respect of the said wheat and the said contracts for advances made in connection with the acquisition and the holding thereof by the following banks:
There is a blank left to fill in the names of the banks. Then follows (b):
(b)	The amount to be paid by the Canadian wheat board to the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, is the sum of-
And the sum is left blank:
-being the balance due to the primary producers for wheat and expenses and other charges in connection with the holding and handling thereof.
Those are the terms of the memorandum, and I want to call the attention of the house to the fact that at the time that memorandum was apparently forwarded or presented to the then Prime Minister and sent forward at his request-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The then Prime Minister never saw it or heard of it until he heard it read just now. That is exactly what happened.


James Garfield Gardiner: The statement at the top is this:
Instructions received from P.M.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Through somebody else.


James Garfield Gardiner: Through "R.K.F." I assume that is his secretary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is one of them.


James Garfield Gardiner: And so far as he knew, the memorandum was sent from his office to the office of the clerk?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not quite right. The only indication I received was that the secretary came accompanied by Mr. Bredt, and they went to the Department of Finance and to the Department of Justice, and as a result the Department of Justice framed the order in council. That is clearly the memorandum from Mr. Finlayson to Mr. Varcoe of the Department of Justice, and I have never seen or heard of it until just now.


James Garfield Gardiner: But it carries out the instructions of the then Prime Minister given to his secretary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the then Prime Minister had no instructions to give beyond that Mr. Bredt and the secretary came up here together, and he told them to take the matter up with the law officers of the crown and deal with it accordingly, and they did.
'Mr. Gardiner.]


James Garfield Gardiner: I am just giving what appears here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And when the document came to me at Toronto I added the words, "Subject to verification of auditors certificates."


James Garfield Gardiner: In conclusion, I would call attention to one other matter referred to by the leader of the opposition, and that is this document, the bill itself, the second reading of which I am about to move. As I stated at the beginning, the preamble is rather an extraordinary one, the bill itself is rather extraordinary, and it deals with a rather extraordinary set of circumstances. It has been pointed out by the leader of the opposition that one of the sections of the preamble refers to December 2; but, as I have indicated, that is only a part of the historical story of this matter. Any member reading the preamble through-if I had time I would read it now-will find that all that it contains is a recital of the story surrounding this piece of legislation. It is not couched in any political language; it is couched in the language of two departments of government, the Department of Finance and the Department of Justice, in order to make perfectly plain the reasons for this bill. The reason is not all contained in the reference to December 2; it is contained in every part of the preamble. I submit that the bill should pass its second reading in its present form and if there are any necessary amendments to be made they can be brought up in committee and fully discussed. I move the second reading of the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Young in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Payment not exceeding $6,600,000 to the Canadian wheat board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This section is somewhat obscure. It provides that:
The governor in council may authorize payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of sums not exceeding in the aggregate six million six hundred thousand dollars to the Canadian wheat board for distribution through such agencies as may be approved by tile governor in council to primary protducers of wheat in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, who delivered wheat___
I point out that the wheat was taken from the Canadian wheat producers and not from the Canadian wheat board, and that the direction made by the government was that

Wheat Board
they must deliver it or credit would be taken from them. They plainly, as the vendors, should receive the money and not the vendees, not the .purchasers, and I should like some explanation of what that means.


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend will pardon me, there are one or two slight amendments to be made.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I move that paragraph (b) be amended by inserting after the word "either" in line 43, page 4, the words "sixty-four or."


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have not got to (a) and (b) yet. The chairman called the first paragraph with reference to payment not exceeding 86,600,000 to the Canadian wheat board. I am asking how the money is being paid, and I should like to have some explanation in that regard. The minister says he relies on an assignment dated December 2, 1935 as authority for vesting it in the wheat board. He now proposes to pay the money to the wheat board, when as a matter- of fact it must be due to the vendors, that is, the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited.


James Garfield Gardiner: It will be noted in the section that the governor in council may authorize .payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of sums not exceeding in the aggregate $6,600,000 to the Canadian wheat board for distribution through such agencies as may be approved by the governor in council to primary producers of wheat in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Of course, the natural way to make the payment-some inquiry had to be made as to whether it was possible to make it in that way, and we find that it is-is to have the money pass through exactly the same channel as it has always done since the pool relationship has existed. The money will go from the wheat board to the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, and they in turn will distribute it to the three different provincial pools. I understand that in Saskatchewan and Alberta the method of doing that is very simple. The pools are still there, operating as they were before, and the cheques will be issued by the Saskatchewan pool and by the Alberta pool in the same manner as they issued interim payments in connection with other crops. That, I understand, is the procedure that will be followed there. There is some difficulty in Manitoba owing to the fact that the pool there made an assignment, and payments will probably have to be made by some other arrangement, probably through the pool elevators in Manitoba.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The pool elevators in Manitoba assigned and the assignee takes their place. He is in a position to deal with the matter, as an officer of the court, perhaps-as faithfully as private interests would deal with it under any circumstances. But the point I make is this. This money is earmarked as it leaves the treasury. It goes to the Canadian wheat board for a purpose, for distribution. Why should it be provided that the agencies are to be approved by the governor in council when as a matter of fact, if reliance is placed upon the order in council of October, 1935, obviously the payments should go to the people who sold the wheat to the board? That would seem to be elementary, I submit with all deference. That is the vendor, the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, should be responsible for the distribution, for they have the books and the records with respect to it; they know the respective pools from which they received the wheat, and the amount that would be due to them under the terms of the bill. As it stands now, it puts tlTe governor in council in a position to decline to approve, which of course is the complement of providing for approval, payment to the primary producers of wheat in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta who delivered the wheat through the respective pool organizations in the said provinces-and the name is given-to the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited. They are the people who received the wheat, and as such I submit -the statute should provide that they should make the distribution in the manner and form provided for in the contracts that they had with the people from whom they received the wheat. That is -the position I am trying to assert.
It is a new thing to say that the governor in council shall be called upon to approve the method by which the purchaser pays his debts to the vendor. The hon. gentleman's statement that he relies upon the order in council as the foundation of this is negatived entirely by the documents he himself produced last night. The wheat was taken by force majeure, was taken away from the owners by threats. It having been taken away from them by threats, they said:	We
will settle the terms under which it will be paid for. They then settled the terms. Those terms are terms of settlement between the owners of the wheat, as represented by the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, and the government. This settlement having been made, this is to provide money for the settlement, but the hon. gentle-
Wheat Board

man says that instead of it being paid to the vendor, namely the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, it must be disbursed by such agencies as may be approved by the governor in council, and I cannot quite understand why that should be said if reliance is placed upon the order in -council.


James Garfield Gardiner: The contention throughout is that there are certain moneys owing to the primary producers; that is, there is no contention made anywhere that there is money owing to the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, as at present constituted or to the provincial pools as at present constituted, or to anyone but the primary producer whose wheat was taken in 1930, put into an account by itself and held off the market until the present time. The contention is that there is no reason for making payment to any one but the primary producer. The government wants to make certain that the money does go to the primary producer, and we are assuming that the pools will be prepared to cooperate and make that payment by the easiest possible method. But if some other method has to be set up in order to make the payment where we think it ought to go, then of course we shall follow some other method.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. Still the hon. gentleman apparently has not grasped my point. The only people who know who are the producers are the people who took the wheat from them.


James Garfield Gardiner: Excepting the people themselves.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I mean that they are the only people other than those who delivered the grain. Of course each producer knows for himself, but you cannot put the fund up, and say: Shoot at this and see how much belongs to you. You have to have the distribution, I submit, by the people who took the wheat from the vendor; that is, the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, as is indicated by the record. The producers sold their wheat to the provincial pool, and the provincial pools had a single selling agency, namely the cooperative enterprise at Winnipeg. That enterprise would distribute the cheques. Let us say that there is a cheque of $10,000; they would distribute say $3,000 to the Alberta pool, $4,000 to the Saskatchewan pool, $3,000 to the Manitoba pool, and those pools would of course make the distribution to the producers. It is obvious that the cooperative producers have not the information as to the individuals; that is in the hands of the pro-
[Mr. Bennett.!
vincial pools. I am only pointing out that the government surely cannot expect to set up an organization, by order in council or otherwise, although that is now the favourite method of government, for the purpose of determining where these producers are. Surely the producers are known, outside themselves only to the people to whom they delivered their wheat, that is the pools, and the pools should receive the money in order that they may make distribution to the producers, to ensure that the money goes to them. That is the point I am trying to make.


James Garfield Gardiner: I assume the leader of the opposition knows exactly the course through which this grain passes under the pooling system.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: When the wheat is taken from an individual, that individual has a certificate sent to him which indicates that he delivered so much wheat, and which entitles him later to claim his interim or his final payment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Participation in the ultimate sale price of the wheat.


James Garfield Gardiner: Participation certificate. The producers have held these participation certificates until, at any rate, very recently. I doubt whether many have them now; 1 think they were sent in, in the majority of cases, claims being made already on the pools for payment, and there was probably a reason for their doing that at the time. But those participation certificates exist, and it is only when they are presented that any payment will be made. It does not matter whether the government, or the banks, or the pools, pay the money, or by whatever system it is paid; the payment will be made when the certificate is presented. I am assuming that the simplest way to have that certificate presented is to have it done in the way in which it always was done when there was a pool operating, that is to have the individuals notified that payment will be made and let them make their claims if they have claims to make. Some of these certificates are assigned; they are not in the hands of the original producer of the wheat; they have been assigned to pay grocery bills or, probably, to the banks; I understand that about twenty-seven per cent of these certi-cates have been assigned and about seventy-three per cent of them were held by the original producers until a very short time ago. They will be sent in by whoever has them. But the wheat pool organizations have all the records on their own books.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
James Garfield Gardiner: And in their own offices.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I say.


James Garfield Gardiner: They know from whom the supply of wheat was originally obtained, and they can find out from these records whether the particular individual is still in existence and whether he has transferred to someone else his rights to payment for the wheat. For that reason I assume that they ire probably the logical authority to make the Dayments, and we expect that that is the way n which this will be done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would there be any
question about it? I was fairly familiar with the fact that these participation certificates were outstanding, because they are the only documents that evidence the right of the holders to participate in the ultimate moneys received from the sale of their wheat. That is, if farmers A, B and C send their wheat to the Alberta pool, farmers A, B and C receive the initial payment and receive a document referred to as a participation certificate, which in terms entitles the farmers to receive their adequate part of or share in the ultimate price received from the sale of all the wheat in that class and grade sold through the pool that season. That is the reason the pooling system came into being. It is a cooperative enterprise and they all share equally in the distribution of the moneys received from the sale of particular classes of wheat.
The point I am trying to make is: Should not this measure provide, if you are going to see that the producers receive the money, that it be distributed by the pools to the producers? As it stands, it is open to an entirely erroneous construction; and in view of what has appeared in one of the financial journals of the country, and which I read last night, that the pools had been turned down and the money was to be distributed by somebody else, not by the pools, is it not desirable to provide, if you are going to see that the producers get the money at all, that the people who bought the wheat from the producers, who have a record of every bushel they sold, and who would know whether there has been, for instance, forgery of a certificate, or whatever may have happened to it, should make the distribution? The minister knows as well as I do that the books kept by the pools record each individual transaction as it goes in through the elevators from day to day and ultimately into the pools themselves, involving, of course, substantial outlays in the form of expenses. That being so, should we not provide for distribution by the respective pool organizations in the provinces to the
primary producers of such wheat? Is that not what we are trying to do? As it stands now, a very long time may elapse before the money is ultimately distributed.
My memory is that some of these pool agreements provide that there shall be no such thing as the assignment of a participation certificate. The minister will remember the difficulties in connection with the assignments of participation certificates. I think, however, that the common law right of assignment has not been parted with, and that in many cases there have been assignments of the certificates to financial institutions or to grocers. These certificates can be paid only through one organization, and that, in my judgment, is the pool that issued them; that has the books and records; that knows the number of bushels, what the initial payment was, what is the balance due, and can check the participation certificate with the books, ascertain its accuracy, and on a basis of accuracy issue the cheque. Obviously there will be no issuance of cheques without surrender of the participation certificates; that seems to be reasonably clear.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; the statement made by the leader of the opposition is correct that no payment will be made without the release of the certificates. Some of them may be rather difficult to discover, and payments will be made through the organizations that he has mentioned as far as it is possible to make them through these organizations. But it may be necessary for certain reasons to have some payments made in other ways, either because of delays or because of conditions existing in Manitoba, of which I spoke. As a matter of fact this suggestion is put in rather to help in the payment through these organizations than in any way to place anything in the way of its being made through them.


Mr. TUCKER:: I. am not clear as to the
intention. As I understand it, the intention is that these moneys should be paid through the pooling organization in each province, and this bill is intended to make sure that the primary producer gets the money. That is the obvious intention of the bill, with which I agree, but what I am not clear about is this: Is it the intention of the government that these payments shall be subject to audit by the dominion government? That is, is it intended that they should go over these payments and make sure that the primary producers do get the money from the wheat pools? I should like to know just what is the intention of the government.
Wheat Board


James Garfield Gardiner: No; the situation is
this: When the bill is passed and the money is available to the pool organizations no doubt we shall have some discussions with them. If the pool organizations say that they want to pay the money out in the ordinary way and pay it over to the producers, that is the way in which it will be paid. But if something else is said then I am not in a position to state to the committee what the government will be compelled to do. I assume that is what is going to be said; I do not think anyone is in a position to assume anything else. This is all the money in connection with wheat that the pool organizations asked for, with the exception of their expenses.
I may say that the way in which the money was actually' paid before was this: If there was S6,600.000 available as interim payment from the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, they would divide it into the proper proportions as between the Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta pools. Then each of these pools would take their expenses in connection with the operations for that year out of the money before they made any return to the original producer. They took their expenses out first and then divided the money that was left among the producers. This bill provides that all the money is to go to the producers and none of it is to be used to pay expenses. I assume that when this money is passed on, the pools will say, "We are prepared to distribute this money as we have always distributed it," and the bill makes provision for payment of actual expenses of distribution, but it docs not make provision for payment of the expenses of operating the pools in 1930-31. That item has been refused, and in paying out this money we do not intend that this S862,000 shall be taken out before the money is paid the primary producers. We expect all this money to go to the primary producers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think now the minister has quite grasped the point I was trying to make. The participation certificates contain upon their face a provision for what the pool is to receive for the service rendered. The hon. gentleman said that it was two cents a bushel. I had an idea that in some cases it was less than that, but as he says that it is two cents, I will take that figure.


James Garfield Gardiner: I said that I thought it was two cents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For the purposes of my argument it might as well be two cents as one cent. These participation certificates contain-or did contain; I cannot say anything about these, not having seen them-a pro-

vision that the pool shall pay the original producer his proportion of the moneys realized from the sale of all the wheat of that grade sold to the pool by all the producers less, we will say for the sake of argument, the two cents a bushel for expenses, which was to be set up for a reserve. If it is not in the certificate it certainly is in the contract, and it is well for the committee to keep in mind that in every one of these cases a pool membership is a contract between the pool and the producers.	That is the
fundamental basis of the whole matter.
This contract provides for many things. It provides that the producer will sell his wheat through the pool. It also provides for the deduction from the sale price of the wheat of a certain sum per bushel to be set up for a reserve, and the purposes of that reserve, as the hon. gentleman knows better than I do, are set out in the contract, not in specific terms but generally. These pool contracts have been litigated in the courts, as the minister knows, and the question I am trying to put is this:	Can distribution
be made by any person other than the pools, in view of the terms of the contracts between the pools and the producers and the relationship between them? For my purposes, if the words "through such agency as may be approved by the governor in council" were struck out of lines 25, 26 and 27, the whole matter then would be in accordance with the contracts. The paragraph would then read:
The governor in council may authorize payment out of the consolidated revenue fund, of sums not exceeding in the aggregate six million six hundred thousand dollars to the Canadian wheat board for distribution to primary producers of wheat in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, who delivered wheat in the crop year 1930-31 through the respective pool organizations in said provinces to Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, in order to provide that . ..
I must say to the minister that I am now endeavouring to assist him in making this legislation effective; I have no purpose to serve other than that, but the language as it now appears would imply the possibility of setting up an organization that would not have the books of account, the records, the contracts or the certificates, because there are, or were, counterfoils with respect to the participation certificates. I should not say there is, Mr. Chairman; presumably there is, because there always was a counterfoil; on that counterfoil of each participation certificate there were written just enough particulars to identify it, and the certificates were issued in consecutive numbers.

Wheat Board
The point I am endeavouring to make- and I am not going to labour it at length- is this: If we are to be careful of the primary producer-and I assume that it is his interest we have in mind-is there any way, for instance, by which we can take from the pool in Alberta or Saskatchewan the right to deduct from the sum of money available for John Smith the money which John Smith has said should be deducted by the pool in making any payments to him? If we are going thus to set aside a contract we must say much more than we say here. If we are going to leave the contract as it is, then it seems to me that we have to provide merely that this money is to be distributed to the primary producers who delivered wheat to the respective pool organizations in the said provinces. It is not a matter that gives me any concern in one sense, but it is of vital concern to the producers because, as the clause stands now, I can see litigation and trouble with respect to this whole transaction, especially in view of the fact that there have been assignments of some of these certificates. I only recall in one of these cases that there was a limitation upon the right of assignment.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the right hon. gentleman will see that the matter of assignment is taken care of in clause 5 of this legislation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think that is sufficiently broad.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is intended to do the very thing that he is trying to see should be done. We are advised by those who should know the legal aspect of it that if the bill were made to read as he suggests, the producer in Manitoba would probably not get anything.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I fear; that is the reason I am pointing this out. I am only making a constructive suggestion to meet a difficulty.


James Garfield Gardiner: The suggestion here is that -the agency through which this is to be done will be made known to us by the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, and we will agree when we are satisfied that it is a method by which the money will get to the primary producers. That is the intention. I think the language expresses that; at least that is what the Department of Justice were asked to deal with and provide language to cover.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Far be it from me to take the time of the committee by dealing
with the matter further. I have done my duty in pointing out what I conceive to be possible difficulties. I cannot see how with language such as that you can get away from the ordinary implication under the provincial laws. This is a matter over which provincial jurisprudence has control, the relations of vendor and purchaser in connection with wheat; it all comes within the control of province, either Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba. They do not have the same form of contract in the pools; they certainly had not when the original contracts were prepared, because in the various provinces there was a distinction arising out of local conditions and matters of that kind. As the matter stands now the provincial laws would govern in the interpretation of the contract, and the federal power would be wholly beyond its jurisdiction in dealing with property and civil rights, as evidenced by the contract between the pool and sellers, that is the primary producers. That is perhaps elementary. I mention that for the purpose not of obstructing but of directing attention to difficulties that may arise and prevent the primary producer from receiving his money. I am quite content to leave the matter now.


Mr. NEEDHAM:: How would the minister handle a situation like this: a farmer who is a pool member, threshes for another farmer who is not a pool member, takes the wheat to the pool in his own name and gets the initial payment, which was not sufficient to pay for the threshing? I know of one case in which there are two or three hundred dollars owing. If this payment comes through, to whom will it be made, to the one who seized the grain or the one who produced it? Then, of course, there will be cases in which one or both may have died in the meantime.


James Garfield Gardiner: The primary producer, in the interpretation of this legislation, I feel sure is the person who delivered the wheat to the pool.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right.


James Garfield Gardiner: The thresher claims it through a law that provides that he can take the wheat. That is the provincial law, and if he delivers that wheat to the pool he has the claim.


Walter Adam Tucker: As I understand the situation, as soon as this money is paid to the wheat board for payment to primary producers, it being a body corporate, any creditor of the primary producer can attach the money that might be due to him under this legislation. I suggest that it should be provided
Wheat Board

that this money should not be attachable by any process of law, so that we may be sure the primary producer's money hereunder does not get tied up by attachments on behalf of creditors such as implement companies and other similar creditors. It should be like pensions, unattachable.


James Garfield Gardiner: The section simply says that:
The governor in council may authorize payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of sums not exceeding in the aggregate $6,600,000 to the Canadian wheat board for distribution-*
This money belongs to the government of Canada. The wheat board is simply the agency through which payment is to be made to the primary producer, or made to the primary producer through an agency that is satisfactory to the government. The legislation does not say that this has to be through the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, or through the provincial pool. I was asked at the beginning how payment was to be made, and I indicated that manner because it is the easiest way. But whoever pays will be the agent of the government in paying the money to the primary producer. The money is ours; it does not belong to the pool but passes through their hands to the people to whom we think it should go, the primary producers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That puts the order in council out of business.


James Garfield Gardiner: That has always been out of business.


Walter Adam Tucker: If the money is paid by the dominion government they have the right to say how it shall be paid. Once it is in the hands of the wheat board for distribution there is the possibility of its being attached while it is in the hands of the board on its way to the primary producer. So that there would be no chance of the matter having to be litigated and fought out, could there not simply be a clause in this bill saying that the money could not be attached?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the hon. member think that would take care of the matter? Is not the question of garnishee a matter of provincial jurisdiction?


Walter Adam Tucker: I realize that is correct, but when the dominion government appropriates the money surely it can provide that that money shall not go in a certain direction. If such a provision were in the bill there would be less chance of people taking steps to Igarnishee. They will look at the bill, and

without considering that it may possibly be ultra vires in that regard they might not take the steps they otherwise would. It would help to ensure the primary producer getting the money.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is probably right in saying that the dominion government when it pays money may impose a condition as to payment, regardless of provincial jurisdiction. If it imposes the condition that the money shall not be subject to garnishee or attachment, I think that in all probability we have power to do that. But the point I make at the moment is that we have said the dominion is going to select its own agency to make the distribution. If that is so, the relation of vendor and purchaser does not exist; these people are now the agents of the government; the whole provision, in the order in council of October 10, as is now admitted, vanishes and disappears and this is a new deal by which the government says: We are going to pay to the producers certain sums and in doing so we are going to impose conditions, one being that we select the method of distribution, which I concede at once they have the power to do, and, second, the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) suggests that there should be added a further condition that any moneys thus paid should not be attachable in the hands of any agent who may be selected for the purpose of paying the money. I think, perhaps, if they are not attachable in the hands of the crown they would not be attachable in the hands of the agent of the crown making the distribution, but that might be made a condition. The rule is that if we appropriate out of the consolidated revenue fund any moneys for any purpose we may impose such conditions as we please for the purpose of seeing that it reaches the beneficiaries whom we intended. There is no doubt about that. But I cannot think the section as it stands is not open to two constructions.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: The minister has said that the presentation of participation certificates will be necessary before payment is made. I believe that many of these certificates have been lost in the meantime, because the average farmer has no facilities for preserving such documents. What will happen to that money? Will it remain with the wheat board, or the treasury of the wheat pool, or will the books of the wheat pool be accepted as sufficient proof of the farmer having delivered that grain to the wheat pool elevator? I believe that point will come up in many cases.


James Garfield Gardiner: There will be no difficulty in making an arrangement with the pool to

Wheat Board
take care of those conditions. It is generally estimated that a certain part of the money will not be claimed. That money will belong to the dominion government. There will not be any difficulty between the pools and the government in determining how much of the money belongs to the dominion government. The records will indicate that, and of course we shall require their records before making final settlement. I might say that if the leader of the opposition thinks there is necessity for a change, I am quite prepared to let clause 3 stand until after dinner, at which time I could find out from the Department of Justice whether or not the point is covered.


Robert Fair: There is no need to worry about the distribution, because as I understand it the accounts are already set up. The certificates were turned in four years ago, and I believe the accounts are set up and the cheques ready for distribution, as soon as the money is provided.
Paragraph (a) agreed to.
On paragraph (b)-Basis of payment per bushel for durum wheat.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Young):: There is an amendment to this paragraph. It is moved in amendment:
That paragraph (b) .of section 3 of the bill be amended by inserting after the word "either" in line forty-three, page 4, the words "sixty-four or."
The paragraph would then read: "of either sixty-four, fifty-four or forty-nine cents per bushel."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
Alexander MacGillivray Young: The whole of section 3 will have to stand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the proviso.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Yes, that is part of paragraph (b).
Section 3 stands.
Section 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Release and discharge of claims against the board to be obtained.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: May I ask the minister
what validity there would be to a release given by Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, when the title to the wheat is in the name of the producers? Has any thought been given to that point?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was going to ask that
question, but the hon. member for Selkirk has asked it.


James Garfield Gardiner: This deals with a
different matter. It deals with a question really covered in order in council P.C. 3199. That is, if the terms of the bill are acceptable to the wheat pools then of course this section really provides for the new agreement with regard to the whole matter. Immediately the moneys are accepted by the company a release is given to the government. Thus, in so far as any undertakings previously made are concerned, I would say that they are dissolved by this section. The release has to do not with dealings as between individuals and the government, but with dealings between Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited and the government.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Might it not be wise
to have an amendment inserted placing beyond dispute the title of the Canadian wheat board to the wheat and wheat contracts they took over from Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited. There may be some dispute as to the validity of the title of the Canadian wheat board to the wheat contracts they took over on December 2.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Selkirk was dealing with a phase of the matter which in my judgment is one of two phases which have to be considered under section 5. The section states, "Before any moneys are paid to primary producers of wheat or to their assignees, or to Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited," but the bill distinctly states that the money is not to go to the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited. All you have to do is to look at section 5 and you will find that the money goes to the Canadian wheat board. It states:
A final release and discharge in a form to be approved by the governor in council shall be obtained of all claims which Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, may have against the Canadian wheat board arising out of the transfer of wheat or contracts-
And so forth. I object to the following words, which are at variance with the facts as produced by the minister. It was not under authority of paragraph (f) of section 7 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, that this was done, at all.


James Garfield Gardiner: I never have said so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the section says
so, and that is the point I make. The min-
Wheat Board

ister is quite right, and I should like to direct his attention to the last words in the section:
To purchase or take delivery of wheat by Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, to the Canadian wheat board under authority of pargaraph (f) of section 7 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
I agree with the minister that his whole bill is in negation of that.
Then, clearly these people cannot give a release that binds the primary producer with respect to his relation with the provincial pools. That is the first point. Second, whatever his relations with the selling agency are, they cannot be affected by this legislation. The minister is quite right when he states that parliament has power to say that when the Canadian wheat board gets money it shall release certain sums, but we cannot say that the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited have to give a release, when, as a matter of fact, they are not getting the money. The wheat is taken from them now and they are not getting the money. You cannot compel them to give a release. You do not give the money to them; according to section 3 you are giving it to the wheat board.


James Garfield Gardiner: We decide the agency
by which it is paid. It states that the money shall be paid to the Canadian wheat board for distribution to primary producers of wheat. The wheat board, not the cooperative, gets the money.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The wheat board are
not interested in getting a release; they are your creation. What you are interested in is getting a release from Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, and as they do not get the money how could you compel them to give anything?


James Garfield Gardiner: The word used is "or." It states:
Before any moneys are paid to primary producers of wheat or their assignees, or to the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


James Garfield Gardiner: -under the authority of this act, a final release and discharge in a form to be approved by the governor in council shall be obtained of all claims which Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, may have against the Canadian wheat board-


Mr. DUNNING:: "May have."


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.

pray have against the Canadian wheat board arising out of the transfer of wheat or contracts to purchase or take delivery of wheat by Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited-


Richard Bedford Bennett: It should stop there.


James Garfield Gardiner: -to the Canadian wheat board under authority of paragraph (f) section 7 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
As a matter of fact these deliveries were made under the authority of that section. The part in dispute is section (b) of the order in council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Paragraph (f) of section seven of the Canadian "Wheat Board Act is the one that authorizes and empowers the wheat board to take this wheat over from the cooperative enterprise. I think the hon. gentleman is quite right that it is not under that at all that this legislaion is being carried on, and we should stop at the words "to the Canadian wheat board." But the point of the hon. member for Selkirk I think is an unanswerable one. Why should the primary producer be deprived of getting his money because the cooperative producers will not give a release and cannot be compelled to give it?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That is not quite the point I was making.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought it was. Is not one of the points of the hon. gentleman that the condition that the cooperative producers shall give a release cannot possibly be allowed to affect the position of the primary producer?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The point I was making was this: I think the provision in section 3 of the bill that the money should be paid in the first place to the Canadian wheat board is a perfectly proper provision for the purpose of enabling the Canadian wheat board to pay for the wheat and wheat contracts that they acquired. Then, if the Canadian wheat board has validly and properly acquired the wheat and the wheat contracts from the persons who held the wheat and the wheat contracts, the title to the wheat and the wheat contracts is beyond dispute, but the suggestion I made was this, that nowhere in this bill is it provided that the Canadian wheat board has a good title to the wheat and wheat contracts that the Canadian wheat board took over on December 2.
If the order in council of October 10 is an effective one for any purpose, it may be that the Canadian wheat board acquired title

Private Bills
to the wheat and wheat contracts by virtue of the order in council, but if there is any defect in the order in council of October 10 then the whole of the order in council disappears, and there ought to be some provision in the statute putting beyond dispute the title of the Canadian wheat board to the wheat and wheat contracts which it took over. If that is not done, then the title to the wheat remains in the wheat producers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, in the provincial pools.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No, because the producer under his contract with the pool remains the owner of the wheat; be delivers the wheat to his provincial pool for sale purposes, and the provincial pool is the selling agency of the individual wheat producer: the ownership of the wheat remains in him. That was my understanding of the pool contracts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think not. I think the hon. member will find that that was one of the difficulties, that it would be impossible to carry on business with possession in the hands of one party and ownership in the hands of another.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: My understanding of the wheat pool contracts-I have not seen one for years-was that the pool member owned the wheat but the pool had authority to sell it on his behalf. Now, it may have authority to sell, but authority only to sell, and I suggest that there ought to be some provision in the statute putting beyond dispute the title of the wheat board to the wheat and wheat contracts. Then if the Canadian wheat board is provided with funds with which to acquire the wheat and pay for it, there might be some validity to the release provided for by section 5. I would suggest that the various points which I raise should be given consideration with a view to putting an end to any doubts in the matter so far as it is within the jurisdiction of the dominion parliament to deal with the acquisition of wheat and wheat contracts which would ordinarily be the subject of provincial jurisdiction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This being interprovincial would probably come within our jurisdiction.


James Garfield Gardiner: Like my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) it is some time since I saw one of these agreements, but my memory is that the interpretation given by the leader of the opposition is correct, that the wheat when it passes out of the hands of the individual producer into the hands of the provincial pool becomes the property of the provincial pool; and that was the means
whereby they got around the constitut'onal position where you are prevented from legislating provincially on interprovincial trade. The pool was thus enabled to ship the grain from Saskatchewan, say to Manitoba, to the central selling agency, and that the central selling agency, not the pools, sold the wheat. I must confess that I am not sufficient of a legal authority to determine this point, and I think during the dinner hour I should take up this section with the justice department and make sure that the points that have been mentioned are taken care of in the bill. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, this section stand.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: May I say another word. My understanding of the matter is that the pool member delivers his wheat to the central pool. He does not sell his wheat-


Richard Bedford Bennett: He delivers his wheat to the elevator of the provincial pool.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes; he delivers possession of it; then the provincial pools cooperate with one another through the central selling agency, and the central selling agency sells the wheat for the members of the pool. That is my understanding of the situation. It is a long time since I have seen one of these pool contracts, but at one time I went into the subject with some care.
Section stands.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROSS W. GRAY (Lambton West) moved the second reading of Bill No. 25, to incorporate the Economical Mutual Fire Insurance Company.
He said: In proposing the second reading of this bill I think perhaps a word of explanation is due the house. The Economical Mutual Fire Insurance Company was incorporated in 1871 under the provisions of the Act Respecting Mutual Fire Insurance Companies, being chapter 52 of the Consolidated Statutes of Upper Canada, 1859, and under that act and succeeding acts the company has carried on the business of fire insurance. It is still carrying on business. The proposed new company will take over all assets of the present Econ-
Private Bills
[Stage Direction]
omical Mutual Fire Insurance Company, and I may say that this latter company, through its conservative policy, is in quite a strong position at this particular time.
The principal object of the bill is to bring the company within the provisions of the Canada British Insurance Act and under the jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Insurance in the dominion. It has had the apiproval of the Superintendent of Insurance, Mr. Finlay-son, and has also had the approval of the shareholders and directors of the present company, ratified and confirmed at a meeting duly held after special notification.
Briefly, therefore, the principal objects of this bill are these: 1, the taking over of the business of the existing company; 2, increasing the powers of the proposed company over the present company, which is limited to fire insurance, the objects being set forth in section 4 of the present bill, and 3, bringing the new company under the direct supervision of the federal Department of Insurance.
The bill, as hon. members will note, has already passed through the senate, having been before the banking and commerce committee of the upper chamber, and follows in general form the provisions of the Canada British Insurance Act, being chapter 46 of 22 and 23 George V, as consolidated in 1922. A section, section 20, has been added to the bill for the purpose of bringing it clearly within the provisions of that act. That act provides a model bill, but the model bill takes care of joint stock companies only, and it was therefore suggested by the law officers of the senate- that section 20 be added so that there might be no misunderstanding the fact that this bill is brought clearly within the act I have just cited.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second [DOT] time.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Church for the second reading of Bill No. 5. to amend the Criminal Code (fines and penalties).
Mr. CHURCH:: This bill stood a month
ago at the request of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) for the purpose of consultation with the provincial attorneys general-


Mr. SPEAKER:: The Minister of Justice
is not in his seat; the bill had better stand
Motion stands.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee 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-Mr. Gardiner-Mr. Young in the chair.
Alexander MacGillivray Young: When
the committee rose at six o'clock section 5 was under consideration.


James Garfield Gardiner: When the committee
rose, as the chairman has said, we were discussing section 5 and I had given an undertaking to consider, with the law officers and others who had taken part in drafting the bill, sections 3 and 5. I have an assurance from them that sections 3 and 5 as now drafted cover the intentions of the government in connection with the matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly it may have
been the purpose of those who drafted the measure to give effect to some intent, but I move that all the words after the word "board" at the end of section 5 be stricken out because, as the minister has twice said positively, this measure is founded not upon that order in council but upon an agreement made with the pool people, as indicated by the documents put in evidence. Why, therefore, make in the bill a statement which is not in accordance with these facts?


James Garfield Gardiner: Do I understand that
the motion is to amend the section by striking out the words "under authority of paragraph (f) of section 7 of The Canadian Wheat Board Act 1935"?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think those words
should be left in; the authority is there and under it we have acted up to date. After this bill is passed we shall probably be acting under other authority, but up to date we have been acting under that authority.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister 9aid this
afternoon that they were not, and I certainly agreed with him. It cannot be possible that they were acting under the provisions of paragraph (f) of section 7, because the documents put in evidence indicate clearly that was not so.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.

Wheat Board


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am referring to the last clause in section 5 of the bill, the words "under the authority of paragraph (f) of section 7 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act 1935," which in view of the statements made and the documents produced cannot be said to be a correct statement. It was not done under the authority of that; if it was this bill would not be before us. If they were acting under that it would be a closed matter as far as the wheat is concerned. The certificate of the auditors would have ended the matter. As it stands now it is on a different basis altogether. I am only taking the minister's statement for this. I can do no more than write out the amendment, and if the minister says that they will not accept it, there it is. The majority is powerful enough to reject it, and I will not waste any more time about it.


James Garfield Gardiner: All I can say is that I discussed the whole matter during the intermission with those who are responsible for drafting these bills; my own opinion is that it does carry out the view that the government has in connection with the matter, and I should like to see the words left in.


Major James William Coldwell: The same words are in section 4, are they not?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.
Amendment (Mr. Bennett) negatived.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Shall section 5 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nay.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Carried. Section 3 was left over.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister says that he proposes to put the section through as it stands. I can only express my view that it is courting difficulties that need not arise, and we passed from section 3 to section 4. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) mentioned that these words appear in section 4. Just as we were rising at six o'clock I noticed that that was so. We had passed over that quickly, but it does deal with a somewhat similar question; I am not going to discuss it again:
-for distribution to the primary producers of said grains or their assignees, pursuant to the terms of the contracts under which the said grains were delivered to the respective pool organizations.
I mention that only because it depends upon the point mentioned by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson). I think he is in error in assuming that the property in the wheat
was retained by the producer. I saw the original contract that Mr. Sapiro suggested and which was finally settled by the pool in Alberta; in fact I got a fee for revising it. But the same principle applies in these contracts as does with brokers' notes. When you buy stocks on margin it is provided that the broker may put them up for the balance of the money he borrows from the bank. I suppose hon. members will recall that not long since there was some litigation on this point. In this case, when a man takes his wheat to the elevator, this contract permits the pool to deal with the wheat for the purpose of selling it; the property has passed to the pool, and he would have an action only for money and not for the return of the goods themselves. That is my understanding of the contracts as I recall them.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That is not my recollection of them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be observed before we finally pass section 5, that what we are doing is to make it more difficult for the unfortunate primary producer to get his money, and making it impossible for him to get money until something happens through an organization of which he is not a member and over which he has no control.


Charles Avery Dunning: To which organization does my right hon. friend refer?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am talking about the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited.


Charles Avery Dunning: Controlled entirely by the pools.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am talking about the primary producer. He has no interest in it directly.
Before any moneys are paid to primary producers of wheat or their assignees, or to Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, under the authority of this act, a final release and discharge in a form to be approved by the governor in council shall be obtained of all claims which Canadian Cooperative Y heat Producers. Limited may have against the Canadian wheat board arising out oi the transfer of wheat or contracts to purchase or take delivery of wheat.
That does not give a release. If the government is endeavouring to prevent litigation, I point out that that does not give a release for taking the wheat in the way in which it was taken; it gives a release only for taking it in the way in which it was not taken. If we are going to deal with this matter with any degree of care we must observe that this does not give a release for having taken the wheat in that way, but gives a release if the wheat.

Wheat Board
is taken under the provisions of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, section 7, paragraph (f). I think the hon. member for Selkirk will agree with that. And this point is not dealt with, that you subject the primary producer to delay in getting his money unless these people give a release for any claims they may have by reason of wheat being taken under paragraph (f) of section 7, which it was not taken under at all, but the bill does not provide for a release for taking the wheat in the way in which it was taken according to the telegrams and letters of November 12 and December 7.


Charles Avery Dunning: The important thing is, I take it, that parliament is desirous of clearing up this complex and vexed question. I think it is not too much to say that Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, and also each one of the pools are equally desirous of clearing it up. This section 5, which I believe was carried in committee, Mr. Chairman-	.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. He said "Carried" and I said "No." It was section 4 that was carried.


Charles Avery Dunning: This section certainly
empowers the taking of a release. With respect to the point taken by the leader of the opposition, at least it will constitute a suggestion to those acting on behalf of the government in the legal drafting of the release, to make sure that it is in such form as will settle this matter once and for all. As to the possibility of delays affecting primary producers, the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, is controlled entirely by the provincial pools, and they in turn are controlled by the very primary producers who are going to get this money. It is the same people in each case; all of them are anxious to get this matter cleared up, and the government is assured positively that no one of the organizations affected will raise the slightest objection to executing the kind of instrument which will be necessary to clear up the 1930 wheat pool payments. I cannot speak as a lawyer with respect to the effect of this or the effect of that, but I am quite sure that it will be possible for lawyers to draw up a mutually satisfactory release which will once and for all dispose of this vexed and complex question of the 1930 wheat crop.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am bound to say that just makes the situation so much worse. If the hon. member will merely take the trouble to look at the section he will see what I

mean. It is not sufficient for a man to say, "I am not a lawyer." That is the stock statement made by the Minister of Finance. That he is not a lawyer is apparent to everyone.


Charles Avery Dunning: Thank you. That is a real compliment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But that he should particularly rejoice in it has nothing to do with this particular point. Look at the language; do not take my word for it at all. A release that complies with thi terms of this section would be a release of all claims under contracts to purchase or lake delivery of wheat under the authority of section 7, paragraph (f). If you are going to make it ironclad and copper-fastened, add to it the words "or otherwise howsoever"; then you will have it beyond doubt. There is no lawyer in this chamber but would say that is what he would do if he were drawing up the document, because it is limited to release of claims drawn up under that section and not otherwise.


Robert Fair: Before this bill is finally
passed-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Section 3.


Robert Fair: All right. Before this clause is finally passed I should like to see something inserted that would give those producers who contributed oats to the 1930 pool sufficient money to bring them up to the maximum initial payment of thirty cents a bushel. In looking over the prices of oats for the years 1929 to 1934, I find that the price was: In 1925, 49*6 cents; in 1926, 58*7 cents; in 1927, 65-1 cents; in 1928, 58"8 cents; in 1929, 58-6 cents, or an average of fifty-eight cents a bushel for that five year period.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just to keep the matter in order, Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. gentleman is speaking now to section 4. We are on section 3; section 4 has been carried.


Robert Fair: If the government wished to
do so they would not find it impossible, through some technicality, to put such a provision in somewhere.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Are we on section 3 of
the bill?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Yes.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I should like to make
a few remarks on this section in order to place a certain situation before the Minister of Agriculture. I have refrained from doing so until now, but I think this is the proper section under which to bring the matter up.

Wheat Board
My understanding of this bill, after listening to the presentation by the Minister of Agriculture, is that Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, or the members of that organization, are being paid this sum of money because of the action of the previous government in using, for stabilization purposes, the wheat belonging to this organization. I think that has been established beyond any doubt. I have no objection to that injustice being remedied at this time, but last year in this house we passed Bill No. 98, which authorized the wheat board then being created by the government to fix a minimum price for wheat. I think every member going back home after the session closed last year was under the impression that the minimum price for the 1935 crop would be fixed at the beginning of the crop year, and every man who is connected with or who has any knowledge of western conditions knows that the crop year begins on the first of August or the last of July. In certain sections of the country, due to climatic conditions, the harvest is much earlier than it is in other sections. Many farmers had threshed their grain and were waiting for the minimum price to be fixed when they found themselves in need of money to pay their help, to pay for twine, gasoline and other things, and they sold their wheat just before the storage charges were to be imposed, which charges commence fifteen days after the wheat is delivered.
The minimum price for wheat was fixed in the month of September. If I am not mistaken-and if I am I stand to be corrected- it was September 9 when the announcement was made, and as far as I can find out the wheat board waited for the then Prime Minister to make the announcement in public. It seems to me that the wheat board tried to delay the announcement of the minimum price as long as possible, probably in order that it might have some effect on the election, and as a result many farmers in my district in the southern part of Manitoba sold their wheat and received ten to twelve cents a bushel less than did the man across the road. If we are going to compensate the wheat growers of one class because of government interference I think I am perfectly justified in asking the minister, before this bill is read a third time, to give my representations serious consideration and to bring the price received by farmers who sold their wheat before the minimum price was fixed, up to that minimum.


James Garfield Gardiner: At this time there is
only one thing I can say in that regard, and that is that this bill has nothing to do with 12739-106
last year's crop. It deals only with the crop of 1930, and I think so far as the discussion of the present bill is concerned I shall have to confine myself to the crop of that year.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Then may I ask the
minister whether he will not give my representations serious consideration in some other connection?


Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: I do not think the hon. member for Provencher was in favour of having the board fix a minimum price at all last year.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I do not think the hon. member has any right to suggest what I was in favour of.
Mr. PERLE1 (Qu'Appelle): We know the hon. members attitude when the bill was before the house last year.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Last year when I was in the house the then Prime Minister made a boast that the wheat board bill had passed unanimously, so I do not think the hon. member should cast any reflections on my attitude at that time.


Walter Adam Tucker: I should like to point out that in speaking to this bill the right hon. leader of the opposition left the impression that the reason many farmers in western Canada sold their wheat before the minimum price was set was that they would not take advice; that they believed stories that this act would never come into force, and so on. That may be found at page 1617 of Hansard, and I submit that before this bill passes something should be said in regard to such statement which in my opinion is not correct. The right hon. leader of the opposition 6aid:
... 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.
I have quoted just part of the sentence. The complete sentence can be read in Hansard. I should like to point out to the committee that the farmers were not free agents in this matter. Blanket seizures were placed on farms all over Saskatchewan for taxes and for relief, and these farmers had to sell their wheat before the board fixed the price, and to private purchasers in order to get these seizures released. They had no chance to hold their wheat until they could get the price fixed by the wheat board. Again, many farmers had to sell their wheat in order to carry on threshing operations from day to

Wheat Board.

day, so when the right hon. leader of the opposition suggests that the farmers of western Canada voluntarily elected to sell to private interests rather than wait for the price which was to be announced by the wheat board, I suggest that he is not correctly stating the circumstances as they prevailed in western Canada. I do submit that the people in the west were under the impression that parliament intended the wheat board to fix the minimum price for the entire 1935 wheat crop. Section 8 of the act provides:
It shall be the duty of the board:-
(a) to fix a price to be paid to the producers for wheat delivered to the board as by this act provided, subject to the approval of the governor in council;
Everyone in western Canada understood that parliament had directed that every farmer in western Canada should have a minimum price for his 1935 wheat. Due to the delay of over two months in the late administration announcing, through the wheat board, the minimum price for wheat, the farmers in poorer circumstances financially in western Canada who had no option in the matter, who had their wheat under a seizure for taxes, who had to sell their wheat in order to carry on their threshing operations and so on, were in effect penalized, and I submit to the minister, in very strong support of the last speaker, that the government should seriously consider giving the people who were entitled to it, these farmers of western Canada, the minimum price for that wheat. They are the people who were penalized by the delay in fixing the price, and they are the people who should not be penalized. They are the farmers in poorer circumstances, not those who could afford to wait. So I would strongly urge the minister to give full consideration to what has been urged by the last speaker.
. Mr, PURDY: As regards primary producers entitled to payment under this bill who take advantage of legislation now before the house providing for loans for seed grain or similar purposes by the provinces, will they receive the amount or will it go in reduction of .the loans?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not certain what the hon. member's request was; I heard just odd words, but I gather that what he wants to know is whether this money is going to the primary producer.


Mr. PURDY:: Is it going to the primary producers or to the government that has guaranteed a loan to these people for seed grain?


James Garfield Gardiner: This money goes to the primary producer, and to no one else; that is the money spoken of in section 3.


Gordon Timlin Purdy: Then, in the event of their owing money to this government through the province of Alberta or the province of Saskatchewan, we have to take our chance of getting it?


James Garfield Gardiner: I see the point; if they owe money to the government, are we going to take it out of this? That is not the intention.
Section 3 agreed to.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Section 5 was carried.
On section 6-Expenses for the carrying out of this act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the committee be good enough to look at the terms of this section?
The minister may with the approval of the governor in council out of the said sums of not exceeding $6,600,000 provided for in section three hereof pay reasonable expenses incurred by the minister or by the Canadian wheat board in carrying out the provisions of thi" act.
But the money is already paid over.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No; section 3 authorizes the payment of $6,600.000-


Richard Bedford Bennett: But how can the
expenses be known before the payment i-made, if there must be a distribution of the whole sum to the primary producers?


Charles Avery Dunning: "Not exceeding."


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know all about "not exceeding." I seem to labour under the difficulty of not making my point clear. Under section 6 the minister-not the government-may with the approval of the governor in council deduct out of this sum his expenses. The balance only will be available for the primary producers. Therefore, antecedently to making the payment provided for in section 3, he must know what the expenses will be, or else you are going to have a distribution on more than one occasion. That is fairly obvious. That being so, I think section 6 is not adequate for the purpose of making it clear what the distribution must be.


James Garfield Gardiner: As far as the actual carrying out of the measure is concerned, I think what will probably happen will be that the pools will proceed in their usual way to make arrangements to finance upon

Wheat Board.
the basis of this legislation, and cheques will be issued and cashed in the ordinary way. The pools will then submit the amounts to the government and payment will be made. The sums of money will be distributed, I think, through lines of credit arranged on the strength of this legislation, and we shall pay only when vouchers are submitted showing that the money has actually been disbursed. That is the way in which this will probably work out in practice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is exactly what I expected the hon. gentleman might say, but hoped he would not, because that exactly shows the difficulty. Let us say that vouchers come in for a million dollars; a million dollars is disbursed rataeably to the primary producers in Alberta. Let us say that it goes on another six weeks or so and the expenses are found to be S500,000 or 8600,000; then obviously the distribution made to those in Alberta whose vouchers have been turned in is not the same as that made to those who come after, because there is a diminution of the amount available by reason of the expenses. That is the way in which this would work, unless there is to be payment by instalment. It is for that purpose only that I raise the question, because obviously the other point, namely, that the expenses of the Canadian wheat board can be deducted but the expenses of the pools cannot, shows that it was contemplated, as I said at the start, that this distribution should not be made by the pools. I do not think the minister has really observed the language:
The minister may with the approval of the governor in council out of the said sums ... pay reasonable expenses incurred by the minister or by the Canadian wheat board in carrying out the provisions of this act.
The minister and the board can get their expenses but the pool cannot. The result would be that the distribution would not be rateable if the expenses should arise after payment had been determined along the lines the minister suggests, namely, through advances being obtained from banks.


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount necessary to pay the primary producers all they are claiming is S6,509,000. That leaves 891,000 margin, and it is unlikely that there will be anything like $91,000 of expenses incurred. As a matter of fact we expect the amount will be less than 820,000 at the outside. There is sufficient margin to take care of what the right hon. gentleman has spoken of.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then the matter becomes more complex still, because how can the pools arrive at the amount available for distribution except by adding up the claims of the several
12739-106}
primary producers on a rateable basis and advising the government that Alberta requires so much, Saskatchewan so much and Manitoba so much? But the minister says that the claim will amount to 86,509,000 and there is 891,000 leeway. They add it up to make the distribution; if the expenses are 891,000 no part of it can come out of that; the expenses have to come out of the amount payable to the primary producers. That is clear from the terms of this section. The minister has said that there is no sum for expenses to be paid by the government; he said that over and over again-


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I have not said that. My right hon. friend repeats a thing so often that he thinks someone else said it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a manifestly improper observation.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I have the floor; let me reply. The statement made was this, that there will be 86,509,000 for distribution to the primary producers. That is the maximum amount claimed by the pools. That amount is made available for distribution. But in actual practice what happens is this, that even in ordinary distributions made much earlier than this there has always been a considerable amount that never has been claimed. Experience would indicate that there will probably be between 820,000 and 830,000 in addition to the $91,000 I spoke of that will not be required for distribution. That being so, I do not know why we should argue as to whether there is going to be sufficient money to make the distribution without getting into any difficulty.
Then, on the other question, the matter of the expenses incurred by the Minister of Trade and Commerce or by the Canadian wheat board, the wheat board makes arrangement for any expenses, the money is turned over to them for distribution as agents so to speak of the government. They make the arrangement for distribution through the pools and undertake to pay the expenses. The expenses of the pools in making payment will be paid if they are the agency that makes the distribution. If we were to put the names of the pools in there as well we would determine the question provided for in clause 3, and purposely provided for, where the government has the right to determine what the agency will be. We expect the agencies will be the pools, and, if so, those expenses will be arranged for by the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Canadian wheat board when arrangements are entered into between these two authorities and the Canadian wheat pools to pay the money.
Wheat Board


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no reason why
I should be insulted by the Minister of Agriculture in this committee. I have not been accustomed to it, and I try to conduct myself properly. The hon. gentleman has said that I restate matters so often I believe them regardless of their truth-


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say I am adding on
that that, of course, must be regardless of their truth, because he made that statement. The government has a vast majority, and they can insult me with impunity.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I repeat that; they can,
and they have done it. The Minister of Agriculture has done it frequently. I repeat there is no point, Mr. Chairman, as a matter of order, for the Minister of Agriculture making the statement he did to-night. I must be subjected to it, I suppose, although those who sit here in large numbers represent thirty-five out of one hundred of the electors of this country who had a right to vote. That is all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the figure, less
than that as a matter of exactness. If I am to be subjected to this sort of insult I realize that the time may come when somebody else will be in the position I am in. They must expect then to receive the treatment they have meted out to others. A vanquished foe, in ordinary British institutions, is not treated with indignity and insult. But if it serves the purposes of the government to do this, I put up with it, and I will continue to do so. I have a great fund of patience, it will be found, and I can endure this. There is no doubt about that. But I do protest as a matter of order and decency .in the public life of Canada that I should be subjected to the insults to which I have just listened.


Charles Avery Dunning: The right to insult another member of this house is not conferred by virtue of size of majorities. No member has the right to insult another member, regardless of whether he belongs to the majority or the minority. The rules of the house place in your hands, sir, the right to determine whether or not a member has been insulted. You are the judge, and not we. You have the right to call to account any hon. member, whether he belongs to the majority or the minority, for insulting another member. I heard no insult.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course not.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps the right hon.
gentleman did. But I do wish to say that to attribute to the government a desire or willingness, because of the size of its majority, to insult any member is certainly attributing something to the government majority which is not in the mind of any member of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The remarks are on
Hansard, and they speak for themselves. I raised the question and the Minister of Finance has added to it. To the insult this has been added.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is all right; it is quite all right.


Mr. GRAY:: Nobody dares speak.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member because he is chief whip and speaks for himself as "we" need not for a single minute think he has advanced the matter. It does not advance it a hairbreadth. I was for five years the target for the attack of what is now the government. In fact one member allegedly was put up for the purpose of making personal attacks upon me. That is known to everybody.


An hon. MEMBER:: Name him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is well known.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Name him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, it is well known
because he said it in parliament; it is unnecessary to name him. If hon. members desire to know, it is the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power); the reports of the debates of parliament will show it, and everyone knows it. There is no doubt about that at all, and what is more, it was copied into the journals. If we turn up-


Mr. POWER:: I hate to contradict the
right hon. gentleman, and I hate to qualify his statement as it should be qualified. Nobody ever put me up to say anything.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles Gavan Power: What I said was what I
thought should be said to him. I consulted nobody; I said it off my own bat, and I would do so again if occasion arose.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That proves very effectively, then, the attitude of mind of at least one member of this house. We now have that proven. I am only taking the hon. member's word for it, as communicated to me by one to whom he spoke. Perhaps he has forgotten the incident.

Wheat Board


Charles Gavan Power: I would ask the leader of
the opposition to mention the name of the man.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will avail myself of
my right as a member. I said that what I stated a minute ago was said on the authority of one to whom the hon. gentleman was making the statement with respect to what had transpired in this house. Peradventure he has forgotten it.


Charles Gavan Power: I would like my right hon
friend to remind me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would not be very
strange if he had forgotten it.


Charles Gavan Power: I would like my right hon.
friend to explain that statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is easily explained.


Charles Gavan Power: I am giving him an opportunity to do so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will explain it if it
becomes necessary.


Charles Gavan Power: I am asking him to do so
now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Later I may be prepared to meet any such attacks in the terms in which they are made. Let there be no misunderstanding about that.


Charles Gavan Power: I would like to know about that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was here when the
imperial conference was on.


Charles Gavan Power: I will ask my right hon
friend to withdraw his insinuations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do you? I deal now
with the point of order I raised with respect to what I have had to endure here. I suppose I shall have to continue to endure it. I do not complain beyond the fact that it has a bad effect on the conduct of business in the House of Commons. Hansard will show what was said yesterday. However, if as the acting chairman you conclude it was a proper thing, well and good.
I was dealing with section 6, and pointing out that the agent is to be selected by the governor in council-


Charles Avery Dunning: Section 7 covers it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think so; perhaps it does.
Section 6 agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is one more evidence of legislation by governor in council.
On schedule A-Wheat other than durum wheat.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move
the following amendment:
That schedule A to the bill be amended by adding at the end thereof on page 10 the
following:
Smutty 6 wheat	 37.000
Damp 5 wheat	 39.650
Tough special 6	 36.5450
Tf. rej.	1	northern	
52.374Tf. rej.	5	wheat	
39.921Tf. rej.	6	wheat	
35.225Tf. smutty rej. 1 northern	
49.20685Smutty rej. 1 northern	
50.600Damp. rej. 4 northern	
40.04707Wheat and rye	
35.145Tf. rej. 5 wheat sprouted	
40.3731Tf. 3 northern sprouted	
45.99866Rej. 5 wheat	
42.2500Smutty sample wheat	
23.00043Smutty 3 white spring	
47.8950Rej. 2 mixed wheat	
38.37543Damp rej. 5 wheat sprouted	
35.60710Tf. 1 white spring	
53.77185Smutty 1 mixed heated	
43.20150Smutty 4 mixed heated	
35.01857Smutty 1 mixed wheat	
44.24443Smutty 4 mixed wheat	
36.639Tf. smutty feed	
33.19185Damp smutty 1 northern	
48.991Damp smutty 4 northern	
39.288Dried smutty 2 northern	
50.439Smutty 3 Alberta red winter.. ..	43.889


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the purpose of this amendment?


James Garfield Gardiner: It will be noted that there are four pages of grades of wheat given in schedule A, but it was found after these were inserted in the bill that the grades having to do with smutty wheat and the different kinds mentioned here were not covered although they were grown that year, and the amendment is to cover them.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule A as amended agreed to.
On schedule B-Durum wheat.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move that schedule B be amended by adding at the end thereof on page 11 the following:
Tf. smutty 3 durum	 50.53395
Smutty 5 durum	 41.25612
Tf. smutty 2 durum	 54.74685
Tf. rej. 4 durum	 46.55380


James Garfield Gardiner: The same explanation goes for that amendment. These are the durum wheats.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule B as amended agreed to.
Wheat Board
[Stage Direction]
On the preamble:
Richard Bedford Bennett: I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that- you read the preamble.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Whereas on January 20, 1931-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have an amendment to move, Mr. Chairman. I move that the preamble be amended by striking out the word "loss" in line 34, on page 3, and substituting therefor the words "substantial debit balance", and that in line 44 on page 3 of the bill the words "average of such prices was" be struck out and the following substituted therefor, "transactions were made at," and that the final paragraph of the preamble appearing on page 4 be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:
Whereas, notwithstanding the loss arising out of the operations of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, in respect to wheat, the primary producers of wheat other than durum wheat who accepted initial payments on a basis of sixty or fifty-five or fifty cents	a	bushel,	basis	No.	1	northern,	FortWilliam, are justified in expecting those payments	to be equalized	on the	basis of	sixtycents	a	bushel,	basis	No.	1	northern,	FortWilliam, and primary producers of durum wheat who accepted initial payments on a basis of sixty-four or fifty-four or forty-nine cents	a	bushel,	basis	No.	1	amber durum,
Fort William, are justified in expecting those payments to be equalized on the basis of approximately sixty-six cents a bushel, basis No. 1 amber durum, Fort William, with the spreads between the various grades of wheat determined on the basis of the prices at which the transactions referred to in the preceding paragraph were effected.


James Garfield Gardiner: This change refers to the change made in paragraph (b) of section 3 where sixty-four cents was added to the figures fifty-four and forty-nine cents. There were durum wheat prices of sixty-four, fifty-four and forty-nine cents, and the change being made in this part of the preamble is to make provision for that. It was thought better to rewrite the last paragrph than just to insert the necessary words.


Mr. COLD WELL:: In the amendment
which has just been moved I note that the term "primary producers" wras used in connection with wheat producers. In my opinion "primary producers" includes more than wheat producers, and since throughout the bill we are using the terms "wheat" and "wheat producers" in relation to this payment, I suggest that we should use the same terminology throughout. We are not equalizing any payments in relation to coarse grains. All we are doing is returning the surplus earned by the coarse grain pools to the people who were members of those pc'ds.
[Mr Gardiner. J


James Garfield Gardiner: The term used in the last part of the preamble is "primary producers of wheat," and the other amendment deals only with durum wheat, but "primary producers of wheat" is the term used.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Shall the amendment carry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, Mr. Chairman, I have asked that the preamble be read.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Whereas on January 20, 1931, an undertaking was given on behalf of the government of Canada to guarantee advances made or to be made by a group of chartered banks, hereinafter called "the lending banks," to Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, in connection with the marketing of wheat and coarse grains grown in the provinces of Manitoba. Saskatchewan and Alberta, and delivered during the crop year 1930-31 to pool organizations in the said provinces; and
Whereas during the summer of 1931 Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, with the approval of the government of Canada changed its policy in regard to the marketing of the 1930 wheat crop and, instead of actively selling, undertook to hold substantially the unsold balance of the 1930 crop off the market and to purchase contracts to purchase or take delivery of wheat with the intention of assisting in stabilizing the price of wheat and thereby improving business conditions throughout Canada and


Richard Bedford Bennett: I ask the minister what is meant by "undertook to hold substantially the unsold balance?" I notice that that wording appears later down in another paragraph, and I confess I do not quite follow what it means.


James Garfield Gardiner: There was a slight variation in the amount. In round figures it was 76,375,000 bushels. The figure went up and down slightly, staying within about 2,000,000 bushels over the entire period, and "substantially the unsold balance" refers to the fact that there was some slight change.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there is a conflict because "substantially the unsold balance" would mean the whole of the unsold balance.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is a different point, and my hon. friend is right there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a conflict in
the wording as it stands.


Charles Avery Dunning: It will be remembered that other interests held some wheat, a very small amount, although the cooperatives held most of it. It would not be correct to say "undertook to hold the unsold balance of the 1930 crop," because a portion of the 1930 crop was owned by others than Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited.

Wheat Board


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were the only
people that held it. There was no holding by Mr. McFarland of anything other than the crop in the hands of the Canadian cooperatives, and that unsold balance was there to deal with from time to time. He undertook to hold the balance from time to time of the 1930 crop off the market, but there were sales, and when you say "substantially the unsold balance," this would mean that he was holding part of the unsold balance, which he was not doing, because he was marketing part of the unsold balance. But if the hon. gentleman is content with the wording as it stands, I am not going to raise any question.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraphs agreed to.
Alexander MacGillivray Young: Whereas the undertaking given on behalf of the government to guarantee advances made by the lending banks to Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers. Limited, was confirmed by order in council P.C. 2238, dated September 12, 1931, and extended to include advances made on account of the price stabilization operations mentioned above; and
Whereas Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, continued to hold substantially the unsold balance of the 1930 crop and to conduct stabilizing operations until late in 1935; and-


James Garfield Gardiner: I think there were about seventy-five million bushels held in 1935 and seventy-six million bushels in 1931.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraphs agreed to.
Alexander MacGillivray Young: Whereas these operations of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, were carried on with the knowledge and consent of the government of Canada and by means of advances by the leading banks guaranteed by the government of Canada in pursuance of relief acts in effect from time to time; and


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to this "paragraph, "these operations" refers to all the operations that took place. I should assume that what my hon. friend has in mind is, "these stablization operations of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited"; for any operations carried on antecedently to the stabilizing operations the government had nothing to do with, that is, Mr. McFarland's operations prior to the time the stabilizing operations were put in effect. I point out that unless it is purely for political reasons there is no value in adding "in pursuance of relief acts in effect from time to time." These words are surplusage added for one purpose and it is not possible for me to do more than object to them.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course, the reference all through the preamble is merely to the wheat of 1$30; there is no other wheat spoken of at all. It deals entirely with that wheat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But I am speaking of the operations-"Whereas these operations." It should be, "whereas these stabilizing operations . . . . were carried on with the knowledge and consent." The business carried on in 1930 after Mr. McFarland came back and assumed the general managership of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, was not in any sense related to government supervision or knowledge. It was after the 1930 crop had been accumulated and not sold and the stabilizing operations had begun, that it was with the knowledge and consent of the government.


James Garfield Gardiner: The whole preamble begins with January 20, 1931. That is the date of the letter written to the banks, which letter I read into the record at the beginning, and that was followed later by an order in council which gave the government's guarantee and referred to the relief act. The only question here is whether "these" expresses that meaning.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It should be "whereas these stabilizing operations," and I say that because paragraph 2 deals with the operations of Mr. McFarland in marketing the crop of 1930. These operations were in part of a stabilizing character, in 1931, and in part they were ordinary commercial operations, in 1930; and in the paragraph now under discussion the correct wording would be "these stabilizing operations." If you leave it as it stands it is hardly correct.


James Garfield Gardiner: The intention of the bill is not to deal with 1930. As I pointed out clearly on the ser-mad reading, in our opinion there was a decided cut off on July 31, 1931, a cut off in the method of handling from that time on. The undertaking of the government in connection with the guarantee started with the letter of January 20, 1931. The first order in council was after the cut off of 1931, and we are assuming responsibility only for what happened when the government was involved in handling the wheat and not for anything that happened before. I should not like to change the wording in view of the fact that the phraseology as it stands covers the matter completely. We have had the best advice on the question and that is our opinion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That being so, I can do nothing; the government is in control and has a majority. I do say, however,
Wheat Board

that "whereas these operations" certainly means operations other than stabilizing operations. By reference to the second
paragraph, "whereas these operations	
were carried on" is not true-that is the worst part of it-in the light of the documents put in evidence by the hon. gentleman himself. That is to say, "these" operations are divided into two parts, namely, ordinary commercial operations that had to do with the 1930 crop until the time it was concluded that that crop should be held off the market, and the later operations, the stabilizing operations.	When you say "these
operations," there is no doubt what the meaning is. However, I am content.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Alexander MacGillivray Young: Whereas The Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, provided for the establishment of the Canadian wheat board and gave said board the power, inter alia, "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"; and-
Whereas an agreement was entered into between the Canadian wheat board, represented by John I. McFarland, chairman of the board, and Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, represented by L. C. Brouillette, president, by the terms of which agreement, the Canadian wheat board agreed to purchase from Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, "all wheat or contracts to purchase or take delivery of wheat in respect of which the government of Canada has given a guarantee" and by way of payment therefor to assume "all liabilities of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, in respect of the said wheat and the said contracts for advances made in connection with the acquisition and holding thereof" by the lending banks and in addition to pay "to the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, the sum of eight million two hundred and sixty-two thousand four hundred and fifteen dollars and thirty-seven cents ($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"; and-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can only say that if I am to accept the statement made by the minister in the way in which it was made, that proposal was destroyed by the government and another proposal was put in its place, which is the proposal now before the committee. That resulted, first, from the taking of the wheat from , the cooperative enterprise by action of the government in accordance with the telegrams and letters which I read last evening and which were produced by the government itself; second,

the statement made that they would settle the terms; and third, the statement of the minister that these are the terms as settled, embodied in this bill. It therefore follows, by the general operation of all three, that this paragraph has no more relation to this transaction than if it were attached to a bill dealing with the national debt. Do I understand that it is the determination of the government that the paragraph should remain as it is?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have already discussed the contents of this paragraph for four hours, and I am prepared to see it go through without further discussion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then the government will not consider the withdrawal from the preamble of that paragraph or the succeeding one; otherwise I had an amendment which I was going to put, though it would be voted down. If the government says that it will not amend or rescind these two recitals, that ends the matter. But I will point out that the two paragraphs are quite at variance with the statements made by the minister himself.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is really a recital of the historical record of the whole matter, leading up to what must be done in the light of that historical record, and I do not desire to leave out any part of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That being so, that is all there is about it.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraphs agreed to.
Alexander MacGillivray Young: Whereas by order in council, P.C. 3199, dated the tenth day of October, 1935, the approval of the governor in council was given to this agreement subject to the condition that the amount of $8,262,415.37 stated as 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" was to be "verified by auditors' certificates"; and-


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Carried?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I make the same observation with respect to that.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
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; and-
Richard Bedford Bennett: It is because of that
that I point out that the two preceding paragraphs are negative. I know it is useless to

Wheat Board
direct argument to the committee, but I desire to place on record, as a very clear statement, that "A transfer of wheat and contracts to purchase and 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," is a new agreement and a new understanding which negatives two previous recitals. That is in accordance with what was said by the minister himself twice to-day and I think once yesterday, but certainly twice since this bill went into committee. It is unfair to introduce into the bill a preamble one paragraph of which is utterly at variance with the two preceding paragraphs of the preamble and negatives in terms the proposal made by the preamble itself, substituting for the original two paragraphs in question the arrangements which were settled by the bill itself, because yesterday the Minister of Finance said that these words, "Subject to final settlement of the terms of such transfer" really meant what is now before the committee, namely, the terms under which the settlement has been made. If that be so, then this settlement represents the carrying into effect of the new agreement made on December 2, 1935, and supersedes and negatives the arrangement reflected in the two preceding paragraphs of the preamble, which had no more effect than if they had never been in existence.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would just say that
follows on with the argument which precedes. These two sections recite the intention of the order in council that has been under discussion, and finally go on to say that-
Whereas by order in council P.C. 3199, dated the tenth day of October, 1935, the approval of the governor in council was given to this agreement subject to the condition that the amount of $8,262,415.37 stated as 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" was to be " verified by auditor's certificates."
And whereas the wheat was delivered; and-
Whereas an audit discloses that the said sum of $8,262,415.37 includes an item of $862,487.50 representing various expenditures which were incurred by the provincial pool organizations in connection with pool activities during the crop year 1930-31 and not in connection with stabilization operations.
That is, it runs right on and says that whereas this, order in council provides certain things, that an audit was to be made, and the
wheat to be delivered subject to this audit. The wheat is delivered. The audit is now made and it is found that some amounts should not be paid. We go on to provide for the payment of the amounts that ought to be paid. I think it is perfectly logical.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can only point out
that it is just as logical as saying that when a man discusses and negotiates the purchasing of an estate for 810,000, and nothing results, and then he purchases the estate for 88,000, any recital of what took place in connection with the tentative proposals to purchase the estate at 810,000 has no relevancy with respect to the purchase for 88,000. I tried to make that abundantly clear. A distinguished Scotch judge referred to it as "prior eommunings," and prior eommunings in circumstances such as these cannot have any bearing upon the final arrangement made, which arrangement is contained in the transfer and assignment of the wheat, not pursuant to the orders in council, as the hon. gentleman himself has so frequently said; and the payment of the moneys, being a lesser sum, means the settlement of the terms of the transfer, the transfer having been completed without the terms being settled. When the terms were subsequently settled the new contract was the completed contract, a new entire completed contract, and the former contract passed out of the picture and had no value.
To say that in a preamble of an act of parliament an historical reference to what took place and did not result in any completed contract has ever been made before, or can be made for any purpose with respect to the legislation, is, I submit, entirely at variance with any understanding that has ever been had in this house. I can name cases in connection, for instance, with efforts made to settle differences outstanding between various people and departments of the public service. They fail of realization, and ultimately they are settled. There is one in the supplementary estimates which was referred to the judge of the exchequer court. The claim was a very large one; they negotiated about it. The judge found that in certain conditions which he found existed, the sum that would recompense or compensate the contractors was to be the sum he found in his judgment. That has been reduced in the estimates by, I think, some thirty-five per cent. Is it to be assumed that in the estimates you must state that the negotiations were carried on; that the matter was finally referred to the judge of the exchequer
Wheat Board

court, who found such and such a sum, and that finally it was agreed that a lesser sum would be taken?
What we have here is that the contract mentioned in the preceding paragraphs of the preamble has been swept aside and a new contract has been made under which the wheat was turned over as at December 2, and the wheat having been turned over, the terms and conditions under which it was taken had to be otherwise settled. The government say: We will not consider any further amendments to this preamble, notwithstanding what I have stated. In my judgment this is laying a foundation for something that is very bad, and when I say, "my judgment," it is based upon my reading of the principles that govern in connection with legislation. I can understand the hon. gentleman's historical side, but when history has passed into another event and has become a concrete actuality-and an actuality is what we are dealing with, not a record of past negotiations which did not materialize-surely the record of past endeavours that failed cannot be said to be relevant to the new departure and the new forces that eventuated in the contract now before us.
If we were dealing with the matter as ordinary men, sitting round a table, unseparated by political differences, discuss a matter of contracts, there would be no question about it. Nobody ever thinks of setting out prior efforts to make a settlement, when the settlement is being made; if it were otherwise you would have every release cumbered up with a record of the eight or ten trials made for the purpose of effectuating the settlement, followed up by the arrangement finally arrived at. It may not be wholly proper to refer to what courts of law have so often said, but Redlich, in his Procedure of the House of Commons, has pointed out that we get the rule of laying on the table documents which a member reads, if he be a member of the government, because in a court of justice, if I utilize a document for the purpose of conducting a part of my case by crossexamination or otherwise, I must produce that document so that my opponent may have it before him to enable him to conduct his case as well. But no one would ever suggest in a court of justice or any other deliberative body that, in order to legislate upon a given subject, you should recite prior efforts to bring about the successful termination of difficulties, which efforts have not resulted in a determination of those difficulties. In dealing with the problem that has arisen, by reason of a successful termination of the difficulties by a new contract with them, this

would be regarded as a very strange proceeding indeed in any assembly other than this. I say that because I have still some pride in the assembly itself. But if the government say that they are determined that this preamble must stand as it is, as I say I shall content myself without offering any amendment.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course the reason
for being anxious to maintain the preamble in its present form is not the reason the right hon. gentleman apparently has in mind. The reason is largely this, that the order in council which was passed on October 10 provides for three different payments. The first is a payment of $6,509,000, and we are going to make that payment. The order in council provides for another payment of $862,487.50. We do not intend to make that payment. It provides for another payment of $890,658.44, and we intend to make only part of that payment. There is a possibility that the grains which were taken over on the 2nd day of December may have to be dealt with partly under the order in council as passed, or the order in council that has been passed may have to be amended. If it is found advisable to continue under that order in council; if it is found to be a legal way of continuing, this legislation makes it possible to do so. If it becomes necessary to act under this legislation we are in a position to do so without paying any attention at all to the legislation of 1935 setting up the wheat board. There may be a necessity of proceeding under one or other of the acts, and this legislation only protects the government all along the line, in every method of procedure.
The fact that has been pointed out by the leader of the opposition, that it may become necessary to rescind the order in council after this legislation goes through, does not necessarily mean that the order in council has been of no value up to date. I think we have to leave both methods of procedure open to the government, and that is what is done by this legislation. I think it does nothing more than protect the government itself, and I would submit to the committee that we are anxious that the preamble should go through in its present form.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, Mr. Chairman, as I say the majority is ample for that purpose, but once more I should like to direct attention to the foot of page 2, where it says:
Whereas an audit discloses that the said sum of $8,262,415.37 includes an item of $862,487-50 representing various expenditures which were incurred by the provincial pool organizations in connection with pool activities during the cron year 1930-31 and not in connection with stabilization operations.

Wheat Board
If the hon. gentleman would look just one paragraph beyond that he would find these words:
. . . 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. . . .
There is nothing about provincial pools in the order in council, but you follow that quotation by a recital which indicates that this includes something in connection with provincial pools. There is no evidence at all as to that in the documents themselves. I merely point that out; it is useless to waste further time.


James Garfield Gardiner: The evidence for that is in the auditors' report, and that is referred to in the preceding section.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Whereas an audit discloses that the said sum of $8,262,415.37 includes an item of $862,487.50 representing various expenditures which were incurred by the provincial pool organizations in connection with pool activities during the crop year 1930-31 and not in connection with stabilization operations; and-
Paragraph agreed to.
Whereas no justification exists for the inclusion of the said sum of $826,487.50 for expenses of provincial pool organizations; and-
Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely that paragraph has no relation to this legislation, and must be placed there for just one purpose. The order in council does not even use the word "provincial." It never suggested any justification for it. The words of the order in council seem to me to be so clear that the purpose of putting in this paragraph can be only one.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, Mr. Chairman, I can only say again that the auditors' report does include that term, and we passed on the reference.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Whereas an audit discloses that the said sum of $8,262,415.37 includes an item of $890,658.44 representing payments to be made to producers of coarse grains on the basis of certain theoretical calculations; and-
Richard Bedford Bennett: That is subject to exactly the same observations. They are all theoretical calculations on which we have made these payments. The sum of 60 cents is a flat sum arbitrarily fixed, and on that theoretical principle we have based the whole of this legislation. I can only say it is open to the same objection, that it has nothing whatever to do with this proposal.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Whereas no justification exists for the inclusion of the said sum of $890,658.44, inasmuch as the Canadian wheat board is not authorized to purchase coarse grains or contracts to purchase or take delivery of coarse grains, as no mention was made of coarse grains in the agreement between the Canadian wheat board and the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, summarized above or in order in council P.C. 3199, dated the tenth day of October 1935, approving such agreement under certain conditions, and as an audit of the operations of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, discloses no information that said operations in connection with coarse grains were effected for stabilization purposes in the national interest; but-
Richard Bedford Bennett: That, of course, is still more offensive as related to the truth in connection with what has taken place, that is, if the documents have the value that is to be attached, to documents if you read them literally, the communications sent out by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the Canadian wheat board and the Canadian Cooperative Producers, Limited. I can only say that to allege in a preamble that there is no justification for anything is to draw an inference of law that is never done unless there be a judgment of the court. I repeat that, so
Wheat Board

there will be no misunderstanding. To allege that there is no justification for a particular proceeding or a particular fact is never done in a preamble by any parliament or legislature of any country unless there be a judicial decision. In many cases there have been overrulings of decisions, the Taff Vale railway case being one, in which the recitals are made of the judgment itself. Here we say that there is no justification, and sweep it aside. I protest against this.


Major James William Coldwell: I was just going to
add that I think this preamble recites matters that should not be in this bill. I wish to take particular objection to these two paragraphs, beginning with line 4 and ending at line 20 on page 3, for very much the same reasons as those outlined by the leader of the opposition. I do not want to go over the ground again. I endeavoured this afternoon to state the contention that there was justification for the inclusion of coarse grains in this settlement. I think it is unfortunate that this preamble is so lengthy and has such implications, and I would say that these two paragraphs at least should certainly be deleted because possibly they are offensive not only for the political inferences but to numbers of men who were associated with the cooperative organizations in western Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Whereas an audit discloses that the operations in respect of coarse grains which were conducted as separate pools resulted in credit balances in the case of certain coarse grains and consequently the primary producers who delivered said grains are justified in expecting to receive said credit balances; and
Whereas an audit discloses that the sum of $8,262,415.37 cannot be taken as the amount which, having regard to the marketing and stabilization operations conducted by Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited in regard to wheat, is due to primary producers of wheat, but on the contrary shows that the said operations of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited in regard to the 1930 wheat crop have resulted in a loss; but-
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That the preamble of the bill be amended by striking out the word "loss" in the line thirtyfour on page 3 and substituting therefor the following "substantial debit balance."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraphs as amended agreed to.
Whereas it appears that the unsold balance of the 1930 wheat crop was held off the market for the purpose of carrying out a general policy conceived to be in the national interest; and-
Paragraph agreed to.
: 
Whereas Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited had, by February 29, 1932, made transactions related to the 1930 wheat crop approximately equal to the deliveries of wheat by primary producers during the 1930-31 crop year, and an analysis of the prices at which such transactions took place indicates that the average of such prices was approximately sixty cents a bushel, basis No. 1 northern, Fort William, in the case of wheat other than durum wheat, and approximately sixty-six cents per bushel, basis No. 1 amber durum, Fort William, in the case of durum wheat, but that the spreads between the prices for various grades of wheat varied from the arbitrary spreads fixed at the time the initial payments were determined; and-
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That the preamble of the bill be amended by striking out the words "the average of such prices was" in line forty-four on page 3 and substituting therefor the following: "the transactions were made at."


James Garfield Gardiner: It is an incorrect
description of what the price is. It is not an average; it is paid on the basis of the spread.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Examination of the prices merely indicates that the initial payments made of seventy cents, fifty-five cents and fifty cents, if averaged together would indicate a price of sixty cents might have been the price at which the people could have sold their wheat outright, if they could have found a market. That is the story as I see it from the auditor's report.


James Garfield Gardiner: But the spread on the
different grades is not in accordance with the initial spread at the start of the season. It never is the same; they pool the wheat in different grades. So this is not an average all the way through; it is based on the spread.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the average of
the standard from which the spreads are taken. The spreads are made on the basis of the standard of sixty cents to be paid to those who deliver wheat graded No. 1 northern; is that right?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; the spreads are
set out in the schedule.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
Whereas, notwithstanding the loss arising out of the operations of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited in respect to wheat, the primary producers of wheat who accepted initial payments on a basis of sixty or fifty-five or fifty cents a bushel, basis No. 1 northern, Fort William, are justified in expecting those payments to be equalized on the basis of sixty cents a bushel, basis No. 1 northern, Fort William in the case of wheat other than durum

Pension Act
wheat, and on the basis of approximately sixty-six cents a bushel, basis No. 1 amber durum, Fort William, in the case of durum wheat, with the spreads between the various grades of wheat determined on the basis of the prices at which the transactions referred to in the preceding paragraph were effected.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think that paragraph is completely altered.
I move:
That the final paragraph of the preamble, appearing on page 4, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
Whereas, notwithstanding the loss arising out of the operations of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, in respect to wheat, the primary producers of wheat other than durum wheat who accepted initial payments on a basis of sixty or fifty-five or fifty cents a bushel, basis No. 1 northern, Fort William, are justified in expecting those payments to be equalized on the basis of sixty cents a bushel, basis No. 1 northern, Fort William, and primary producers of durum wheat who accepted initial payments on a basis of sixty-four or fifty-four or forty-nine cents a bushel, basis No. 1 amber durum, Fort William, are justified in expecting those payments to be equalized on the basis of approximately sixty-six cents a bushel, basis No. 1 amber durum, Fort William, with the spreads between the various grades of wheat determined on the basis of the prices at which the transactions referred to in the preceding paragraph were effected.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
Preamble as amended agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: On division.
Bill reported.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On division.



PENSION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure unending the Pension Act to provide for the merging of the pension appeal court with the pension commission, the setting up of an appeal division of the commission and the appointment of new commissioners to facilitate the hearing of applications; to limit the time for making application for pensions in certain cases; to limit the payment of retroactive pensions; further to provide, in the case of the death of an eighty per cent pensioner, for the removal, for the benefit of his dependents, of the ten-year limitation; and generally to provide for and clarify the procedure and jurisdiction of the commission and of the appeal division thereof.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Young in the chair.
Mr. STEWART:: Explain.


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Chairman, this resolution together with two others which follow on the order paper are preliminary to the introduction of three bills, one dealing with the amendments to the Pension Act, the second dealing with amendments to the veterans' allowance and the third is to set up a commission called the veterans' assistance commission, and to implement some of the recommendations of the so-called Hyndman report.
It is proposed that when the bills have had second reading we shall move that they be referred to the select committee already set up by this house to deal with soldiers' problems. I do not know whether it would be necessary for me under the circumstances at this stage to give a lengthy explanation of what is proposed in the bills. Briefly, however, I would say that under the pension bill it is proposed to merge the present pension appeal court with the Canadian pension commission. I believe this will have the effect of improving the procedure by permitting the trial judges to be changed every now and again, and it would also permit of there being two appeal divisions sitting at the same time so as to overtake certain arrears in appeal cases of which I believe there are about 650 or 700 at the present time.
It is also proposed to limit payments of retroactive pensions, as obtains under existing legislation. In many cases when pensions are awarded a fairly substantial retroactive award is made at the same time. In some cases these have run up to $15,000 or $18,000. I know there is pending at the present time a case which, if granted, would involve about S2S,000 to be claimed for pension. In many cases pensioners have obtained ten per cent of the pension, and there is a retroactive provision which goes back a number of years and sometimes gives them three or four or five thousand dollars. It is believed it will perhaps be to the benefit of the pensioner himself if this retroactive feature is taken out of the legislation, because unconsciously in a great many cases the judges, whether they be on the quorum or on the appeal court, may feel that in granting a pension, the justice of which may be more or less in doubt, they will not exercise the benefit of the doubt they are called upon to exercise, if they feel that it would involve the payment of large sums of money by the crown. I think it is pretty generally accepted that it would be well, even in the interests of claimants themselves, if there were not overhanging or overshadowing in the minds of the judges the impression
Pension Act

that a very large amount of money might be involved.
Then, it is proposed to limit the time for making application. Different categories of claims are to be treated in a different manner. It is proposed to put a stop to claims for pensions made by persons who have not seen service in a theatre of actual war. That is, with the passing of this legislation there will be some limitation. It is felt that now, nearly twenty years after the war, a man who saw no service in the front line and consequently cannot be said to have suffered any particular hardship, is hardly entitled to put in a claim at this time. In other words, if after twenty years he has not discovered some sickness or disability which can be traced to the period when he wore a uniform it is not likely that he will discover it in the future. It is felt that perhaps at this stage of our pension legislation we might as well limit his right to apply. This will not involve in any way existing applications, of which there are a large number. In other words, no one who has put in a claim up to date will be debarred from having his claim heard, but only those who after the passage of this legislation may. intend to make application.
With respect to those who saw service in the front line or in France may I say that a dead line is placed on their application, and is set at January 1. 1938. But in cases such as these it will always be passible for them to make application for pension by leave of the court. This will have the effect, we believe, of discouraging frivolous or unreasonable claims and of permitting well founded claims to have a readier hearing. There are some other features of the bill which perhaps are not of so much importance. For instance, there is a provision whereby pensioners eighty per cent disabled will not now suffer from certain limitations imposed. The provision was that if within a period of ten years after obtaining pension they died, and it was not possible to prove that their death was due to their pensionable disability, their widow's would be debarred from obtaining pension. It is proposed to lift that limitation so that if in the future any one who is in classes one to five, composed to a great extent of amputation cases, dies as a result of any disability, even if it is not a disability for which he is pensionable, his widow will be entitled to a pension. Those are the important provisions in the legislation.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: How far are these amendments or changes embodied in the recommendations of the Hyndman report?


Charles Gavan Power: Not in this bill. The bill about to be introduced deals only with pension legislation and the Hyndman report deals with another subject altogether.


Mr. MacNICOL:: What did the minister mean when he referred to the front line. Does he mean soldiers who were behind the lines in France engaged in railway construction work or other work of that kind?


Charles Gavan Power: I will give the hon. member the definition laid down in the War Veterans' Allowance Act. Theatre of actual war is defined as follows:
(i) "Theatre of actual war" means-
(i)	In the case of the military or air forces, the zone of the allied armies on the continents of Europe, of Asia, or of Africa, or wherever the veteran has sustained injury or contracted disease directly by a hostile act of the enemy,
(ii)	In the ease of the naval forces, the high seas or wherever coutact has been made with hostile forces of the enemy, or wherever the veteran has sustained injury or contracted disease directly by a hostile act of the enemy;
In other words theatre of actual war means France. Canada and England are not considered theatres of actual war.


Mr. BETTS:: I take it that theatre of war would extend to Russia.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Mr. MacNEIL:: Is it the intention to refer the details for consideration to the special committee?


Charles Gavan Power: It is the intention, if the house agrees, to refer all these bills to the non-partisan committee already set up and composed largely of ex-soldiers. I suggest to the committee that these bills, and particularly the amendment to the Pension Act, dealing with matters which are extremely involved, would perhaps better be dealt with by a special committee than in general discussion in the house.


Mr. NEILL:: Would the minister make this point clear? He spoke of a merger of the appeal court with the board of pension commissioners. Does that mean that some of them will be sitting on cases, and some will be sitting in appeal on those cases later on?


Charles Gavan Power: Naturally provision would be made that the same judge will not sit in the first instance, and also in appeal on the same case.


Alan Webster Neill: But they will be members of the same commission?

War Veterans' Allowance Act


Charles Gavan Power: They will be members of
the same commission.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Power thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 26, to amend the Pension Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



WAR VETERANS' ALLOWANCE ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide under the War Veterans' Allowance Act for special consideration for certain veterans not having attained the age of sixty, but having attained the age of fifty-five, who by reason of disability, pre-ageing and general unfitness, are incapable of maintaining themselves; to provide for continuation of part of the allowance to dependents of certain veterans admitted for treatment to departmental institutions; to substitute a war veterans' allowance board for a war veterans' allowance committee and to provide for the continuance in office of the members of the committee as members of the board and for their salaries, superannuation and pension, and to provide a more complete definition of the board s powers.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Young in the chair.
Charles Gavan Power: This resolution is the preliminary to the introduction of a bill to amend the War Veterans' Allowance Act. At the present time the war veterans' allowance committee is functioning. There may be some little difficulty about the word "committee." It was called a committee because when the first bill was introduced back in 1930 it was intended that the functions of this body should be performed by a departmental committee, but as a result of the deliberations of a select committee of the House of Commons it was decided that the members of the war veterans' allowance committee should be outsiders entirely independent of the department. There has arisen a certain amount of confusion as to the jurisdiction of the committee so that it has been thought advisable to change the name from "committee" to "board." We are proposing to increase the salary of the chairman of the committee, later to be called the board, from $6,000 to $7,000, and of the members from $5,000 to $6,000. I may say that the work performed by these gentlemen has been extremely satisfactory not only to this government and the former government but, I believe, to ex-service men
generally. I think I am safe in saying that of all the legislation that was passed in 1930 and since, this is probably that which has met with the most general approval from exservice men. The members of this committee have, with a very small staff, dealt with a very large number of cases and I believe, generally speaking, to the satisfaction of everyone. They are expending fairly large sums of money. The appropriation this year will be $3,100,000, and as the years go on it will rise gradually until the peak is reached, I think in 1957, when, if the act is not further amended, the expenditure is estimated to run around $12,000,000. After that the peak may come down fairly rapidly.
There are also provisions for superannuation such as are to be found in connection with other boards and commissions, such as the pensions commission.
There is also a provision-and this is perhaps the most important of all-that consideration shall be given to a class of veterans who are not considered under the present legislation. The present legislation provides that when a veteran reaches the age of sixty and is unemployable he is entitled to an allowance of $20 per month if single, and $40 if married. If before he reaches the age of sixty he is mentally or physically incapable of earning his living he may be classed as permanently unemployable and obtain the same allowance of $20 or $40, as the case may be.
It is proposed now to take in a class of men who are aged from fifty-five to sixty, and who, though they cannot be classed pathologically as unemployable, are in fact, owing to their pre-aging or general unfitness, incapable of earning their living. It is a very narrow distinction, and possibly the committee may think it advisable to provide a better definition of the class which it is proposed to bring in, but the question whether or not this class will be admitted to war veterans' allowance will, of course, be in the discretion of the war veterans' allowance board. Again I repeat: Quite possibly the definition which has been laid down in the bill will not be satisfactory to the parliamentary committee and another definition may be reached.
May I add that in connection with all this soldier legislation, while concrete bills are being laid before the committee, there is no intention on the part of the government to insist on the legislation being brought out of the committee in the form in which it goes in. On the contrary, the bills are being introduced simply and solely in order to give the committee something to work on. So, in this particular instance, while there may be some
War Veterans' Allowance Act

disagreement as to exactly what is meant by the class definition which has been drafted by the officers of the department, I believe no difficulty will be felt in the commiteee itself when we come to giving a definition of this particular class.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Having read the resolution
carefully many times, and followed with considerable interest the discussions that took place at the legion convention in Vancouver last week, I am inclined, subject of course to what the bill may reveal in detail, to approve and support .this heralded legislation as strongly as I can. To me it looks like a step in the proper direction. The only question that bothers me is whether it is a sufficiently long step. I believe that hon. members and the country as a whole are quite conscious of the debt that is owing to the returned man by virtue of his service during the war, but I sometimes wonder whether we are just as ready to appreciate the influence which the returned man is playing right now in the everday life of the dominion. To my way of thinking, the veterans constitute a stabilizing and very salutary influence in the day to day life of the dominion, and though I think it will be admitted that Canada has done as well by its returned men as has any country in the world, I sincerely hope that we shall not grow weary in well doing. I would urge, and urge as strongly as I can, that this very considerable body of trained men-and when I say trained, I mean trained not only in the arts of war but in the habit of thinking and acting in the best interests of the dominion and of the empire-is a body of men whom we must support and continue to support as long as they are with us. In approving this resolution and the legislation based upon it, I reserve my right, which the minister has made very clear, to question in committee the advisability of dropping that deadline from fifty-five to perhaps fifty. I say-and I think I speak for every returned man in the house-that in the efforts which the minister is making he will have the cooperation and support of veterans of every party, and in these efforts I wish him in my humble way the best of luck and assure him of cooperation.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Representing as I do a
riding that is said to have more returned soldiers than any other-at any rate it is among the ridings with the greatest numbers of veterans-I wish to endorse in the strongest language the minister's resolution proposing to reduce the age limit from sixty to fifty-five, though I should like to see it
fMr. Power.]
lowered to fifty if possible. Of course, the problem is a considerable one to find the necessary money for the latter figure, but I know of many men who will be heartily pleased with this resolution. When I was home on Saturday last two returned soldiers came to me, neither of whom was entitled to pension on the ground of having been wounded, but both of them fit in with the description the minister has given as to physical unfitness, and the other qualifications which he has mentioned, and certainly relief in such cases will be wonderfully beneficial.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Power thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 27, to amend the War Veterans' Allowance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



VETERANS' ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure providing for the establishment of a commission, to be known as the veterans' assistance commission, to investigate, report and make recommendations as to the facilities and as to certain projects to provide employment for veterans, and also to make use of such facilities and carry out such projects, and for other purposes related thereto; and to provide for the remuneration and expenses of the commission.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Young in the chair.
Charles Gavan Power: This resolution and the bill to follow are based upon the recommendations of the Hyndman report. It will perhaps be remembered that last year when the Hyndman report was under consideration it was understood on both sides of the house that a commission of some kind would be set up to carry out some of the recommendations of that report. On page 15 of the report under the title of Recommendations and the subtitle, Problem of Unemployment, will be found all the information upon which the bill is based. The Hyndman commission recommended that a commission be set up to study certain suggestions which had been submitted to it in the course of its sittings. It will be recalled that the Hyndman commission had not sufficient time to visit more than two or three of the large centres. If I remember rightly, it sat only in Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa, and received representations from people in the locality. There was not sufficient time at the disposal of Mr. Justice Hyndman and his

Veterans' Assistance Commission
associates to go all over Canada, but they recommended in their final report that a commission should be set up to study the suggestions made, and this bill is as a result of that recommendation. A number of suggestions will be studied by this commission; they will report to the minister, and the commission, it is proposed, will have power to supervise these projects and to carry them out.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I take it that this is in the nature of a permanent commission.


Charles Gavan Power: It is provided in the bill that the commission shall be for one year only, with a possibility of keeping them on for eighteen months.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: In dealing with this resolution I feel that I am perhaps in a happier position than I was in connection with the former resolution, because I think I can congratulate without any reservations whatever the honourable and gallant minister. I should like to urge that the legislation based upon this resolution be made wide enough to enable the proposed commission to fulfil a very much needed function in the jurisdiction of those who deal with returned soldiers. Ever since the war there has been, I suggest, on the part of many who are prominent in the commercial and industrial life of this country, a lack of understanding of the mentality of the returned soldier. I do not say that is true of all those prominent in our industrial and commercial life; far from it, but it describes the attitude of many, and I submit that that arises because in many instances there is a marked disparity in age between the returned soldier and the younger business executive. They have, perhaps, no point of common contact. To the younger successful business man the war is at best, perhaps, only a childhood memory; at worst, something he has read about. The point I wish to urge on the minister is that qualities that in greater or in lesser degree are inherent in every returned soldier, qualities of service, of loyalty, of devotion to duty, are of inestimable benefit to any organization, and I think one of the main functions of this commission and its staff will be to act as liaison officers between the potential employer and the returned man. In other words, it is up to the commissioners to sell the returned men to the potential employer, and I want to say that they are dealing in dandy good goods when they are doing that. If the proposed commission will proceed along those lines it will be welcome, for it has a great work to perform, but if it is going to be simply another commission that will design a new series of complicated reports, returns 12739-107
and other forms to be filled out, we should be far better off without it.
To my way of thinking the solution of the problem depends entirely upon the personal qualities of the commissioners and of the staff that they gather about them. If they are endowed with sincerity, with zeal, with tact and, above all, with the complete sympathy with the veteran and his problems that this great work demands, we shall get some place. Therefore I urge that the minister, in making these appointments or in setting up the machinery to make them, dismiss every political consideration from his mind. I would remind him that he has been placed in the high position he now occupies by returned men of every political stripe; that they are looking to him with admiration and with confidence, but they are watching him like hawks. Once again ^ I want to say that in the setting up of this commission he will have, for what it is worth, my humble cooperation.


Mr. McIVOR:: As the representative of a constituency which contains a very large number of returned men, I wish to say a few words in support of this motion. While I am not a returned man, it is hard to see them reduced to the necessity of going out and working for twenty-five cents an hour. With the aid of the minister I hope that that will be eliminated, because it is worse than relief for a man who has gone overseas and returned to have to keep a wife and family on twenty-five cents an hour, eight hours a day. I have addressed large groups of returned men, and my observation is that they age far more quickly than do men who have not been overseas. We must support the Minister of Pensions in order that these men shall get the consideration that is their due. In .speaking previously on the resolution for pensions for the blind I recalled the case of a returned man, an intelligent Scotsman, who could not get a job and had to go into a gravel pit in which, working on relief, he lost his sight. That is not in keeping with our conception of this great Canada of ours, and I am glad to see our Minister of Pensions stepping out in the right direction.


Thomas Langton Church: I should like to support, as representative of a soldier constituency, what the hon. member for London (Mr. Betts) has said. The day has gone by when any soldier out of employment should be at the mercy of tag-days and poppy-day funds and that kind of thing. The government itself, in its large public departments, can do better in giving preference to returned men. This commission, properly constituted and ade-



Veterans' Assistance Commission
quately supported, can do a great work for returned soldiers. In 1916, when the first troops came back to the city I represented, which sent 60,000 men to the war, the city and all its outside commissions were instructed to be a commission of one to give returned soldiers the preference. When I see in my own riding, in the north west, where Christie Street hospital is, the district I formerly represented, advertisements in newspapers by civilian organizations of poppy-day funds and tag-day funds and appeals for secondhand clothing, baby carriages and so forth for returned men out of work, I think Canada should be very heartily ashamed of itself.
The minister is to be commended for the forward policy he announced in Vancouver and for his statement in Toronto at the last Armistice day. I believe he is the proper man to put some kind of heart into methods for providing employment. After all is said and done, the returned soldier, from what I have seen, seems to have got all the pick and shovel jobs. I have studied the matter carefully, and I agree with the hon. member for London that we should put some teeth into this legislation, and that we should carry out the program ourselves, as a House of Commons, in connection with appointments to the bench, to the senate and other such positions, instead of giving the ex-service men pick and shovel jobs and leaving them to the hazards of seasonal and cyclical employment in industry and agriculture. In too many cases the returned soldier finds himself out of work, with the bailiff in his house, and his family and himself at the mercy of tag-days and poppy-day funds. I heartily support the resolution; I hope that this will be one commission that will be taken out of politics, and that soldiers who fought at the front, irrespective of their political party, will be placed on it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not wish to prolong the discussion, but I am in perfect accord with the three resolutions touching this subject, and very much in accord with what has been said by the previous speaker. There is no question but that the governments of Canada, the present government and past governments, have been very sympathetic towards the returned man; if there has been any difficulty in regard to returned soldiers' matters it has been in the administration and, as was stated a moment ago by the hon. member for London, we hope that in the administration of these measures when they are put into force there will be no politics so that whatever is done will be done for the benefit of the returned men.

As an example of what administration has done in regard to the appeal court situation in the dominion, I understand that there were some 1,500 appeals by the veterans in 1935 and that only a dozen or so of them passed the appeal court. That may not be quite correct, but it shows that the appeal court has not been functioning to the advantage of the returned man. Other measures with regard to returned men are administered in the same way, and if that state of affairs continues we may be sure that the returned man is not going to receive very much benefit.
I think the third resolution, if carried out as intended, will help the man whom it is intended to help. We all know that the man who was severely wounded received his pension without trouble; his was an obvious case. I would not say that he received compensation, because I do not think any pension is compensation to a man for the loss of his arm or his leg. Another man who received his pension very easily was the man who was taken into the army though medically unfit. I think every returned soldier knows that many men were taken into the Canadian army who should not have been there, who were a burden upon the country from the time they enlisted. Those men had medical history sheets a yard long, but when they come up for pension it is very easy for them to prove their case. There is another class, however, the young men eighteen, nineteen, twenty and twenty-one, who were physically fit in every sense of the word, who went to France and served for three or four years, who served in the trenches-and any returned man knows what that means-and who returned home unwounded, with no medical history sheets. Later, however, they developed illnesses as a result of the war. Men of this type have not received justice; due to their having no medical history sheet it. is impossible for them to get pensions. I think these are the men who can be helped under this third resolution, and I sincerely hope they will be helped. There are many of them in every town in Canada.
The one thing that has appealed to me as far as pension legislation is concerned is that there has been too much red tape, too much bureaucracy here in Ottawa, possibly, and not enough of the personal element. I hope they will get down to the individual, and that the individual who needs help and who should be helped will receive it. We must remember that many of these men served in the trenches for months and their health has been impaired to such an extent that their lives are being shortened by from five to ten years.

Employment Commission-Mr. Landeryou
I think that has been stated by the Hyndman commission, and medical authorities state that this is true.
I am not going to make any extended address, but I think every member of this committee will agree when I say that the returned soldier in Canada, and I think in every part of the British empire, has not tried to hold up his government. We have seen an example of a government being held up in another part of this continent, but Canadian returned soldiers, knowing the situation in this country, have tried to play the game with the country and the government in these times of stress. I feel satisfied that even though a new generation has come along that has forgotten the war and knows nothing about the hardships which the returned men had to endure, Canada and the government will remember these men who should be remembered.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I believe the majority of ex-service men in Canada will applaud the action of the minister in introducing the legislation forecast in these three resolutions. They will be particularly pleased with the legislation forecast in the resolution now before the committee, since it deals with a large class of ex-service men whose needs hitherto have been more or less neglected.
There is just one point regarding which I desire an explanation from the minister. Should the proposed commission recommend to the minister a project involving some public expenditure, let us say dealing with sheltered employment, will it be possible for the government to initiate that project without furher reference to parliament? I have in mind, as the minister will understand, the necessity of instituting early action with reference to the needs of the physically handicapped ex-service men whose problems may not be considered now under the Pension Act or the War Veterans' Allowance Act.


Charles Gavan Power: The matter to which the hon. member for Vancouver North refers is under consideration. It is quite evident that some moneys will be required to carry out some of these projects, and it is hoped that no great difficulty will be experienced in finding the money.


Charles Grant MacNeil: May I ask also whether it is the intention of the minister to recommend that this bill be referred to the special committee?


Charles Gavan Power: Oh, yes.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: It has been my feeling ever since the days when the boys were 12739-107i
over in the trenches that the returned man has done his bit, and that he should not be called upon to suffer any more. I therefore desire to support the minister in his effort to improve the condition of the returned men. With all the good things we have done I do not believe we have really as yet done our duty by these men, and I should like to see many forward steps taken in this direction.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Power thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 28, providing for the establishment of the veterans' assistance commission.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 30. consideration of the motion of Hon. Mr. Rogers for the second reading of Bill No. 14, respecting the establishment of a national employment commission.
Mr. J. C. LANDERYOU (Calgary East):: The fact that the government recognizes unemployment as one of Canada's most urgent problems has given a measure of hope to millions of Canadians who are anxiously and impatiently waiting for a solution of that problem. The previous government promised to end unemployment or perish in the attempt. They all but perished in the last election, but they failed to solve the problem of unemployment. This government, if they continue to give stones to the people instead of bread, will also have these stones thrown back at them at the next election. If we attempt to deal with the problem of unemployment imagining that it is simply an emergency problem, we shall fail. We cannot solve it by attempting to provide work of a public nature for all the unemployed; the existing financial system will preclude that. Bankrupt municipalities and provincial governments forced to borrow in order to provide work for indigent citizens would add too great a burden to the taxpayers who to-day are barely able to meet their obligations, some being quite unable *o meet them. We have all seen public works in various parts of this country. I have in mind the erection of the barracks in Calgary at a cost of $1,250,000. There are over two thousand heads of families unemployed in that city. They were given an opportunity to work on
1678	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. Landeryou
this undertaking, each one being allowed possibly three to four weeks. The greatest part of their earnings was taken by the city to meet taxes on the property they happened to own, and when they had finished with this shift of three or four weeks they found themselves back on relief again little better off. The enormous cost of providing sufficient public work for all the unemployed would add to the burdens of the taxpayers of Canada to such an extent that it is absolutely impossible to conceive of any solution in that way.
I cannot too strongly condemn attaching the stigma of relief to over one million of our fellow citizens. These people are not responsible for the situation in which they find themselves. Scientists and inventors have struggled for years to give mankind more leisure and to free them from the burden of toil, but then we find that mankind, being freed from slavery to production, are enslaved to a financial system that condemns them to poverty and want in the midst of plenty. We have been told that it is better to give than to receive, but I find from reliable sources that the relief quotas paid in some parts of Canada are very, very small. I have before me the rate paid to relief recipients in the city of Hull. I find that a single person gets $1.25 a week for food and shelter, and a clothing allowance of $1.25 a month. A man and wife get $1 a week each for food and $1 a month each for clothing. A family .of three get $2.60 a week for food and $2.60 a month for clothing. A family of four get $3.20 a week for food and $3.20 a month for clothing. A child gets sixty cents a week for food and I imagine shares in the clothing allowance of the family. I ask hon. members: Is it not an insult to the intelligence of thinking men and women that these unfortunate people should have insult added to injury, and after being robbed of the right to live and enjoy a measure of equity and an opportunity to contribute something towards the upbuilding and development of Canada, should be given this mere pittance of relief?
We all know the story of the industrial revolution. We all know how science, invention and organization have contributed to production. I should like to quote a few paragraphs from a speech delivered in Ottawa to the Study Club by the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. He said:
AVe are now in a power age, and the effect of this great, gigantic application of power has been not to assist the individual to do his daily work, but actually to take his place in countless numbers and occupy the posts which multitudes of human beings occupied before.
jMr. LatiHeryou.]
It is the effect of all this to which we have not been able to adjust ourselves, 'and in respect of which I do not see very much immediate prospect of adjustment along the lines which various nations are traversing now.
He goes on to point out that now a single turbine develops power that it would require nine million people to exert if the turbine were not there. He says also:
In brick manufacture 450 bricks per day was about the maximum of the individual, and it did not take such a big proportion of the world to supply the rest of mankind even at that rate. Now a single individual, by the help of a machine makes 400,000, a multiplication of almost a thousand.
There is just one other part to which I would like to draw attention:
World production went on amazingly, not only throughout the war but after, because of necessity, and individuals got money not only for their wages but for other things, money borrowed by the state, and it all added to the circulation of currency, and as a consequence we had what wre call prosperity. But during the ten years that succeeded, the volume of products of the human race increased by seventy per cent, and in that same ten years the number of men actually at work producing those products diminished, and diminished by a very severe percentage. And what went on up to 1929, the years succeeding the war, has gone on at an accelerated speed since. Times of depression have the effect of accentuating the necessity from an economic standpoint, and, therefore, the importance of machinery in production and power in production.
Many are coming to believe, as the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen now believes, that millions of men now living will never work again. Men are unemployed because at the present time we are able to produce and have produced sufficient without their services being necessary. In that case men are hungry and in want simply because we have an abundance of goods, and no wonder the poet put the situation in these words:
Have you ever been to crazy town And walked down looney pike?
There are the queerest people there,
You never saw the like.
They make so much of automobiles,
And foodstuffs, and such,
That thousands of them starve Because they make too much.
How true that is when we have the report that 5,600,000 automobiles were manufactured in 1929. There was a carry-over of 1,000,000 automobiles, and we find that there is a restriction in production of automobiles. We find factories closing down and men becoming unemployed, because when you restrict consumption production falls. Then, when you restrict production wages, salaries and commissions fall. And when you lessen the amount
MARCH 31, 1936	Jj!	1679
Employment Commission-Mr. Landeryou
of wages, salaries and commissions which come into the hands of those who contribute to the production of wealth, you have a restricted purchasing power reflected in restricted consumption. And the vicious circle goes on and on.
If we say that a man is unemployed because we are unable to provide sufficient work for him, and he is in want because we have not created sufficient out of our natural resources to provide enough for his needs, then the question may well be asked why we do not employ him in creating more. So from whatever angle we view the situation it is asinine. Many have contended that we are in an age of scarcity. I admit that we have artificial scarcity created by sabotage, restricted production and various other methods which have been brought into play. This artificial scarcity is created. Surely, however, we must realize that in Canada we have an abundance of natural resources. We have a great housing problem which has been discussed from time to time, and surely it cannot be said that we have any scarcity of labour. Yet the report of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) indicates that there are hundreds and hundreds of artisans unemployed. We have heard the statement that there are large tracts of timber in danger of going to waste. We have great transportation systems; we have mills and we have many unemployed people who would like to get out of the slums and into homes of their own. But no opportunity is given *hem to have purchasing power. And those vho have control of money or credit to-day, 2ven assuming that there is sufficient, are not prepared to invest their money in manufacturing, in lumbering or in building homes, for they know that the people who are in the slums and need homes have no purchasing power with which to acquire homes after they were built.
If we would analyze our economic system we would discover that the purpose of it is not simply to provide work. Work is a means to an end. It is true that its function is to produce and distribute the wealth of goods and services this country can produce. That is the true function of the system, not simply the providing of work. If we have substituted solar energy for human energy, machine power for man power and have deprived man of the means whereby he might live, surely we should find some way of adding to his purchasing power by directly paying him a dividend of some sort. If the machine has displaced him from labour then surely that should be done for him. I believe it must be apparent to any thinking man
that the displaced worker is entitled to some return from the machine which has taken away his labour.
May I suggest to the Minister of Labour that in view of the fact that thousands and thousands of the young men of Canada are denied the opportunity of entering into the economic life of the country and are denied the opportunity to help in its development, something should be done. Many of those young men are possibly better qualified than were their fathers to make their contribution towards the development of Canada, but they are denied the opportunity. We find men of fifty, fifty-five or sixty years out working, some of them doing the work of two or three men, while their young sons sit with their feet on their father's table, despondent, their morale becoming undermined and having very little hope for the future. If they have no opportunity to put their feet under the old man's table, they are forced out to relief camps at twenty cents a day.
I say that these young men must be given an opportunity. Graft, greed and corruption must be driven from the boundaries of Canada. We must get rid of disequilibrium in price structure. We must do away with price exploitation and with the great divergence in price levels of the primary producers in western Canada and the manufacturers of eastern Canada. We must do something to lower Canada's great private, municipal, provincial and federal debt, and we must bend our efforts towards reducing taxation so that the people may have more money to purchase goods and services. An opportunity must lie at the door of every man between the ages of twenty-one andi fifty to work not eight or ten but possibly six hours a day, and five days a week. But the opportunity must be given them to work for fair wages, and I suggest to the minister that if he investigates he would find it possible to-day to pension those who have reached the ages of fifty or fifty-five so that they could adequately maintain themselves and provide food, clothing, shelter and possibly a few of the luxuries. I believe that if people between the ages of twenty-one and fifty were working we could have a standard of living for all Canadian people possibly far superior to that which could have been given in 1843, in the days of Carlyle, even if every man, woman and child had been working.
In this country there are 1,250,000 unemployed who are suffering. We must recognize the situation and must not be content with offering sympathy. It is our duty to find
1680	COMMONS
Employment Commission-Mr. Church
some way of restoring purchasing power to them, and if we cannot do it through the public works of the Minister of Labour, then what better way could we find than that of paying them possibly a national dividend sufficient to give them the purchasing power to live as they should live?


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the chair is for the second reading of Bill No. 14, to establish a national employment commission. Unemployment is one of the most important problems remaining unsolved, and the mere fact that the government of the day proposes to appoint an employment commission illustrates the decay of parliament, the decline of the House of Commons and the adoption of some merry-go-round sort of commission which will lead nowhere and will create no jobs for Canadians, with the exception of the members of the big seven, their secretaries, and the like. I look upon this commission as a roving minstrel show, and perhaps they will blacken their faces, go round with tambo and bones, and give a regular Gilbert and Sullivan show. What is this commission going to mean to the poor people who are now on relief, especially in the district from which I come? What is it going to mean to the industrial workers who comprise fifty-three per cent of the workers of this country?
I entirely disagree with my colleague from Greenwood (Mr. Massey) if he hopes that this legislation will get any jobs for Canadians in his riding. If he had been in the house as long as I have, he would have learned to expect little from the policies of this government, and that jobs do not come from promises. It is all right to put your name down on a list, but it is just as easy for the minister to wipe it off with a sponge.
This is the second reading of the bill, and on the second reading we are at liberty to discuss all the principles involved in this measure, but we cannot discuss the details of the bill, section by section. I wish to discuss the principle of this bill in many phases. I entirely disagree with my hon. friend from Greenwood if he thinks that the youth of Canada will find any jobs from the employment of any commission such as this. We seem to be heading for a commission government. We have nineteen or twenty commissions now administering the affairs of Canada, and nine provincial legislatures, and municipal and federal authorities, all to govern a population of only 11,000.000 people.
The government cannot pull the country out of the mire by itself. In this problem of
[Mr. Landeryou.J
unemployment it needs the support of all classes of the community, of the church, of industry and commerce. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) told a deputation from the municipalities of this country the other day that this commission was going to get the facts. Well, the unemployed have the facts already. When you see a red flag outside your door and a bailiff inside with a chattel mortgage on the furniture, you have all the facts you want, and if the unemployed are going to wait for this commission to get them jobs, they will all be dead first, and he undertaker will have to be called in.
I am entirely at a loss to know how this bill can solve unemployment in spite of the metaphysical language used by the Minister of Labour yesterday. He advises the unemployed to read Carlyle. Might I remind the minister of that famous saying, "Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth.' His superior in office wrote a book once called Industry and Humanity, dealing with unemployment, but you can never succeed in getting a job for anyone with that type of book. Carlyle is a long time dead, and by the time this commission is dead the government will be dead too.
I would call to my support the writings of a great Englishman, Edmund Burke. He was as a matter of fact, an Irishman who in his address to the sheriffs of Bristol in 1774 said government was a practical thing, not something to please the fancy or imagination of ordinary politicians. If the minister wants to know something practical about the unemployed, I would ask him to come down to Queens' Park on May 1, when he will see a gathering of 5,000 unemployed, and I should like to hear him tell them to read Carlyle as a cure for unemployment. In my opinion, the remedy for unemployment will have to be as drastic as the application of conscription in this country was during the war. Sacrifice is the only cure for unemployment, together with a right application of the doctrine of protection. The unemployment problem calls for wide national sacrifice, not for citations from Carlyle and other dead authors, or for parliamentary repartee or commissions and that kind of thing.
I was very much disappointed when the Minister of Labour announced the policy of the government a short time ago, and if that is the best policy the government has to offer on unemployment, and the minister is the best cabinet timber that the government has, then the sooner the government get a

Questions
new forestation policy the better, if we are ever going to solve this problem of unemployment.
We are now at the end of the third month of the year, and this motion of the minister's m:ght far better have been made to-morrow, April 1. This is not going to fool the unemployed. Not long ago I asked a question of the government: Have they any plans for providing useful employment for the great body of unemployed, and, if so, what are they? We were told that the government had nothing for the unemployed in the shape of housing and reconstruction work. We are spending 8100,000,000 on relief through federal, provincial and municipal governments, and if we would undertake a housing program which would provide useful employment, not only in clearing up slums but in building much needed houses, we could save a great deal of the money that is now being spent on relief.
What policies have we had from this government to cure unemployment? We have had the ambassador policy, that great basic industry of sending ambassadors all over the seven seas to represent the Dominion of Canada, this dominion which has not a rowboat to protect its shores in case of war. Then we had another policy proposed for curing unemployment, that of appointing parliamentary undersecretaries, and now we have this commission cure for unemployment.
On motion of Mr. Church the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, April 1, 1936