1937-03-17

PROPOSED ABOLITION OP HANGING AS DEATH PENALTY-REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. W. McPHEE (Yorkton) presented the second report of the special committee
appointed Tuesday, February 2, 1937, to study the subject matter of Bill No. 6, to amend the Criminal Code.
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: This is rather a long report. I would suggest that it be printed in the Votes and Proceedings, in order to avoid the necessity of reading it.


Mr. LAWSON:: What is the effect of it- for or against?


Ernest Lapointe: I think it is against the main purpose of the bill. No action may be taken to-day; I merely suggest that it be printed in the Votes and Proceedings.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. CHURCH:: What are the names, occupations, addresses, salaries, living and travelling expenses of the present federal radio commission?
1.	What are the names of the staff of radio station CRCT, in Toronto, and the length of service, rank, remuneration of each, and what were their respective living and transportation expenses during the past year?
2.	How many musicians and other officials are drawing federal pensions as well as salaries, and who are they? -
3.	Who are the announcers at the station, and are they related to any musicians or others employed there? If so, what is the relation?
4.	How many of the musicians are: (a) union men; (b) non-union?
5.	What are the names of the announcers and musicians, and of the choir leader and quartette?
6.	How long has Mr. Lucas been employed; and are any members of his family also employed ?
7.	Have any other officials relatives employed?
8.	Do the choir leader, quartette, and the minister draw government pensions?
9.	Are any members of the family of Mr. WYddington, known on the radio as Frank Gladstone, employed? If so, what are the names?


Thomas Langton Church: I suggest that the minister let these questions stand until next Tuesday. I have some information to give him which I think will alter his opinion; also to give to the leader of the opposition, as both of them referred to these two questions last Monday.
Questions stand.
Questions


NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION
Thomas Langton Church: Who are (a) the women's committee, and (b) the consultants of the national advisorycommittee, of the National Employment Commission, and what remuneration, living allowance and travelling expenses were paid for 1936?


Mr. ROGERS:: (a)	Living	TravellingRemuneration	Allowance	ExpensesMrs. W. J. Lindal, Winnipeg, Man	Nil	$29230	$107.00Mrs. L. G. Ferguson, Westville, NR	Nil	442.50	96.10Mrs. A. J. Currie, Govan, Sask	Nil	285.00	84.30Mrs. M. Cormier, Montreal, Que	Nil	142.50	23.68Miss Ruth Low, Kitchener, Ont	Nil	210.00	28.05(b) There are no consultants to the national advisory	committee.	There were,however, two consultants to th e National	Employment	Commission-	-Mr. Shepherd'semployment terminated February 28, 1937.	Living	TravellingRemuneration	Allowance	ExpensesMiss Charlotte Whitton (from Nov. 16).. ..	$926.25	Nil	$84.48Mr. D. Shepherd (from Sept. 1)	$2,375.00	Nil	$904.72


FAIRMOUNT, SASK., CENSUS ENUMERATOR
Mr. ELLIOTT (Kindersley):: 1.	Who recommended the appointment of Thomas Annett, of Fairmount, Saskatchewan, as enumerator?
2.	For how long was he appointed?
3.	What salary has he received?
Old Age Pensions Act were made applicable to indigent persons of 65 years and over?
2. What is the approximate number of unemployed and indigent persons from 65 to 70 years of age?


QUEBEC FEDERAL SUBSIDIES AND FARM LOANS
Norman McLeod Rogers: Mr. Thomas Annett was not an enumerator for the taking of the census of 1936.


FARMERS' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT-OFFICIAL RECEIVERS, MANITOBA
[Stage Direction]
Mr. McDonald (Souris):
1.	How many official receivers are there in
Manitoba?	,	, .	.
2.	What is the total cost of their services including any expense account?
3.	What is the remuneration of each member of the board of review, including living expenses, if any?
Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Under the Farmers Creditors' Arrangement Act, 14.
2.	From appointment to January 31, 1937, $26,366.26.
3.	Under the Farmers Creditors' Arrangement Act,-
Chief commissioner, living allowance $25 per diem applicable to each day's sitting.
Representative of creditors and representative of debtors, fees $25 per diem together with living allowance of $10 per diem applicable to each day's sitting.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. FERLAND:: 1. What would be the approximate additional number of pensioners of the state, if the
[The Speaker.]


Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	What are the amounts of the subsidies
which the federal government has granted to the province of Quebec during each of the past five years in the following categories: (a) agriculture; (b) colonization:	(c) fisheries; (d)
education; (e) public works and unemployment relief, etc.?
2.	What is the amount of farm loans, (a) approved to date; (b) granted, in the province of Quebec, by the Canadian Farm Loan Board?


GOVERNMENT PAYMENTS TO INDIVIDUALS AND FIRMS IN NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. PURDY:: 1.	What sums of money were paid to the following individuals and firms by the Dominion of Canada during the years 1930 to 1936 inclusive: (a) George C. Nowlan, barrister, Wolf-ville, Nova Scotia; (b) Parsons Limited; (c) Albert Parsons, retired lumberman; (d) Ralph Parsons, and (e) Arthur Parsons, contractors, Windsor (or Walton), Hants county, Nova Scotia; (f) Windsor Tribune Publishing Company Limited; (g) Mrs. P. M. (Jean U.) Fielding; (h) Miss Antoinette Forbes, Windsor, Nova Scotia; (i) Leonard W. Fraser, barrister, Halifax, Nova Scotia?
2.	For what services, in each case, were moneys paid to these individuals and firms, and by what departments of the government?
3.	What parts, if any, of the accounts of these individuals and firms against the Dominion of Canada were disallowed, and, in each case, why?
4.	What accounts, or parts of accounts, of these individuals and firms against the dominion have not been paid?

Wheat Board-Mr. Perley



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. SPEAKER:: Mr. Fair moves, seconded by Mr. Coldwell:
For a copy of the complaint or charge laid against Mr. H. B. Walker of Wainwright by Mr. Francis H. Morcom. Also a copy of the evidence given at the investigation held by Mr. Gariepy at Wainwright in September, 1936.


Ernest Lapointe: Will my hon. friend state what department is concerned with this matter?


Mr. MITCHELL:: The hon. member is not in the house.


Walter Edward Foster: Stand.



TORONTO POSTAL EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. G. CLARKE (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General (Mr. Elliott) in reference to a request I made for the names and addresses of the temporary post office employees in the city of Toronto. The Postmaster General said he would let me have this information, and I should like to know when I may expect it.


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Postmaster General):: I understand that the list is in course of preparation, and I hope to be able to give my hon. friend the names very shortly, though I cannot say just when.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: As this will be a short session I should like to have this information as soon as possible.


John Campbell Elliott: I will look into the matter.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few observations, and to direct the attention of the house to chapter 53 of the statutes of 1935. Subsection (a) of section 8 deals with the duties of the wheat board, and provides:
8. 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;
Section 7, subsection (e), reads as follows:
(e) to pay to producers delivering wheat at the time of delivery or at any time thereafter as may be agreed upon such fixed price per bushel, according to grade or quality or place of delivery, as may be determined by the board with the approval of the governor in council; and to issue to such producers when such wheat is purchased certificates indicating the number of bushels purchased, the grade, quality and the price, which certificate shall entitle producers named therein to share in the equitable distribution of the surplus, if any, of the operations of the board during the crop year, it being the true intent and meaning of this section that each producer shall receive for the same grade and quality of wheat the same price on the Fort William basis. Such certificate shall not be transferable

Order in council P.C. 2202 was passed on the 28th day of August, 1936, a copy of which 'I hold in my hand. It is certified to be a true copy of a minute of a meeting of the committee of the privy council, approved by the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General on the 28th day of August, 1936. The order in council reads:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report, dated August 27th, 1936 from the acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, stating that under clause A of section 8 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, provision is made that it shall be the duty of the Canadian Wheat Board, established under the said act, to fix the price to be paid to the producer of wheat delivered to the board as by the said act provided, subject to the approval of the governor general in council;
That the Canadian Wheat Board established under the said act, has fixed a price of eighty-seven and one-half (871) cents per bushel for wheat graded as No. 1 Northern at Fort William, as a basic price for wheat for the 1936-1937 crop year, effective from August 1, 1936, delivered to the board as provided by the said act, the price of other grades of wheat to be fixed^by the board on the basis of the price for No. 1 Northern wheat delivered at Fort William as aforesaid:
The final paragraph reads:
The minister, therefore, recommends that the recommendation of the Canadian Wheat Board be not approved unconditionally but that approval be given only in the event of the closing market price for wheat dropping below ninety cents per bushel for wheat graded as No. 1 Northern at Fort William, in which event the price of 871 cents per bushel as recommended by the board shall be approved, and this order in council be regarded as approving the same.
That order in council meant the repeal of the act. There is no conditional clause in the act; it contains nothing that states that the price of wheat must drop to a given level before the board shall set a fixed price. That order in council meant the sacrifice of the western producer to the open grain trade, and brought about a loss of several millions of
Wheat Board-Mr. Perley

dollars to the farmers on the 1936 crop alone. It also took away from the producer the second choice of a buyer, which is important.
It is not necessary for me to take up the time of the house to-day in reviewing this question at length. Already this session much has been said in this regard. The other day in his speech on the budget the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) set out very clearly the result, as far as western Canada is concerned, of the passing of this order in council. I had something to say myself as well, and the situation created in the west by this action on the part of the government has been made quite clear. The language used by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in his reply on that occasion would indicate that he intends to stand by this order in council. Therefore, without taking further time, I desire to move the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Beaubier):
That all the words after "that" in the said motion be omitted and the following substituted therefor:
"this house regrets that the government rendered the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, inoperative in its application to the 1936 wheat crop."
I should like to know if hon. members opposite from western Canada, the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Young), the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross), the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean), the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh), and others, approve of the action taken by this government in making the 1935 act inoperative last year. If they do, and if this house defeats this amendment, the farmers will know what to expect in the fall of 1937.
I am not going to argue the point further, except to give one more quotation. I think hon. members should be made acquainted with what happened on July 1, 1935, when the act was finally drafted and prepared for submission to this house. The last move made by the Liberal members of that committee was a motion proposed by Mr. Ralston and seconded by Mr. Stewart, as follows:
The operations of the board shall not extend beyond the fifteenth day of August, 1936. except for the purpose of sale and realization of assets, collections, payments and generally for the winding up of the affairs and business of the board, unless on or before the first day of July,
1936,	the operation of this act be extended by order of the governor in council for one year from the date first mentioned in this section, in which event such operations with the exceptions above mentioned shall terminate on August 15,
1937,	unless further extended by parliament.
Parliament is preparing Mr. Speaker, for prorogation in the near future. We should know where hon. members stand with respect

to this important public question, and I say that without further argument of the point parliament to-day should declare itself.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the silence of the government with respect to this matter is, I suppose, purely for tactical purposes; therefore I shall proceed to make my observations.


Ernest Lapointe: The matter has already been discussed three times.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I rise to discuss the matter not as it affects the merits of the marketing of wheat. For the purpose of what I have to say I am not concerned whether or not the best that could be done has been done by those charged with the responsibility. I rise to deal with the matter purely as a constitutional issue, and one of far-reaching consequences, involving the usurpation of the powers of parliament by the executive-nothing short of that-and this is the most serious instance of it I know of, so far as I have been able to read the records of parliament.
In 1935 parliament passed a statute known as chapter 53, the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935. That act was the outcome of a report made by a committee comprising representatives from all sections of the House of Commons. In the end the act as submitted to parliament ivas as unanimously reported from the committee, of which I happened to be chairman. The act embodied the suggestions made ;by the various members of the committee, with respect to which little or no evidence was taken. I am not concerned with what transpired before that committee, nor at this time am I interested in how or why its conclusions were arrived at. For my purpose it is sufficient to indicate that in the exercise of its powers parliament saw fit to adopt the report in the form of a statute, which is now known as the Canadian Wheat Board Act of 1935.
There was discussion in the house upon the motion for the third reading of the bill; there was wider discussion as it was considered section by section in committee. In particular I direct attention to two or three sections of the bill. Section 7 of the act as it now stands provided for a wheat board, which was to be set up under the provisions of the statute for the purpose of buying, selling and disposing of the crop of 1935-36, or subsequent, crops, and the large accumulated bushelage in the hands of the Canadian producers' association at the head of the lakes and elsewhere, and that section charged the board thus set up with various responsibilities.

Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett
Section 4 made the board a body corporate, with powers to sue and be sued, but section 7 is the one to which I desire to direct careful attention. The board was to undertake:
-the marketing of wheat in interprovincial and export trade and for such purposes shall have all the powers of a corporation and without limitation upon such powers the following:
(a)	to receive and take delivery of wheat for marketing as offered by the producers thereof;
(b)	to buy and sell wheat: Provided that no wheat shall be purchased by the board except from the producers thereof;
(c)	to store and transport wheat.
That and succeeding subsections dealt with conditions which might or might not arise, depending on whether or not to make the act effective it would be necessary to take over the elevators of the country. But before the board could function, obviously it was important that it should have some regulation of price. And so in section 8 of the act we find:
8. 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;
(b)	to sell and dispose of from time to time all wheat which the board may acquire, for such price as it may consider reasonable, with the object of promoting the sale and use of Canadian wheat in world markets.
Those were provisions which dealt with (a) the acquisition of wheat, (b) the disposition of it; and (c) at the price fixed by the board and approved by the governor in council. Those were the conditions first suggested. But owing to the difficulty which, as was at once realized by all, must be experienced in fixing a. price, the government and the members of the committee all agreed that it would be desirable to make provision whereby the farmers or producers of wheat might share in any subsequent increased price which might arise after the price was fixed through conditions which could not be foreseen. If Mr. McFarland was right in the belief that wheat would increase in price, obviously the farmer should share in it. If others were right in the belief that wheat would not increase in price, but might even diminish in price, obviously the country would have to pay because the price had thus been fixed and the producer would have benefited by reason of the fixed price.
In this connection, however, attention must be directed to paragraph (e) of section 7. This is what the board was directed to pay:
(e) to pay to producers delivering wheat at the time of delivery or at any time thereafter as may be agreed upon such fixed price per bushel, according to grade or quality or place of delivery, as may be determined by the board
with the approval of the governor in council; and to issue to such producers when such wheat is purchased certificates indicating the number of bushels purchased, the grade, quality and the price, which certificates shall entitle producers named therein to share in the equitable distribution of the surplus, if any, of the operations of the board during the crop year, it being the true intent and meaning of this section that each producer shall receive for the same grade and quality of wheat the same price on the Fort William basis. Such certificate shall not be transferable, and a statement to that effect shall be printed on the face thereof.
The sections which I have read indicate clearly the principles embodied in the measure adopted, by parliament which became chapter 53 of the statutes of Canada for 1035.
When the bill was finally before parliament on July 4, 1935. we spent much time discussing it in detail. True, it was suggested in committee that a provision should be inserted in the bill whereby the measure would lapse on a given date, and that its life might be extended beyond that date by the governor in council. That suggestion came from representatives in the committee of hon. members opposite. I took the view that it was not desirable that legislation of this kind should ever have its life determined by order in council, and at that time we successfully contended in the house that the measure should continue in force until rescinded or repealed by parliament.
Bear in mind the importance of that provision. Conditions were changing from day to day and month to month; what might be an emergency to-day might not be an emergency to-morrow, or new emergent conditions might arise. So we provided that chapter 53 should remain upon the statute books of Canada until such time as it was repealed by parliament. Parliament has not repealed that statute; it has not been repealed to this day. Of course, that principle is embodied in all legislation, namely, the right of parliament to repeal it unless the life of the measure is determined by the measure itself or by other legislation. Therefore, this legislation was of the type or character that continues in full force, validity, and effect until such time as it is repealed by appropriate action'of this parliament. In order that there may be no doubt as to what was the real intention of parliament, I should like to quote from pages 4270 and 4271 of Hansard of 1935. At that time I clearly indicated what were the purposes of the measure. After stating that there were two principles involved, I said:
The first was the price to the producer to be fixed by the board with the approval of the governor in council. In other words, the government of the day must approve of the action taken by the board, ascertain the factors that
Wheat Board-Mr. Bennett


Mr. THORSON:: Was it not rather gone by the rising price of wheat?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The board stated that they would buy all the wheat that was offered at 87i cents. The government said:	"No, we recommend
that that recommendation be not approved unconditionally," and the conditions imposed made the position such that the board did not buy a single bushel of wheat and the farmer had no chance to avail himself of that second market. Had he done so, he might or he might not have shared in the increased price; that is not the point I am now discussing. What I am discussing is the usurpation of power by the executive, the arrogating to the governor in council of a power which belonged only to this parliament, and about which in days gone by, when there was a distinct delegation of powers to the governor in council to take such action, my friends used to talk so vigorously. Hour after hour they used to declaim against the exercise of this power by an executive which was authorized to exercise it because the power had been delegated to it by parliament under the relief act. Now, without delegation, without authority, without a semblance of authorization, they see fit to exercise through their function as governor in council the power entrusted under the constitution to this parliament-parliament having made no provision for the governor in council to exercise such power in any way. Against that unconstitutional use of power I am now protesting- against that violation of the terms of the statute itself, which not only had the effect of making it inoperative so far as the producers of wheat were concerned, but more, set at naught this parliament, treated us as being without authority, and usurped the exercise of a power which under our constitution rests only with parliament-the authority not only of the commons and the senate but of the crown itself. The real issue is whether hon. members are prepared to stand in their places and say that they approve of the executive making a statute inoperative when there is no power or authority so to do.


Mr. J. G. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have just listened to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), and I do not blame him at all for taking the position he has taken. Anyone whose record with regard to wheat in this country resembles that of the right hon. gentleman had better find refuge in a legal technicality of some kind, if there is any; that at least is true in western Canada, which is greatly interested in this question. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) raised this question, I am sure, not merely to precipitate a legal discussion

about it, but to attempt to prejudice the minds of some of the farmers in the west with regard to the policy of this government in the handling of wheat during the past year.


Ernest Edward Perley: They are
already prejudiced.


John Gordon Ross: With regard to the wheat question we have heard a good deal in this house, and it was discussed in committee last year, but I do not think the whole subject has yet been covered. The other day, on the budget debate, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) mentioned the stand taken by some hon. members while in western Canada. My hon. friend from Qu'Appelle wishes to know-and he mentioned my own name-where we stand on this question. That, of course, is the reason for his amendment. This question is not going to be debated simply on a legal technicality raised by the leader of the opposition but on a wider ground. In the first place we had better go back and find out what was said by the members of this party, or by some of them at any rate, in western Canada at the time this matter was discussed with the electors, and when they put us here on the basis of what we discussed with them. Perhaps I had better give my own idea as I expressed it then. Let me tell the house what I had to say and what I am willing to stand by inside or outside the house at any time. I claim that a large part of the trouble in connection with wheat in Canada was brought about by the refusal of my right hon. friend and his party, while they were in power, to trade with other peoples of the world. Their policy backed up wheat in the dominion until as a government they had to take action in regard to it. They even went so far as to negotiate with other nations in the restriction of world acreage, curtailing the production of wheat. On the platform in western Canada I told the people that if any such action were ever taken by a government in Canada it would mean that the equity of the people of western Canada would be gone, and I still stand by that.
One of the troubles during the regime of my right hon. friend was the fact that exchange rates between Canada and other parts of the world became so wide that these exchange rates alone decreased the price of wheat in Canada by fifty per cent or more. My right hon friend tried devious methods while he headed the government-


Mr BENNETT:: The word "devious," I am afraid, the hon. member must withdraw.

Wheat Board-Mr. Ross
(Moose Jaw)


John Gordon Ross: Well, various or different methods. He tried different methods in order to help out the situation which he himself had largely created. He tried, for instance, a bonus to the wheat grower of western Canada, and the effect of that bonus of five cents a bushel was this, that the more wheat the farmers grew the less bonus they needed, the more bonus they got the less money they needed, and the more money they needed the less bonus they got. In other words, the principle was: Give to those that have and give nothing to those that need.
In the election campaign, speaking as a Liberal in western Canada, I stated that if we were returned to power we would endeavour as rapidly as possible to open up trade routes in order that wheat might again be sold as it had been during the past Liberal regime. We were asked at that time whether the Liberal party would continue the wheat board and we said that of necessity we should have to continue the board until such time as the wheat held by that board was sold and business got back to more normal proportions in Canada and the farmer could get a reasonable price for his wheat. We said then that the policy of the Liberal party would be to sell wheat, not to hold it back; that it would be to sell it and if necessary take a loss upon the wheat that was held by the board at that time, but that the supluses must be got out of the way because they were largely responsible for the lower prices that we were receiving at that time. We also said on that occasion that we would endeavour to advertise and merchandise the products of the farmer in Canada and that we would endeavour in every way to increase the use of Canadian wheat in the world.
Last session when some of the estimates were under consideration I mentioned something in regard to the advertising and merchandising of farm products. Unfortunately for those engaged in agriculture, it is perhaps the one industry that is from twenty to twenty-five years behind the times in the sale of its products. For every other industry in the last twenty-five years has gone a long way towards advertising and merchandising the things which it produces. 'In agriculture we have endeavoured to produce better products but we have done little in the way of advertising to place those products to advantage before the different peoples of the world. In the election campaign we said that we would endeavour to merchandise and advertise our products and at the same time try to increase the use of Canadian wheat. The new board that was appointed by this
government, as one of its first acts, sent a man to Great Britain to try to get the millers there to use a greater amount of Canadian wheat in their mix for flour, and they have been extremely successful in having that done. We were told at the last session, when the wheat board started to sell wheat, that it was a fire sale, that our wheat was practically being given away. We maintained at that time that if that surplus of wheat were sold prices would rise and the grain farmer would be again in a position to make a living, to secure a profit out of the production of wheat. Prices have risen; they seem to be rising all the time.
In regard to the statements made by myself, for one, in western Canada, after the action of the government last fall or summer, I was in Ottawa when the announcement was made of its policy. When I arrived in western Canada, mass meetings were being called by certain people, as former speakers have said, for the purpose of criticizing the action of the government. I was asked to speak at one or two of these meetings, and I agreed to do so. I stated that we had quite a problem in the drought area of western Canada, and that first of all we had to look after those who for several years had been badly hit, to see that they got through, that they got a proper amount for relief, for seed and for feed, before we asked the dominion government to go further in expending money on the people who had a considerable amount of wheat to sell. Besides, I said that a price such as they were asking the government to fix for wheat would be entirely unfair to those who had produced little or no wheat. At that time wheat was about 94 or 95 cents a bushel, which was the lowest it went during the season. The thought then was that because the government had taken this action wheat would immediately drop below 90 cents; that was the story told throughout the west at that time. They were asking the government to set the price at $1.12 to $1.15 per bushel Fort William as a minimum. In other words a man in the northern end of my constituency who had thirty bushels of wheat to the acre would be given $6 per acre over the market price, while a man in the southern end who had little or no wheat, perhaps one or two bushels to the acre, would be given 40 cents per acre. Surely that was an unfair proposition. I set that out to the fanners of that country, and I said: "You are asking that a board be continued indefinitely in Canada-what for? First of all you had a cooperative elevator company, which you formed not for the purpose of having a cooperative elevator company but to

lg72	COMMONS
Wheat Board-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)
try to get a better price for your wheat. You then had a board, during and just after the war, and although you may think that that board got you a better price for your wheat, it did not; on the contrary it held the price of your wheat down. Farmers in western Canada during and after the war would have had a higher price for their wheat if it had not been for the wheat board of that time. Wheat sold at as high as $4 a bushel on the Liverpool market just after the war, during the term of the former wheat board. After that you formed a wheat pool, not for the purpose of having a wheat pool but for the purpose of getting more per bushel for the wheat."
Then my right hon. friend and his party came into power, and they were willing to do almost anything to get a better price for wheat. Stabilization operations were undertaken, in an attempt to get a better price, but they were not successful. Finally the new wheat board was formed, and as a result of its action a better price was realized for the farmers, and has been ever since. I said to the farmers at those meetings that as a farmer and as a representative in the House of Commons I did not think, -nor do I think now, that they have a right to a minimum set price for wheat. There was a reason for it when the government had gone into the grain business and mixed the business of the farmer all up so that he could not get a reasonable price. But the wheat farmer in the west- and I said this to the wheat farmers, as I am saying it here-has no more right to a minimum fixed price than the farmer who grows oats, barley, rye or flax, or than has the man in this part of the country who produces butter, cheese, cattle or hogs, or the man in the maritimes who produces fish or lumber. And by the same token those engaged in the manufacturing industries have no right to a bonus from this government. The other day I spoke against a subvention on coal. Why? Because it is identically the same in principle as a subvention on wheat. After all, Mr. Speaker, we cannot put every industry in this country on the dole. One of Canada's troubles is that for years we have had too many industries on the dole. In this highly industrialized area of central Canada the government have not given to the manufacturer so much per article produced, as they might have given the farmer so much per bushel on wheat, but they have given the manufacturer the right, by indirect methods, to tax the people of this country through higher prices for the things they have to buy.

The greatest amount of relief, the greatest dole that has ever been paid in all Canada, has been paid to central Canada through the tariff taxation imposed for its benefit by the government of this country. We in western Canada do not want any dole; we never did want any-


Mr. SPENCE:: You are taking a lot of it.


John Gordon Ross: No, we are not. There was a national emergency in western Canada as bad as or worse than the floods in the United States, and it continued without interruption for five or six years. Money was spent to keep those people in that part of the country until they could get back on their feet and produce again the millions of dollars that in the past have flowed to your industries in this part of Canada. Those people never were on relief; they were working just as hard throughout the dry period as they had- been before, in many cases, harder. This government did the proper thing all the way through in endeavouring to hold those people there to produce not only for their own benefit but for the benefit of the rest of Canada as well. When my hon. friends mention the amount of money expended on the national emergency in western Canada they had better stop and check up the continual drain on the treasury for the many services that are rendered to the people of Canada as a whole, and they will find that in comparison with the rest of this country western Canada gets a very small proportion of what is drained out of the treasury. One of these days, if necessary, I am going to endeavour to obtain those figures and place them on Hansard so that everyone may know exactly what is the drain on this country, not to the prairie provinces or the maritime provinces but to the little old provinces of Ontario and Quebec, which are supposed' to be so self-sustaining. Those are the provinces that have been criticizing the expenditures made in western Canada. They had better check up and find out what they receive from this dominion before they criticize us unduly.
The stand I took in western Canada and the stand I will always take, is that the farmer of western Canada has no right to a set minimum price that has to 'be paid by the government by way of subsidy, 'but that we should endeavour in every way-and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle should help- to see that some of the rest of the people of Canada get off the backs of the wheat growers of western Canada and give them a chance to live.

Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I did not expect to find it necessary during this session to rise again to speak on the question of wheat, and it is not my intention to traverse the ground that has been covered in previous debates. But the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) are justified in expecting some member of the government to make a statement with regard to the government's position in respect to the act that is under discussion at the present time. I say they are justified in expecting that, because of the statements that have been made in western Canada, by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle at least and I think by some other hon. members, with regard to the results of the action taken by the government in relation to the wheat board act of 1935.
The amendment that has been moved to the motion to go into committee of ways and means expresses the position of hon. gentlemen opposite in a few words:
This house regrets that the government rendered the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, inoperative in its application to the 1936 wheat crop.
The whole contention is contained in those words, " inoperative in its application to the 1936 wheat crop." In order to determine whether or not the government has acted contrary to the intention of the house in 1935 I should like to direct attention to what happened in that year. In 1935 the government, which was then under the leadership of the present right hon. leader of the opposition, brought into this house a bill which, if I remember rightly, provided for an initial payment, not a set price but an initial payment on the wheat of the farmers. In the second place I think it provided for compulsory delivery to a wheat board. That is, we were to have compulsory delivery of the farmers' wheat and an initial payment to be made on the wheat, with interim payments as the season progressed and a final payment at the end of the crop year. In other words the bill provided for a compulsory wheat board under the control of the federal government.
During the discussion in this house certain changes were made. I have never known a government, Liberal, Conservative or of any other political stripe, in any parliament anywhere, with a majority such as that possessed by the last government, to bring in a bill based upon such well-defined principles as I have just set out, which, merely on the word of the opposition, finally agreed to the adop-
31111-1X8*
tion of a bill based upon principles entirely different. There is no doubt that this was the result. The wheat board act of 1935 did not provide for an initial payment in the sense provided for in the bill originally introduced in the house. It provided for what was intended to be a reasonable payment for the crop of that year, and, further, that if any losses were sustained as a result of that payment such losses were to be borne by the government of Canada. It provided at the same time that if any profits were made over and above that set price, those profits were to go to the farmers who produced the wheat.
If we examine the discussions that took place in 1935 we find that the reason for this change was twofold. In the first place there was decided opposition in this house, on both sides, to the compulsory principle contained in the original bill, that is, the compelling of all those who produced wheat to deliver that wheat to the board. Then there was also objection, particularly on the part of the then opposition in the house, to putting those who produced wheat in 1935 and succeeding years in a position where the enormous carryover that had been piled up in the previous three or four years would have an effect on the marketing of subsequent crops. For that reason it was maintained that the price that would be possible under the board to be set up ought to be a price that would be considered reasonable for the crop then being produced. In other words, if selling the surplus that had been piled up in previous years resulted in driving the price below that set price, the government would assume the responsibility of paying the difference between the price obtained and the price the government undertook to pay the farmer during that particular year. In taking that position, however, every member of the house, at least every member on the Liberal side if not on other sides, presumed, and made the statement in so many words, that the board would go out and sell the surplus of wheat that had accumulated to the best possible advantage in the circumstances that existed.
With those ideas in mind an act was placed upon the statute books in 1935 known as The Canadian Wheat Board Act, being chapter 53 of the statutes of that year. In this amendment it is contended that the action of the government made the intention of that act inoperative so far as the crop of 1936 was concerned. Let us look at the sections of the 1935 act that have been mentioned by those who sponsor this amendment. In the first place let us look at section 7. In the previous sections provision is made for the setting up

Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner
of a board of three members, to be appointed by the governor in council. After appointment it is to begin to function. Under section 7 of the act we find:
The board shall undertake the marketing of wheat in interprovincial and export trade and for such purposes shall have all the powers of a corporation and without limitation upon such powers the following:
(a) to receive and take delivery ot wheat for marketing as offered by the producers thereof.
I am sure the leader of the opposition is too good a lawyer to argue that any corporation in Canada, because it has the power to buy something, is therefore compelled to buy it. Section 7 provides that the board shall have all the powers of a corporation, and without limitation upon such powers the following: "to receive and take delivery of wheat for marketing as offered by the producers thereof." There is nothing in the act which compels them to take delivery of it. If there were anything in the act compelling them to take delivery of the wheat, it would not be just either to the producers or to the federal government. They have the power to take it, but they are not compelled to do so.
I might just as well argue that because under section 8 the board has the right to sell wheat and continuously through established channels to offer wheat for sale in the markets of the world, therefore the board had to sell wheat every day it was in existence, and must continue to do so. Hon. members know that the intent of the measure, namely to get rid of the surplus which had piled up for years and to put the farmers who were producing new crops in a position where the old wheat could not affect the price for the new crop, could not have been carried out if the position my right hon. friend takes were sound, namely that the wheat board, in all or any circumstances which might exist, at some price which might happen to be set either by themselves alone or by them and the government combined, had to take delivery of the wheat. It would be just as logical to argue that because of another section, at all times they had to have wheat in the market for sale at whatever price happened to prevail.
What did the wheat board do in carrying out the terms of the act? In the first place, on July 29, 1936, the board presented its opinion to the government and, as a matter of fact, set the price of wheat at 87i cents. The producers of Canada delivered wheat under that set price from July 29 down to August 27. On August 27 the opinions of people who produced wheat were very obvious. Thirty-eight million bushels of wheat had
IMr. Gardiner.]
been delivered, but only 600,000 bushels had been delivered to the board. The opinion of the people in western Canada was that if the price was to be set at 87^ cents, then so long as the price was above that figure the overwhelming majority of them did not want to and did not intend to deliver to the board. They intended to deliver some other way.
The argument is offered that because the act says it shall be the duty of the board to "fix the 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," therefore the governor in council had no right to disapprove. What is the use of a term such as that in a measure, if the government has no right to disapprove?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that.


James Garfield Gardiner: The words used were "not approved unconditionally;" those were the words to which the objection was taken. The statement was made that the government had no right to disapprove of a price which had been set by the board, or to say that they did not approve of it unconditionally. Well, the statute definitely says that there really is no set price in existence until the government does approve of that particular price.
My right hon. friend would argue that when the government said-if the government did say, and they did not-that the price of 874 cents was too high, then the board had the right to go back and set another price of, say, 75 cents, and bring that to the government. If the government said that was too high, then they had the right to go back to 50 cents-and so on, probably down to one cent per bushel. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we reduce the argument to an absurdity; we attempt to do indirectly under this measure what was intended should have been done under the bill which was thrown out of the house in 1935. Or, there is an attempt to set under this bill a price sufficiently low that there would not be any chance in the world of the government taking a loss on it-in other words, paying an initial price instead of paying what was conceived to be a reasonable price for wheat in that year, and then, starting with that initial price, realizing as a result of having done so that the farmer would not deliver a single bushel of grain to the board.
If that is what my right hon. friend is arguing for; if he is arguing that the government of Canada should have tried to fool the producers in western Canada into believing that they were actually setting a price for wheat, and at the same time were

Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner
putting them in a position where no wheat would be offered to the board, then I want to say to him that we have not a government in Canada to-day that is playing that kind of polities. Already in Canada there has been too much polities played in connection with wheat. If there is anything that will defeat a wheat board, certainly it is the extent to which wheat has been played with by governments in Canada at a time when they have been pretending to handle wheat in the interests of the producers. Wheat cannot successfully be handled in that way. It can be handled only on principles based upon sound business practice. Hon. members know how difficult it is for any government to handle a product as important as wheat without admitting political consideration in the handling of it.
Down to the time the present government took office, considerable politics had crept into the matter. As a member of the government from western Canada, where most of the wheat is produced, I for one do not intend to hide behind any decision of any government which would lead the farmers in the west to believe that we were setting a price for wheat which we thought would be a reasonable one, and then say to them at a later time, "Well, you did not deliver it." I could read the observations of no less an authority than the leader of the opposition himself to indicate what that kind of thing might mean to the people of Canada. Possibly I could state the position briefly; I believe he would agree with my statement. I hold in my hand a newspaper report of July 18, 1936. in which it is stated that the right hon. gentleman gave expression to the view that a fairly high price might be set for wheat in 1936. In making the statement he said that to set a price which was comparatively low would probably result in the price of wheat tending towards that particular price. I think he was right in that statement. I would say that for the government of Canada to come out on August 27, 1936, and say that the absolute set price for wheat was 87i cents a bushel, would have tended to lower rather than to raise the price to the farmers in western Canada. If you are going to proceed in the opposite direction and put yourself in a position where you are absolutely certain you are above the market and above where the market is likely to be, every year the board is in existence you are asking the whole dominion to assume a position where, irrespective of what happens, it is going to take a loss. I might illustrate that by repeating one of the figures I gave to this house
the other day. The average price received for wheat down to February 27, the last date for which I had figures when I was speaking, was SI.13 per bushel for this crop. Many of the resolutions which came in suggested that we should set the price at $1.15 per bushel. If that had been done, down to>
February 27 this government would have taken a loss of two cents per bushel on the price at Fort William, leaving out of consideration altogether the charges there would be against the operations of a board of that kind.
Without committing myself or the government or anyone else to a particular position in connection with the principle as to whether or not the wheat board should be continued, I want to repeat that if the wheat board is continued in Canada it should not be a board which submits the people of Canada, through the government, to a position of that kind. I would go into a further discussion of that issue in order to indicate the position I would take with respect to it. were it not for the fact that at the present time a commission is taking evidence upon these questions. That commission will finally give a decision and when that decision is brought down we will have some idea as to what those who have given evidence throughout the length and breadth of Canada think about the different policies that have been applied. We shall then be in a position to arrive at a more logical conclusion as to what should be done in connection with the marketing of the crop.
I do not think it is necessary for me to say more to indicate that the board has been operating all through 1936 in accordance with the spirit of the act of 1935. In acting in accordance with the spirit of the act. I think the board has been more nearly in accordance with the terms of the statute than had they followed the policies of any other organization which functioned since this act was passed by the house. The people of western Canada have not been nearly so much concerned about this matter as some of our hon. friends would try to lead this house to believe. I know the people of western Canada fairly well; I have contested eight elections in the province of Saskatchewan and have yet to lose one, and I think I can gauge fairly well the opinion of the public of western Canada.
When I sat in the house in Saskatchewan I saw many resolutions coming in from farmers' organizations and individual farmers throughout the province. They came in in such numbers on one occasion that I had to get a special secretary in order to answer them. Twelve months later I found that the people of the province did not agree with the terms of

Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner
those resolutions. They probably agreed when the resolutions were coming in, but with the experience of another twelve months they came to the conclusion that after all those who were acting upon the question were probably right.
It is true that resolutions came into the government .immediately after the action was taken in connection with the recommendation of the board. I would have been more than surprised if none had come in. However, I must say that I was agreeably surprised at the small number. I wonder if the house knows how the audiences were obtained for these meetings which were held all over the province? They advertised the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), and they advertised the then Minister of the Interior (Mr. Crerar).


Mr. DUNNING:: Without consulting either of us.


James Garfield Gardiner: They advertised the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) and they advertised myself. They advertised the different members whose names have been read to the house. The bills were sent to me afterwards by some of my friends. They had yellow bills three feet long giving the list of speakers and there was not a single individual or organization in the province of Saskatchewan proud enough of those bills to put his or their name upon them. They were just bills which *came from nowhere, run off in somebody's printing establishment, asking the people to meet to discuss this question.
I went into a hotel in a town in my old constituency one night at nine o'clock and they told me I was supposed to be in the town of Cupar. I said, "What am I supposed to be there for?" They told me that carloads of people had gone through to that town to hear me speak. I did not know anything about that meeting. It is true that the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) spoke, as well as my successor in the local house, but I was not present for the very good reason that I did not know until nine o'clock that night that there was a meeting, and at that time I was down at the other end of what had been my old constituency.


Charles Avery Dunning: You had not been asked.


James Garfield Gardiner: They selected my political opponent, a man who had contested the election with me in that constituency, and they sent him up to Saskatoon to hear me speak at a meeting when it was known it was not possible for me to be there. Tw'o or three
TMr. Gardiner.]
hundred people gathered in Saskatoon as a result of these gatherings to discuss this question. Some have stated that I refused to attend that meeting. They moved the meeting from a church to the hotel so that I might be present after attending another meeting which was being held in the diningroom of the same hotel. I had only a few minutes to catch my train after the first meeting, so they sent a delegation up to my room. Before I left I discussed this question with them. To say that I ran away from them or did not see them is begging the question,. I saw them and discussed the whole matter with them. I explained things very much as I have explained them to-day. As was said by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar the other day, two or three days later the same message was broadcast by me over the province of Saskatchewan.
Do hon. members know the number of resolutions I have had sent to me from that time to this in connection with the very issue which was up at that time? I could count most of them upon the fingers of my two hands. These men are talking in terms of four or five months ago, some of them in terms of six months ago; they are not talking in terms of how the people of Saskatchewan are thinking to-day. They are talking in terms of what some people thought on the spur of the moment. The farmers of Canada know that every political opponent of this government in western Canada, whether he calls himself a Conservative, a member of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation or anything else, had been for twelve months previous to August last parading through the province holding up the little pamphlet, which two hon. members held up in this house last session, saying that the Liberals had promised dollar wheat to western Canada. We know what the farmer is saying to-day. He is saying, "I guess after all the Liberals were right." We have had dollar wheat for the first time since the Liberals went out of office. The Liberals did not say they were going to bring back dollar wheat by some magical means; they told the people that if they put them in office they [DOT]would reestablish the confidence of the markets of the world in the fact that Canadians were going to grow wheat to sell and not to store up. One of the reasons why wheat is selling at such a high figure to-day is that a gentleman went over to Great Britain early last summer and discussed this whole question with the milling interests.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what the milling papers say.

Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner


James Garfield Gardiner: I will leave it to the leader of the opposition to speak for the milling interests; I am speaking for the farmers. It is not what the milling interests say and it is not what Mr. Ranke says. Mr. Ranke said at that time that from the point of view of the milling interests of Great Britain it would be a mistake to put more than thirty to forty per cent of Canadian wheat in their mixture. He had a very good reason for saying that. He knew that the Canadian farmer always produces at least enough wheat to put thirty to forty per cent of the Canadian product into the mix of the flour used in Great Britain. He knew that sometimes there is difficulty in scraping up enough Canadian wheat to keep the percentage at any higher level than that; and in the interests of the British milling industry it was better, of course, to maintain the content of Canadian wheat in British flour at a point not greater than forty per cent.
Then men representing the interests of the producer, members of the government; officials of the wheat board and of advertising agencies engaged by the wheat board, went over to Great Britain. When I went to London I ate my usual amount of bread, and it remained such a load upon my stomach that I could not sleep until twelve o'clock at night. I had been used to eating bread in this country, and I made my first meal out of bread when I got to London; but I felt the effects of it for a long time, and I did not eat so much bread afterwards. A week later I went over to France. I ate some bread there, but I had only one meal containing my usual amount of bread in that country. Then I went up to Scotland. I sat down at a table where the flour in the bread was made one hundred per cent of Canadian wheat, and I ate bread just as freely as I had done back in the province of Saskatchewan and felt no ill effects.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What about oatmeal?


James Garfield Gardiner: As a result of the activities in Great Britain of those who are interested in the producers of western Canada, the content of Canadian wheat in British flour rose constantly during July, August and September, and now the British people like Canadian flour in their bread so well that they will not let even Mr. Ranke take our wheat flour out of it, and Mr. Ranke has to come to Canada and pay us premiums as high as twenty-seven and thirty cents per bushel over Argentine prices in order to get our wheat to put into his flour.


Charles Avery Dunning: And he is doing it.


James Garfield Gardiner: And he is doing it, Mr. Speaker. That is not to the disadvantage of
the producer in western Canada. It may be to the disadvantage of the milling industry, although I doubt it. I believe that the milling industry in Great Britain will find in the end that if they increase the percentage of Canadian flour in their bread to seventy per cent, they will sell more; people will eat more bread, perhaps replacing some other foodstuffs, and we in Canada will be back in the position that every Liberal in Canada said at the last election we should be in. We said: " Lr : us go into the markets of the world and tell them we are willing to trade with them, and are willing to give them a product that is second to none, willing to show them that uur bread is at least as good as bread made from the flour of any other country; and having done that we can build up a trade more than equal to the best years we have had in the past."
During the first year we were in office we sold into export trade 254,000,000 million bushels of wheat, and did so without putting the price down materially. It may have gone down a cent or two as a result of selling that quantity, but if it did, it merely proved our contention, that in order to get rid of this enormous carry-over we must have an act on the statute books which in the meantime would make it possible for the government to pay a set price which would save the farmer from loss on the crop of 1935. I admit I had not sufficient confidence in our own policy to believe that we should get rid of the 1935 carry-over in time for the crop of 1936. It is true as has been said we had Providence with us. But I still believed in the saying of Sir Wilfrid Laurier that it is better to have Providence with you than against you, and it is true that, with Providence on our side, we got rid of the wheat more quickly than we thought we would.
Does our friend now tell us that the wheat board of Canada should have sold wheat from the old crop into the markets of the world every day that the farmer in 1936 was marketing his wheat? One might just as well argue that as argue the opposite-that we should have bought wheat every day. The hon. member says the act gave us the power to sell wheat; therefore we should have sold it. But the board chose, under the terms of this act, not to sell wheat during the greater part of August, nor during the whole of September, nor until after the middle of October-only small quantities were sold in October-and not to come back into the market in an effective manner until November of last year. Does the hon. member tell me that I should go back to western Canada and tell the farmer that this board was not operating during that period? The board

Wheat Board-Mr. Gardiner
was operating to hold wheat off the market and in not buying to prevent the piling up of another enormous surplus in Canada; and by operating in both those ways it was carrying out the intent and purpose of the act of 1935.
I can quite understand that some of the men who discussed the bill at that time did not understand the question. I realize that when I listen to the same people discussing it in western Canada. Many of those who have been criticizing us in the west because of the position we have taken do not live on the farms of western Canada. Those of us who do live on the farms, who have belonged to farmers' organizations ever since such organizations came into existence, who have lived with the farmer and have been of the farm, have some idea what he is thinking; and I am quite sure that the farmer would rather get for his wheat SI .34 a bushel, as he is getting to-day under a Liberal government and in accordance with Liberal policies, than have even some kind of board that meets somebody's desires, as a reason for propaganda; policy conceived of in the minds of certain people and not derived from experience. The farmer prefers SI .34 a bushel to some kind of board that might meet the principles laid down by a group of individuals, but which, from the very nature of it, could not function. What the farmer wants is a fair return for his wheat. To-day he is getting S1.34 per bushel Fort William, for No. 1 wheat. Some hon. member may say; Yes, that is for the wheat that he has yet to sell.


Charles Avery Dunning: He is selling a million bushels a week.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I tell him that the farmer is still selling a considerable amount of wheat? It is true that he delivered' more this year in the early part of the season, but he delivered it in spite of these arguments that my friends are putting up in the house, and which were presented in school houses all over western Canada. Our opponents went out and talked to the farmer as they are talking now. They said: Why don't you hold your wheat? Elevator companies' representatives went around and said: We will give you eighty cents a bushel Fort. William, advance on your wheat, and let you hold it in the elevators as long as you like. But the farmer said: No, I am going to sail, Why did'he say that? He had had enough of this policy of holding. He had learned by experience, long before some of our friends became interested in him, that the time to

sell Canadian wheat is between August and December in the year in which that wheat is produced, and to sell it in quantities. Why? Because the proper time to market Argentine wheat and wheat from Australia is in January and following months, and the farmer is not the kind of gambler that some hon. members try to lead us to believe. He does not believe that he can guess what the crop in the southern hemisphere is going to be next year. He knows from his own sad experience that he cannot even estimate the crop in his own country and he is not going to try to guess about the crops of other countries. Experience has shown him that, taking one year with another, he can obtain the best price for his wheat by getting it threshed fairly early, taking it into market and selling it early; and the only thing that might have prevented his doing that this year would have been for the government and the board to have followed the policy that the mover of this amendment (Mr. Perley) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) suggest should have been followed in connection with one clause of the act-have insisted upon the board not only buying wheat all the time but selling wheat all the time too, and if they had sold in that market the price would probably have been kept down. But they did not sell in that market, and to-day the millers are out bidding for our wheat, and I am hopeful that we shall go into the next crop year without any surplus. We will go into it very much as we went into the market in every year previous to the war and during the greater part of the time the war was on. I hope that we shall go into the market without a surplus, but with the crop we grow this year. I am hopeful-I do not know whether it will happen but I hope it will-that we shall go into that crop year with a recommendation from the Turgeon commission which is now studying the question, and that that recommendation will be such that we shall be able to set up in the interests of the producers of wheat in Canada the best system of marketing that Canada has ever had. I am not at the moment anticipating that report and suggesting what that system ought to be; but I am here to say, along with every other member who comes from the western part of Canada-I believe I can include all members of the house-that the Dominion of Canada, through this government, should establish a system of marketing not only wheat but all the farm products of this country in a way that will bring the best returns to Canadian farmers.

Wheat Board-Mr. Coldwell


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Big-gar):: This debate is, of course, upon a motion which is in effect a motion of want of confidence in the government's policy for the marketing of wheat. I should like to deal very briefly with some of the things that have been said this afternoon. For example, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) has stated what in his opinion was the attitude of the Liberal candidates in western Canada in October, 1935. May I point out that the gentleman who to-day leads the government, speaking in Brandon and subsequently in Saskatoon, though in his first address he was I thought more explicit than in the second, claimed that the legislation setting up the wheat board was in reality a Liberal measure, and that the government that was then seeking reelection could not properly take any credit for it. That was interpreted throughout the whole of the wheat-growing area of western Canada as an approval of that legislation. Whether my hon. friend from Moose Jaw took that position or not, I know perfectly well that the candidate in the constituency for which I was elected, and other Liberal candidates in Saskatchewan, did tell the producers of western Canada that the wheat board system of marketing would not be endangered by the return of a Liberal government. That, I believe, all members of this house from western Canada will recollect.
The member for Moose Jaw blamed the trade policies of the former government for the wheat accumulation. I am not going to enter into any defence of those trade policies because in 1930 I stated over and over again that in my opinion steps should be taken by any government elected to open up the channels of trade, and that any steps taken in the opposite direction would have dire results upon our political economy. In fairness, however, I would point out that in 1931 it was the economic committee of the League of Nations at Geneva that brought to the attention of the world this whole matter of accumulating wheat and other cereal surpluses. It will be recalled that in consequence of their report, and because of their insistence that something must be done, a wheat conference was called. The United States attended that conference, and the conference failed largely because of the attitude of the United States, the contention being made by that country that it was legally unable to make any wheat agreement.
The other reasons that were subsequently listed by the committee were these: (1) The large number of wheat exporting countries and the difficulties of reaching an agreement
among those countries on the details of any plan regarding the world supply of cereals and particularly wheat; (2) the lack of a national organization in most countries to deal with the matter effectively; (3) the uncertainty at that time as to Russia being an exporter of wheat; (4) the possibility of setting up a British Empire plan of trade agreement.
Last Sunday evening I heard an interesting discussion between the well-known correspondent, Mr. Vernon Bartlett, and a British representative on the committee dealing with the world supply of raw material, sitting at Geneva at the present time. The British representative made this statement: We are having difficulty in reaching agreements because of types of agreement like the Ottawa agreements. In other words those agreements, in the eyes of the League of Nations economic committee, are evidently restrictive rather than expansive in their general effect. And because of the possibility of such an Ottawa agreement being reached there was a difficulty in arriving at any conclusion regarding wheat in that particular year. We recollect that some measure of agreement among the big four exporting countries was reached, but the Argentine broke the quota following a big crop shortly afterwards. In spite of what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said a few moments ago, I believe that the story of the wheat operations for 1936 will go down in our Canadian economic history as a story of opportunities sacrificed either by political partisanship or by economic blindness. If the holdings taken over by the Murray board in 1935 had not been pressed for sale as they were last year, I venture to suggest that the prices realized ought to have been considerably higher than they were. They ought to have been higher had the holdings been marketed in an orderly manner. The minister confirmed that a few moments ago in the speech he has just delivered. He said that Mr. Ranke, a British miller, was willing to pay a premium up to 27 cents a bushel above the Argentine product for Canadian grain, and yet in December, 1935, and in the weeks that followed our Canadian grain was selling below the Argentine levels. If our wheat could command a premium in 1937 it was, from the miller's point of view, worth a premium in 1935 and 1936.


Charles Avery Dunning: In December, when there was no Argentine wheat.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh yes. there was some Argentine wheat in December, 1935, and particularly in the three or four months that followed.

Wheat Board-Mr. Coldwell


Charles Avery Dunning: I hope my hon. friend
will check that up.


Major James William Coldwell: But for weeks on end our wheat was selling below Argentine wheat price levels. I say that was due to the dumping policy of the Canadian Wheat Board. I believe that a proper selling policy, a policy of orderly marketing, would have brought this country millions of dollars, and the Minister of Finance would have been able to report this year a much greater return for the carryover than the $8,000,000 which he did report. As to how much the potential loss amounted to I am not going to hazard a guess. To my mind the pre-election speeches of some at least of our prominent Liberal members were interpreted as promising a fire sale policy for Canadian wheat should a Liberal government be returned to power; and the importing countries took them at their word, and I venture to say were not disappointed.
Credit has been taken by the government for acts of providence. It is true that disastrous droughts have changed the picture to a very large extent, but let us not forget that the wheat crisis was due to a glut, and that glut was turned into a shortage in a very short time by acts of nature; and, as an hon. member suggested a moment ago, the war scare also has been a contributory factor. In considering the situation in western Canada to-day we have to remember that the people there have gone through many years of depressed prices, and to-day when prices have risen, the relatively small amount of wheat which they had last year has passed out of their hands, and they have not the advantage of receiving any deferred payments by way of participation certificates. That is largely the cause of the present discontent in western Canada. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) emphasized the need for what I have called the fire sale policy of last year, which as I said was to some extent foreshadowed in the preelection speeches of some prominent Liberal candidates.
Now let us for a moment review the situation. Early in December, 1935, the wheat board took over some 300 million bushels of wheat, speaking in round figures, in various positions and forms. Foreign buyers knew that we had that wheat. In passing, let me say that to my mind it is a tragedy that an accumulation of wheat or some other raw material which may subsequently be of inestimable benefit to the world should be a depressing factor in our economic structure. That is one of the features of the present economic system which will have to be dealt 
with sooner or later in an intelligent manner. Even in ancient days, in the land of Egypt it will be remembered that a great leader stored up the corn in the years of plenty so that there might be corn for the lean years that followed. It seems to me we must institute a plan of that kind. Great Britain to-day is considering the storing of food within the country as a protection in the event of war. It is unfortunate that that policy was not put into effect in Great Britain two or three years ago when it was proposed by leading men of the labour movement there. However we know that under pressure of selling by the Canadian Wheat Board, wheat dropped below 75 cents a bushel. I wonder how much we sold at that figure. And it was not due to competitive selling from the Argentine or some other exporter, because Argentine wheat was being held at a price considerably higher than 75 cents a bushel- in fact, at 90 cents. Our people have a right to feel that the policy of the government and the wheat board played directly into the hands of the great speculators in grain and other foods.
Those of us who heard the evidence given before the committee last year by Mr. James R. Murray, chairman of the wheat board, realize fully that Mr. Murray was a believer in the grain exchange method of marketing. He contended that that was the method which the legislation setting up the wheat board compelled him to adopt. He explained that all board purchases were covered by sales of futures, and that when real wheat was sold, future options were taken by the board in exchange. Hon. members will remember that. He said that although the pools had endeavoured to arrange some direct trades-not many-with British millers several years ago, he did not intend to enter into exchanges of that kind. In other words, one of the things which undermined public confidence in the wheat board established by the present government was the fact that the chairman of that board was a thorough-going advocate of the grain exchange method of marketing.
Then in July of last year it was perfectly obvious that there was going to be a great drought, not only in the southern part of western Canada but throughout the whole of the spring wheat belt of the United States of America. I motored over that country three times, as I said the other day. and at the end of June, from Minneapolis to the neighbourhood of Weyburn, between 800 and 900 miles, the wheat had practically gone. About the middle of July when I went back over the route the countryside was like a veritable desert.

Wheat Board-Mr. Coldwell


John Gordon Ross: Was that not true of 1934 as well?


Major James William Coldwell: To some extent. But in 1935 according to the United States statistics the area was larger, and in 1936 was larger than in 1935.


John Gordon Ross: Not much.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, it extended right down into the southern states, into Kansas. That confirms my argument of course that after several years of drought, as the shortage developed the wheat board should at least not have dumped 63 million bushels of wheat on the market in July, 1936. Again may I refer to the memorandum presented to the government, or to the wheat advisory committee of the government, by the executives of the wheat pools on July 6, in which they pointed out the serious condition that was developing at that time. I never speculate in wheat; I never bought or sold a bushel of wheat on the grain exchange in my life. I do not believe in the system and I never use it, but had I been inclined to speculate last July, after what I saw I was convinced that there was a good opportunity to make some money out of such a speculation-although, as I say, I have never done it and I do not intend to begin.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend mentioned $1.50 for wheat, I think, if I remember correctly.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, no. At the end of August, after the trips I have mentioned and in view of the world situation, I said1 I believed a price of SI .25 for wheat was justified. To-day the price of wheat is considerably higher than S1.25, and I venture to add that if an orderly method of marketing had been adopted the figure mentioned by the minister might have been approached if not exceeded. That, of course, is an opinion which may not be sound.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend will forgive me if I tell him that he was certainly reported very widely in the newspapers as advocating a fixed price of $1.50. I should be glad to show him the extracts.


Major James William Coldwell: I can assure the Minister of Finance that if I was reported as having suggested a figure of $1.50, that report was incorrect. I never saw that report, but I did see myself reported as having said $125, which was quite correct. I should be very glad to see the newspaper clipping mentioned by the minister.
To-day hon. members from western Canada sitting on the opposite side of the house have an opportunity of registering in this
house the protests they made last August and September. They did make them, and I do not think they have any reason to feel ashamed of them. I believe they were made sincerely, and I do not think anything has happened in the intervening months that should have altered their opinion. On the other hand, I believe that during the months that have passed the events which have taken place in the market have confirmed the criticisms made at that time. The hon. member for Moose Jaw spoke of the fact that during the war a wheat board was established to prevent prices from rising unduly. The hon. gentleman was quite right, and I venture to say that the agrarian population of western Canada did not raise a vehement protest, if they raised any, against that action of the board. They felt that because of the war situation a certain measure of control had to be instituted, and they were prepared to accept it.


John Gordon Ross: My hon. friend says I stated that there was a wheat board during the war. I may have said that, but there was no wheat board during the war. There was a board of supervisors during the war and a wheat board just after the war.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes; we usually speak of it as a war board. That is one reason why I think to-day, and have thought for some years, that a wheat board operating in exactly the opposite way is justified. If it was right to establish a board to protect society against high prices during a particular period it is equally sound to establish a board to protect the producer against unnaturally low prices. My hon. friend from Moose Jaw left out one fact in dealing with the history of the marketing of wheat up to the formation of the pools. He neglected to say that in 1922-speaking from memory I think it was in June of that year-the Liberal government placed legislation on the statute books providing for the formation of a wheat board. That legislation, however, never became operative, and that was one of the reasons, though only one, for the subsequent formation of the pools.
The hon. member was emphatic in his statement that the farmers had no right to a minimum fixed price for their wheat, and that the dairy farmers should have the same protection. I am in agreement with the latter part of his remark; I believe the dairy farmers and other primary producers should have precisely the same protection. They have that protection in New Zealand, under a Labour government. But I am going to point out that as long as there is an industrial

Wheat Board

Mr. Coldwell
market receiving protection the farmers are entitled to protection for their products and for the prices of those products, and as long as the government supported by the hon. member for Moose Jaw and other western members maintain tariffs that are reasonably high, then the government must expect to give protection to those who have to sell in the unprotected markets of the world. If on the other hand the government implement their tariff policy, which they have never repealed, and which I hold in my hand, my argument migfht be discounted to that extent. Let me remind my hon. friend that in the tariff plank, which I understand forms the basis of the policy of the Liberal party and which was adopted in 1919, there is this statement:
That the best interests of Canada demand that substantial reductions of the burdens of customs taxation be made with a view to the accomplishing of two purposes of the highest importance: First, diminishing the very high cost of living which presses so severely on the masses of the people; second, reducing the cost of the instruments of production in the industries based on the natural resources of the dominion; the vigorous development of which is essential to the progress of our country.
That to these ends, wheat, wheat flour, and all products of wheat, the principal articles of food, farm implements and machinery and repair parts thereof; rough and dressed lumber, gasoline, illuminating, lubricating and fuel oils, etc., nets, net twines, and fishermen's equipments; cements and fertilizers, should be free from customs duties, as well as the raw material entering into the same.
That a revision downwards of the tariff should be made whereby substantial reductions should be effected in the duties on wearing apparel, and footwear and on other articles of general consumption (other than luxuries) as well as on the raw material entering into the manufacture of the same.
That the British preference be increased to 50 per cent of the general tariff, and the Liberal party hereby pledges itself to implement by legislation the provision of this revision when returned to power.
That is the Liberal tariff platform. If they are going to maintain protection for oar industries then they must give protection to our farmers, who are at the mercy of an unprotected world market. If on the other hand the}' implement their tariff policy, remove all protection and let everyone take a chance, of course the situation is entirely different.
I should like to ask the hon. member for Moose Jaw one further question. Did I understand him to say that he was in Ottawa when the minimum price was set?


John Gordon Ross: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: The western newspapers carried a story to the effect that western members were in Ottawa endeavouring to
IMr. Coldwell.)
get the government to establish a price of one dollar or more per bushel. I assume the hon. member joined in that request.


John Gordon Ross: No. I came down here, together with three other members of this parliament, with the ministers of the provincial government, to endeavour to have arrangements made in connection with the drought area. I happened to stay longer than the other members, and I was in Ottawa, at the time the price was fixed.


Major James William Coldwell: I am very glad to get that information; I asked the question in order to clear up that point in my mind. It is true that the government has appointed a royal commission to inquire into the whole matter of the marketing of wheat, and that a report will be made by that commission. But unfortunately the government, I think, made a grave error when they appointed Colonel Ralston as counsel for that commission. I said that before Colonel Ralston was appointed, because on the floor of parliament he was the chief opponent of the wheat board legislation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Denounced everybody.


Major James William Coldwell: He was the chief
opponent in committee, and endeavoured to amend section 10 of the act so that the board would not function beyond August, 1937.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Except by order in council.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes. And although the suggestion was defeated and the house subsequently unanimously adopted the wheat board act, it looks to me as if Colonel Ralston may have really represented the intentions of the party to which he belonged. I say the very fact that he has been appointed counsel for the commission has undermined the confidence which people might have had in any finding the commission could make. We must add to that, of course, the tremendous fee of $200 per day, and $20 per day for living allowances, especially in these times.


Mr GARDINER:: May I ask (he hon. member a question? Is he aware that the government asked Mr. Milliken to act along with Colonel Ralston?


Major James William Coldwell: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, that actually did happen. The government asked Mr Milliken to act with Colonel Ralston, and after consulting with the pool he expressed a preference to act in his present capacity with the pool.

Wheat Board-Mr. Coldwell


Richard Bedford Bennett: For whom is Colonel Ralston counsel?


Charles Avery Dunning: He is counsel for the commission.


James Garfield Gardiner: Colonel Ralston is
counsel for the commission, and Mr. Milliken was asked to act as his assistant.


Major James William Coldwell: But that does not alter the fact that the government is paying Colonel Ralston as chief counsel. Moreover, I was unaware of the fact that Mr Milliken had been invited to act, because as I said the [DOT]other day, although I am generally accused [DOT]of it I am not in the confidence of the pool, nor have I any connection whatsoever with it. But I would say this: If the government suggested that Mr. Milliken act, they must have understood that he is the pool's counsel, and if the pool was preparing a case for presentation before the commission the pools [DOT]could not possibly allow Mr. Milliken to act on behalf of the commission. That would be a most difficult situation. The fact remains that the government's counsel is Hon. Mr. Ralston.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Major James William Coldwell: And, as I have said, 1 think his appointment was a mistake.


Ernest Lapointe: He is an eminent man; we are proud of him, and he has the confidence of the people of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He must have, if he is attacked from the floor of the house.


Major James William Coldwell: I am not saying he is not an eminent man; I am not saying he is not a well qualified man; but I do say that the man who was regarded as the principal opponent of the wheat board legislation when in committee and before the house cannot command the confidence of the people of Canada, no matter how eminent he may be.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Two hundred dollars a day, and expenses.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask my interrupters, from this point, to address the chair.


Ernest Lapointe: What
about Tilley, Peter White, and those fellows?


Major James William Coldwell: In spite of what may be said in this house I wish to state emphatically that the farmers in western Canada of all political persuasions want the wheat board continued. Secondly, they want producer representation either on the board or on the
advisory committee. Thirdly, despite the observations of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) they want an adequate, set minimum price. If we are to set prices for other commodities by means of taxes and tariffs, then the western farmer has the right to expect that his price will receive an adequate measure of protection.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) questions the justice of a set price. Whether we like it or not-and I do not like it-when we look over the world to-day we notice that in practically every country, including the motherland, France, Germany and Italy, the producer is guaranteed a price for his cereal production and uneconomic production is encouraged. Under those conditions any group of producers in Canada, left at the mercy of a world market, is in a very awkward position indeed.
The minister has said that the purpose of the wheat board act of 1935 was to set up a board to sell wheat to the best advantage of the people of Canada. I am going to vote for the amendment because I believe the present wheat board has not sold wheat to the best advantage of our people. That is the main criticism of it that I would make. Again, in spite of what the Minister of Agriculture has said, I say the purpose of the board has been nullified by the order in council to which reference was made this afternoon. Of course, the fact that there was not very much wheat delivered to the board prior to August 28, 1936, does not mean a great deal, because already the then chairman of the wheat board, Mr. James R. Murray, had lost the confidence of the great mass of producers in western Canada. They did not feel like delivering to a board headed by Mr. Murray. I make that statement-


An hon. MEMBER:: Cheap.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask one further
question? Why, under similar circumstances, did they not deliver to the board while it was under the chairmanship of Mr. McFarland?


Major James William Coldwell: They did deliver to the board, in very much larger quantities.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the figures I gave the other day show that during the 1935 period, while the price was above the set price, the farmers did not deliver, whether Mr. Murray or Mr. McFarland was there.


Major James William Coldwell: That may be so. Of course, I agree with the statement made by

Wheat Board-Mr. Coldivell
the minister the other day to the effect that the element of human nature enters into the picture. However. I would ask the house to bear in mind that the two situations were not analogous, because in 1936 the price of wheat was likely to remain above the set minimum price of 87J cents a bushel.


Charles Avery Dunning: The pool did not say so.


Major James William Coldwell: I think they did. I believe their statement of July 6 clearly indicates that a price above the cost of production was warranted. We have frequently referred to a cost of production price; what does the Saskatchewan farmer mean when he speaks of the cost of production? We realize the cost must vary in different parts of the province, but the figure offered by Professor Hardy of the university of Saskatchewan, and confirmed by Professors Allen and Hope of the department of agricultural economics, shows that the total average cost per bushel in Saskatchewan to produce and ship to market is $1.03. Of that amount, 85 cents is stated to be the average cost of producing a bushel, and 18 cents the average cost of shipping. The amount would be lower or higher, according to the locality, type of soil and moisture content. Consequently they asked that a price above the cost of production should be approved by the board. The minister criticized those people in western Canada who were saying that prices would go higher. If I remember correctly, he said at Moose Jaw that we were in danger of creating some speculation.


James Garfield Gardiner: At Regina. I did not say that prices would go higher. I stated that some speaker had said the price would go to $1.50, and I made the statement that they did not know any more about it than I did.


Major James William Coldwell: I think you are quite right. I do not know of an.y speaker who said it would go to SI.50. The minister pointed out that the wheat board might conceivably result in a loss.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I would point out to the hon. member that he has spoken forty minutes.


Major James William Coldwell: I have been interrupted many times, and' I should like to finish.


Frederick George Sanderson: It must be with the unanimous consent of the house.


Major James William Coldwell: 
Mr. LEADER:: Beef.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: We may even have
to subsidize beef, although I would hesitate to say that, because at present it might be too big a task.
I deprecate any tendency to weaken the board that was established by the last government, either in its design to set a just price or in its efforts to enable the farmer to participate in such rises of price as a developing market throughout the year may bring about. I feel very resentful about the government's policy of 1936. I believe it was entered upon in good faith, but there is surely resentment regarding it in my district. I am much reassured, however, by the promise which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) implied in the closing words of his.

Wheat Board-Mr. Donnelly
speech, and I believe that feeling will be shared by a good many people throughout the country. Nevertheless, to register my disapproval of what we believed the government's policy was leading to, I propose to vote for the amendment.


Mr. T. F. DONNELLY (Wood Mountain):: For the last five or six years there has been a debate each session with regard to the marketing of wheat, and this year is no exception. The question arose back in 1929, when the pools got into financial difficulties and applied to the dominion government for assistance. At that time the pools were condemned for their policies with regard to wheat. I was then a member of this house, and I listened to many hon. gentlemen of the Conservative party expressing their objection to the policy of holding wheat. What was true as regards the pools applied also to every marketing facility employed in western Canada. The banks, those operating the ordinary marketing facilities, and many others, held wheat believing that the price would go up. In 1930 the pools, however, found themselves in such financial difficulties that they asked the then prime minister, the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) to assist them. Assistance was given.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The provinces assisted them, I believe.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Yes. at first, but afterwards the federal government gave them help.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not financially.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Well, it assisted them to the extent that a man was put in charge, somewhat in the capacity of a receiver, to try to market their wheat. About 77,000,000 bushels were taken over by this official with the idea of selling it. From year to year we tried to get information as to what disposal was being made of this wheat, whether it was being sold or not, but we had a great deal of difficulty in finding out what was being done. At last it was disclosed that this man, who was supposed to be selling these 77.000,000 bushels, was also buying wheat, and by so doing was supposed to be stabilizing the market. On December 6, 1935, after the Liberal government came into office and a new board was appointed, we found that there were 175,000,000 bushels of wheat in the hands of the board or of John I. McFarland. The policy of the former government as carried out by Mr. McFarland was apparently to set a price for wheat and make the world pay that price whether buyers were willing to do so or not. The result was that year by year our surplus grew, and with every month and year that passed we were losing our markets.

Take the 1932 crop. There was sold at that time, under the Conservative government,
264.000.	000 bushels. The next year, 1933, we sold 191,000,000 bushels, and in 1934, 165,000.000 bushels. This shows the extent to which year by year we were losing our markets. After the election of 1935 the Liberal government came into power, with a new policy. As I understood that policy and propounded it from the platform, we were to set a reasonable price which the farmers were to receive, and were to sell at the world price; that is, we were to compete with other nations in the marketing of wheat, to try to hold such markets as we had and get back those we had lost. Following out that policy, under the new wheat board, with James Murray at the head, we immediately began to regain what we had lost. To such an extent was that tine that in the year following the appointment of the new board, whereas in
1934	we had sold only 165,000,000 bushels, in
1935	we disposed of 254,000,000 bushels. Take for instance our greatest market, that of Great Britain, where we have been rapidly losing ground. We exported to Britain, of the 1932 crop, 113,000,000 bushels; of the 1933 crop, 80,000,000 bushels; of the 1934 crop,
75.000.	000 bushels, but in 1935. under the new board, we sold 105,000,000 bushels. Under the policies of the Liberal party, week by week and month by month our hold-over diminished and our prices increased. We made it clear that we were growing wheat in order to sell it, that we would clear out our bins and get rid of the accumulation, and that, is just what happened.
I have listened for some time to the theories propounded by hon. members on the left. I believe that some of those who belong to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation have a new policy; I hear the hon. members for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and Wey-burn (Mr. Douglas) arguing that farmers should get the cost of production plus a reasonable profit. When I hear this talk about cost of production plus a reasonable profit, I begin to wonder what that is. I live in a district where for eight years farmers have had no crops. How much will it cost them to produce a bushel of wheat? Are you going to pay them cost of production where they have produced nothing for eight years?
In my opinion what the farmer in western Canada expects is a reasonable price. It is all very well to talk about cost of production; they are nice words to roll under the tongue; but to carry it into practice is a different thing. I can take you to my own constituency and show you two farmers, a

Wheat Board-Mr. Donnelly
barbed wire fence separating their farms, one of whom had ten bushels of wheat for the year, and the other not a bushel. Are you going to give each of them cost of production? Where will you set the price? It absolutely cannot be done. This sort of thing is ridiculous; it is merely something to talk about.


Charles Avery Dunning: No farmer ever lived
on an average.


Thomas F. Donnelly: No. It cannot be dona. What we should talk about is a reasonable price for the farmer, a price that would enable him to make a living. But we find people talking about a higher price.


Mr. QUELCH:: Will the hon. member define reasonable price? What is a reasonable price?


Thomas F. Donnelly: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose one of those farmers was a Liberal and the other a Conservative.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Those were the farms one of which I wanted to give you and which you would not take.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suspect the farm you wanted to give me had no bushels.


Thomas F. Donnelly: I hear a good many
people saying they want a higher price. I was one of those who last fall talked about what should be done in regard to wheat, and I maintain that the fixing of a higher price is absolutely wrong. I will show you why. It is the very policy that broke the pool; it is the very policy on which the Conservative government got in wrong, by setting a price that was too high.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It broke us, too.


Thomas F. Donnelly: 
Mr. HANSON:: How much did he sell?


Thomas F. Donnelly: He sold twenty-two million bushels at an average price of 88-7 cents. That was the price he obtained that day, and I hold that he did not sell enough, because shortly after that the price of wheat began to fall. During the month of December he sold 49,000,000 bushels and obtained an average price of 88-6, and the May average price of wheat in that December was 88-3. In other words, for the wheat he sold in December he obtained1 -3 cent more than the average price for May wheat at that time. That was not bad; in fact I call it good. During the month of January he sold something like 26,500,000 bushels at an average price of 88-483, and the average price for May during that January was 88-057.


Richard Bedford Bennett: January of this year?


Thomas F. Donnelly: January, 1936. That was December, 1935, and January, 1936. In other words, in those months he was averaging a little better than the May average, so that there was no fire sale. I could go on and give the figures for the different months. He was doing exactly what we asked him to do; that is to say, he was selling our wheat at competitive prices in the world market, getting rid of the product and cleaning out the bins, so that we might be able to sell our wheat.
Will you call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.

Easter Adjournment



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Ernest Lapointe: In order that we may be able to proceed with this debate to-morrow I move, seconded by Mr. Dunning:
That standing order 28 respecting the committee of ways and means be suspended for the sittings of Thursday, March 18, 1937.
Motion agreed' to.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, March 18, 1937